USA vs Mexico

[Maroza]

Militarily, totally doable. From a political standpoint, out of the question. The general public would never go along with it unless they can be convinced that the friendly country next door with massive internal problems is an existential threat. Also we have a good chunk of people who identify as Mexican American since we took a large portion of Mexico back in the 1840's.

[Infected Mushroom]

Militarily, totally doable. From a political standpoint, out of the question. The general public would never go along with it unless they can be convinced that the friendly country next door with massive internal problems is an existential threat. Also we have a good chunk of people who identify as Mexican American since we took a large portion of Mexico back in the 1840's.

Didn't Trump get elected in part by demonising Mexico?

[Saralonia]

That's the neat part, Mexico is inherently tied to the US, to quote a phrase commonly said in Mexico
"Mexico, so far from God, and so close to the USA"

Mexico is a country that is basically a failed state, distrust of the government is always there, but many are apathetic to it because all the parties in the political system offer no change, and revolution like the revolution of 1910 simply isn't possible in the contemporary era, furthermore, its easier to intimidate with a big arsenal than to govern with it, also, we sell our oil to the US for cheap, and then the US converts it into fuel in their refineries, and Mexico buys back that fuel, Mexico's economy has been broken since the 90s with Neoliberalism, Mexican Neoliberalism destroyed the Mexican economy while companies from abroad reap all the benefits as it has always been, Mexico makes it easy for foreigners to set up shop, but puts a bazillion regulations on someone who tries to create a local business on the national scale, the whole state apparatus of Mexico is deep rotten with corruption which is long overdue being replaced.
(Note: The Mexican economy has always been broken, just that in the 90s that was exacerbated with Neoliberal policies)

Which is really sad in my opinion.

With better leadership early on (especially when Mexico was bigger on the map than the USA and presumably with comparable resources), could Mexico have ended up a great power in the Americas?

I personally doubt it, Mexico wasn't set up for success due to the style of colonial management of Spain of centralized power, and due to the nature of the Mexican war of independence, Mexico's independence wasn't fought over the ideas of the enlightenment and other classical liberal currents of the time, but rather out of the mess that was the caste system of colonial Mexico, the Criollos were Spanish in all but name, and they led the war of independence because after the Spanish wanted to return after the whole Napoleonic wars thing, the Criollos had bought their place into higher positions than they were allowed in, and well, the mestizos, indigenous peoples remaining, and many others from the stratified society took the chance with the Criollos, ultimately the war ended in a hug between the leaders of the royalist army and the Trigarante army, (yeah, very anti-climatic), and well, Mexico became independent not as a republic as for example Gran Colombia, but rather as the Mexican Empire, Agustin de Iturbide being crowned as emperor after he was chosen as interim president, but you see, the North is vast, and very unpopulated, and frankly, at the time Mexico had no way to hold on to those lands, Texas while yes partially taken away by the Americans, it was also by local Tejanos of Mexican descent who liked the more decentralized nature of the North, and disliked the attempt at an increase in centralization towards Mexico City, other territories like Alta California had also briefly tried to fight for independence, the Mexican army of the time simply couldn't hold on to those territories unless of course Mexico had played perhaps into the decentralized nature of the north, but, nonetheless, Mexico was used to the Spanish colonial government of centralization into Mexico City and to Madrid subsequently, and well, Mexico never really got a taste of independent management unlike the US, which had already tasted some levels of autonomy, Mexico was simply not set up for greatness.

[Infected Mushroom]

Which is really sad in my opinion.

With better leadership early on (especially when Mexico was bigger on the map than the USA and presumably with comparable resources), could Mexico have ended up a great power in the Americas?

I personally doubt it, Mexico wasn't set up for success due to the style of colonial management of Spain of centralized power, and due to the nature of the Mexican war of independence, Mexico's independence wasn't fought over the ideas of the enlightenment and other classical liberal currents of the time, but rather out of the mess that was the caste system of colonial Mexico, the Criollos were Spanish in all but name, and they led the war of independence because after the Spanish wanted to return after the whole Napoleonic wars thing, the Criollos had bought their place into higher positions than they were allowed in, and well, the mestizos, indigenous peoples remaining, and many others from the stratified society took the chance with the Criollos, ultimately the war ended in a hug between the leaders of the royalist army and the Trigarante army, (yeah, very anti-climatic), and well, Mexico became independent not as a republic as for example Gran Colombia, but rather as the Mexican Empire, Agustin de Iturbide being crowned as emperor after he was chosen as interim president, but you see, the North is vast, and very unpopulated, and frankly, at the time Mexico had no way to hold on to those lands, Texas while yes partially taken away by the Americans, it was also by local Tejanos of Mexican descent who liked the more decentralized nature of the North, and disliked the attempt at an increase in centralization towards Mexico City, other territories like Alta California had also briefly tried to fight for independence, the Mexican army of the time simply couldn't hold on to those territories unless of course Mexico had played perhaps into the decentralized nature of the north, but, nonetheless, Mexico was used to the Spanish colonial government of centralization into Mexico City and to Madrid subsequently, and well, Mexico never really got a taste of independent management unlike the US, which had already tasted some levels of autonomy, Mexico was simply not set up for greatness.

if they had stayed with Spain, could the Spanish Empire have helped them keep California and New Mexico?

[Saralonia]

I personally doubt it, Mexico wasn't set up for success due to the style of colonial management of Spain of centralized power, and due to the nature of the Mexican war of independence, Mexico's independence wasn't fought over the ideas of the enlightenment and other classical liberal currents of the time, but rather out of the mess that was the caste system of colonial Mexico, the Criollos were Spanish in all but name, and they led the war of independence because after the Spanish wanted to return after the whole Napoleonic wars thing, the Criollos had bought their place into higher positions than they were allowed in, and well, the mestizos, indigenous peoples remaining, and many others from the stratified society took the chance with the Criollos, ultimately the war ended in a hug between the leaders of the royalist army and the Trigarante army, (yeah, very anti-climatic), and well, Mexico became independent not as a republic as for example Gran Colombia, but rather as the Mexican Empire, Agustin de Iturbide being crowned as emperor after he was chosen as interim president, but you see, the North is vast, and very unpopulated, and frankly, at the time Mexico had no way to hold on to those lands, Texas while yes partially taken away by the Americans, it was also by local Tejanos of Mexican descent who liked the more decentralized nature of the North, and disliked the attempt at an increase in centralization towards Mexico City, other territories like Alta California had also briefly tried to fight for independence, the Mexican army of the time simply couldn't hold on to those territories unless of course Mexico had played perhaps into the decentralized nature of the north, but, nonetheless, Mexico was used to the Spanish colonial government of centralization into Mexico City and to Madrid subsequently, and well, Mexico never really got a taste of independent management unlike the US, which had already tasted some levels of autonomy, Mexico was simply not set up for greatness.

if they had stayed with Spain, could the Spanish Empire have helped them keep California and New Mexico?

That's something I cannot say with any semblance of confidence, but yeah, modern-day Mexico would fall to American might, and the people are left to fight guerrilla against the US.

[ImperialRussia]

Ww3 would start

[Infected Mushroom]

Ww3 would start

Wouldn't it be confined to North America only?

[Ifreann]

Ww3 would start

Wouldn't it be confined to North America only?

How can a world war be confined to North America?

[Haganham]

1. How would they start the war and still make Mexico look like “the bad guy”?
I don't think they would. The best way to get a casus belli would be to escalate the existing conflicts in Mexico to a civil war then false flag violence on the us side of the border, the US then has reason to intervene as the conflict is spilling into the united states. If our goal is annexation then we first need to set up a puppet government, that would then apply for admission as a territory, and eventually a state.

2. How would the fighting go down? Could Mexico hold out? It’s a big country but then they are close to the US juggernaut.
Basically not at all. The US steamrolled Iraq, and that was half a world away, the real struggle would be in southern mexico, which is super rugged and not even controlled by the Mexican government, cartels would be nearly impossible to oust from there

3. This time the USA is right next to the country but would they again end up with Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan 10-20 plus year quagmire against post war rebels?
Probably not. Mexico has similar western traditions to the US, and was a LCD within living memory. There would not be the same struggle to set up a puppet government and so long as the new government is better at handling corruption/cartels most people wouldn't be opposed.[/quote]

[Kannap]

Ww3 would start

If we're counting Mexican-American wars as "world wars" for some reason, then it would be WW4.

[Gonswanza]

I have a more interesting proposition from my perspective, which is: Could China successfully get rid of all of Mexico's drug cartels if PRC China was given full control over running Mexico? I'd be willing to bet that China would succeed where Mexico failed. I haven't seen a single problem the CCP couldn't resolve via the use of some level of force/coercion/state technology dominance.

Within a year, Mexico's drug cartels would be brought to their knees or absorbed into the government's monopolies for some other use thats state sanctioned.

You're joking, right? Right?

[Maroza]

Militarily, totally doable. From a political standpoint, out of the question. The general public would never go along with it unless they can be convinced that the friendly country next door with massive internal problems is an existential threat. Also we have a good chunk of people who identify as Mexican American since we took a large portion of Mexico back in the 1840's.

Didn't Trump get elected in part by demonising Mexico?

In part but it was them coming over here, and they don't want THEM coming HERE. If your talking about annexation suddenly every Mexican is here. That's the thing about Empires and colonialism, conquering foreigners means you suddenly have a lot of foreigners inside your borders. Also, even if your just putting in a puppet government imagine how the conservatives would react to millions of refugees streaming across the border every month or even week to escape the fighting. They'd probably start screaming for large amounts of military resources to be diverted from the fight to keep the Mexicans out. They'll scream spies and saboteurs even if there are none. The impossible problems the US faces would be political not military.

[Rio Cana]

No, Mexico is not a failed state. Traditional politics has been the main problem but citizen movement political parties have been popping up to counter this. One such party the citizens movement or Orange movement won big time in the state of Jalisco. It included taking over the Governorship. Another major problem has been regionalism and geography. For example, during the US Mexican war a large force was sent by the government North to protect California. However, the officer in charge of that force upon entering the state of Sinaloa decided to stop and take over Sinaloa. The main port of Sinaloa was Mazatlan. The US navy when they got there blockaded the port. But because of UK. and other foreign interests, a deal was made with the Mayor of the city which allowed the US to control the city while leaving the Mayor to run the city.

Later on, US troops started landing at Mazatlan. From there they headed NE. They passed via the State of Durango. While passing via Durango the Mexican troops (militia) under control of the governor of Durango followed the US forces has they pass through Durango. They did not attack or anything. Days later after the US troops crossed out of Durango, they held a celebration in Durango.
Meanwhile, while Mexico and the US were at war, the Mexican state of Zacatecas attacked the small neighboring Mexican state of Aguascaliente. They were forcibly annexed for some years.

And then there was geography. Mexico is divided by two mountain chains. Both go north to south. One in the eastern part of Mexico and the other in the western part of Mexico. In the middle between those mountains a high desert is located. The following short video explains the geographical challenges it. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbmo9aO27L0

Do you see the problem they had in the past. In modern times, Mexico has introduced more nationalistic learning in school and such. Also, highways, tunnels and bridges over mountainous terrain have been built at a great cost to further unite the States.

Having said that, the Northern states of Mexico tend to be more well off then the Southern states. Thus, they tend to have somewhat more influence in the government. The funny thing is that just like the western US, northern Mexico is going through a drought with signs of getting worse over time. But it rains plenty in the poor southern States of Mexico. Since they have the water will there importance increase.

Edit - I did not even mention Mexico city where the population and wealth of Mexico is concentrated. They need to spread the people and wealth instead of concentrate it in just one place.

[Gonswanza]

Adding to this, the majority of migrants aren't actually Mexican, but rather they are people fleeing from South and Central America, thanks to the corporate puppets that ruined said areas only to leave a rather poorly constructed gov't behind to rule over the people given a lack of care for infrastructure now that the corporations have moved out and no longer have a need for said infrastructure.

In fact, Mexicans despite the mile-long marches of migrants escorted by police from the south to the north, with some even attempting to take matters into their own hands at times, hence the police escort in some areas.

[The H Corporation]

I personally doubt it, Mexico wasn't set up for success due to the style of colonial management of Spain of centralized power, and due to the nature of the Mexican war of independence, Mexico's independence wasn't fought over the ideas of the enlightenment and other classical liberal currents of the time, but rather out of the mess that was the caste system of colonial Mexico, the Criollos were Spanish in all but name, and they led the war of independence because after the Spanish wanted to return after the whole Napoleonic wars thing, the Criollos had bought their place into higher positions than they were allowed in, and well, the mestizos, indigenous peoples remaining, and many others from the stratified society took the chance with the Criollos, ultimately the war ended in a hug between the leaders of the royalist army and the Trigarante army, (yeah, very anti-climatic), and well, Mexico became independent not as a republic as for example Gran Colombia, but rather as the Mexican Empire, Agustin de Iturbide being crowned as emperor after he was chosen as interim president, but you see, the North is vast, and very unpopulated, and frankly, at the time Mexico had no way to hold on to those lands, Texas while yes partially taken away by the Americans, it was also by local Tejanos of Mexican descent who liked the more decentralized nature of the North, and disliked the attempt at an increase in centralization towards Mexico City, other territories like Alta California had also briefly tried to fight for independence, the Mexican army of the time simply couldn't hold on to those territories unless of course Mexico had played perhaps into the decentralized nature of the north, but, nonetheless, Mexico was used to the Spanish colonial government of centralization into Mexico City and to Madrid subsequently, and well, Mexico never really got a taste of independent management unlike the US, which had already tasted some levels of autonomy, Mexico was simply not set up for greatness.

if they had stayed with Spain, could the Spanish Empire have helped them keep California and New Mexico?

That depends, and any answer would be just an assumption, something I am certainly sure about is that staying with Spain could have made things even worse, Spain already had rivalries with other nations across Europe, and the US at that time was looking to expand and nothing would have stopped them. There are 2 scenarios of why Mexico could have kept being a colony, 1. There was no revolt or 2. The independence movement was finished after the death of Miguel Hidalgo and Jose Maria Morelos.

Let's crossed down the 1st one since it would be practically impossible and let's continue with the second option. Of course, the US would have taken advantage of that there is still people who are unhappy with the Spanish rule and they would certainly support separatist groups trying to destabilize the colony and just wait until the inevitable happens which it could be the independence of many states that would be slowly integrated into the US. That is the only thing I can assume

[Major-Tom]

Mexico doesn't fuck around. I've spent enough time there to have a healthy fear/admiration of their people. They can kick some serious ass.

Of course, if we're being serious, the US obviously would have the upper hand in any hypothetical war with Mexico. But the sheer dedication and tenacity of their people would make it hell for us.

[Postauthoritarian America]

Seeing as the US can't even hang on to pissant countries like Afghanistan or Vietnam they'd better not be messing with Mejico Lindo y Querido, no.

[Infected Mushroom]

Mexico doesn't fuck around. I've spent enough time there to have a healthy fear/admiration of their people. They can kick some serious ass.

Of course, if we're being serious, the US obviously would have the upper hand in any hypothetical war with Mexico. But the sheer dedication and tenacity of their people would make it hell for us.

Would the USA underestimate the determination of the Mexican people to free their country in the aftermath of occupation?

[Gonswanza]

Mexico doesn't fuck around. I've spent enough time there to have a healthy fear/admiration of their people. They can kick some serious ass.

Of course, if we're being serious, the US obviously would have the upper hand in any hypothetical war with Mexico. But the sheer dedication and tenacity of their people would make it hell for us.

Would the USA underestimate the determination of the Mexican people to free their country in the aftermath of occupation?

Yeap. No doubt about it. In fact, the common view over here in the states is that the common Mexican is just a meek and soft-skinned farmer looking to take up work in the north. A pacifist, really. Not the type to dig their heels into the ground and resist to the very last drop of blood.

Hell, their view can't be farther from the truth... Unironically.

[Infected Mushroom]

Would the USA underestimate the determination of the Mexican people to free their country in the aftermath of occupation?

Yeap. No doubt about it. In fact, the common view over here in the states is that the common Mexican is just a meek and soft-skinned farmer looking to take up work in the north. A pacifist, really. Not the type to dig their heels into the ground and resist to the very last drop of blood.

Hell, their view can't be farther from the truth... Unironically.

Maybe it’s because of the American understanding of the Mexican War (where were viewed as having low morale and surrendered quickly)

[The Blaatschapen]

Yeap. No doubt about it. In fact, the common view over here in the states is that the common Mexican is just a meek and soft-skinned farmer looking to take up work in the north. A pacifist, really. Not the type to dig their heels into the ground and resist to the very last drop of blood.

Hell, their view can't be farther from the truth... Unironically.

Maybe it’s because of the American understanding of the Mexican War (where were viewed as having low morale and surrendered quickly)

The Mexicans are the French of the Americas

[Ethel mermania]

Maybe it’s because of the American understanding of the Mexican War (where were viewed as having low morale and surrendered quickly)

The Mexicans are the French of the Americas

Yet they managed to kick the French out.

[Saiwania]

You're joking, right? Right?

I'm not, I'm genuinely curious as to how effective PRC China style policies/rule would impact against Mexico's drug cartels. My guess is that their own family relatives would snitch on them to save themselves any trouble. For those who don't, collective punishment could be implemented where they'd just wind up caving into state demands if it means they'll be let go. All of the drug cartels in Mexico would have to close or shut down in the face of a tough enough crackdown by the state.

Mexico can't get a handle on the cartels primarily because their government institutions are corrupted from within by people working for the cartels as well.

[The Blaatschapen]

The Mexicans are the French of the Americas

Yet they managed to kick the French out.

Well, obviously. You can't outfrench the french.

[Senkaku]

1. How would they start the war and still make Mexico look like “the bad guy”? Do they stage something like the Mukden or Gulf of Tonkins Incident? Do they provide a justification based on some ongoing border issues (illegal immigration and drugs)? Do they state a humanitarian objective or try to link it to the War on Drugs (but that’s decades ago right?). What’s the best PR for the war? How would they sell this war to the people and the international community? Would the people buy it?

I assume it’d be a similar justification to our invasions during the Revolution, except with cartels instead of Pancho Villa— American territory & citizens threatened, Mexican state unable to exert authority, time to send in the GIs. If they wanted to do a false flag, think more of a Raid on Columbus situation than Mukden or Tonkin Incidents.

2. How would the fighting go down? Could Mexico hold out? It’s a big country but then they are close to the US juggernaut.

“Poor Mexico— so far from God, so close to the United States.”

3. This time the USA is right next to the country but would they again end up with Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan 10-20 plus year quagmire against post war rebels?

It would be extremely ugly, especially since we’d bear the brunt of the refugee crisis that an invasion and occupation/counterinsurgency would doubtless create.

What do you think?

That mercifully, no one, even in the American government, is so incredibly stupid and malignant as to ever want to try any of this.