• TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    Sure, I was, but what exactly are you imagining in terms of how a conflict like that would go down? You think its going to be columns of troops marching in a straight line from Quebec or Tecate?

    Two two countries with the highest rates of immigration into the US are Canada, and Mexico. There are absolutely are both Mexican and Canadian gangs operating in the US, currently (and vice versus, US gangs in Mex/ Can). And what you think all US citizens are just going to align with a dictatorial regime?

    Nukes are basically worthless as any kind of deterrent when there is basically nothing stopping the fight from being brought directly to the streets (and infrastructure) of Houston, Minneapolis, Tallahassee, Denver, you name it.

    • ironhydroxide
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      When you invade another country, you give up the right to complain when said other country damages your infrastructure within your county.

      Mexico invades, and the US could nuke Mexico City. They aren’t restricted to bombing their own shit.

      • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        And how does that impact geurilla fighting on the streets of Las Vegas?

        Like, you need to actually think through what Nukes would actually do in the context of war on or even near American soil. All of the strategic deterrence logic gets flushed down the toilette because its predicated on having Allies locally; that the opponent is abstract in the sense of being across the planet.

        Literally none of it applies when it comes to a local conflict.