WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Yes, though there was never a copy acctually writen.....so I suppose we could spin things abit because no one acctually signed a treaty......

So are you saying, NATO actually does not exist? Is merely a ghost used to push people around?

With NATO not existant, the whole conflict theme can be re-thought and there may be more option fo some action.

No, I was refering to the Atlantean/American/Iberian agreement in the Carribbean, not NATO.

Time to bash Iberia! Maybe China have a chance after all to fix 400 years of "occupation" of their territories.

Who knows !!!

No Caribbean Agreement so let's look at this scenario. Lets say to keep it simple Atlantis is the aggressor to not involve France or Russia:

Fleet Superiority of the combined Atlantis-US Fleet should make very difficult for Iberia to sent reinforcements to the region. The main problem for Atlantis-US will be to project power into the islands. Atlantis have a somewhat organized amphibious force so an invasion of Puerto Rico is possible. US will have a more difficult time landing troops in Cuba. Mexico will put pressure on northern Central America plus I can see Atlantean troops taking the Panama Canal from Columbia.

Only options IMO for Iberia to sent reinforcements will be through the Pacific plus they can put boots on the ground in North Africa and there I think they have the advantage in numbers. But the end result IMO will be the end of the Iberian Caribbean Empire. They could achieve considerable land grab in Morocco but the tradeoff advantage is on the other side.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
The US is not going to become Communist. President Long isn't a Communist, he's a populist, which means he's opposed to big money running the country for it's own gain.

Huey Long was a scumbag SOB who deserved everything he got, and then some. He would have made a splendid African dictator - tyrannical, ruthless, oppressive, diabolical. His historical politics were hard socialist in practice though not in name. I'm gonna call it like I see it.

I'm surprised more people didn't try to assassinate him.

Brock, I'm happy you got that out of your chests. But makes for a decent history book.

The Populist Movement and their Manifest Destiny: The Huey Long Presidency 1936 to 1955.

Well, I suppose by then Long could work up a nice gulag archipelago in North Dakota or such.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
Well, I suppose by then Long could work up a nice gulag archipelago in North Dakota or such.

Plus he was a firm believer in isolation. No money for Mexican Canal, no subsidies of Mexican ships with Military spending to deal with the enemies at home instead. A giant hermit kingdom where "every man is a king, but only one wears a crown."

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
Plus he was a firm believer in isolation. No money for Mexican Canal, no subsidies of Mexican ships with Military spending to deal with the enemies at home instead.

Fortunately (at least in the 30s, and without the lengthy reign FDR overly strengthening the Executive branch), an American President is very constrained by Congress and the Supreme Court from enacting any truly radical changes over the span of a single electoral term.

Specifically, Congress holds the purse strings, and I've seen no radical shift in the makeup of Congress, and thus no reason to expect any change in policy towards the Mexican Canal.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
Plus he was a firm believer in isolation. No money for Mexican Canal, no subsidies of Mexican ships with Military spending to deal with the enemies at home instead.

Fortunately (at least in the 30s, and without the lengthy reign FDR overly strengthening the Executive branch), an American President is very constrained by Congress and the Supreme Court from enacting any truly radical changes over the span of a single electoral term.

Specifically, Congress holds the purse strings, and I've seen no radical shift in the makeup of Congress, and thus no reason to expect any change in policy towards the Mexican Canal.

I was joking in regard to info posted but let's see how he bribes and steals his path to an unprecedented five term presidency. Would he go to the Congress Floor and bully Congress to vote in favor of his policies? Will he sent the Army to disband Congress if they don't? Will he pay with political favors his supporters? Will he attack Standard Oil as much as IOTL? Stay tuned for The Long Years: True Democracy at Work.

See-ing as your already deciding how to carved up Iberia, why don't I just Fook off and let you at it??

Quoted

Originally posted by Commodore Green
See-ing as your already deciding how to carved up Iberia, why don't I just Fook off and let you at it??

Don't take it personal. I just gave my opinion of the possible end result of an Atlantis/US vs Iberia War in the Caribbean.

If you want to turn it around see India's position IMO. The deals India made with SAE and the British were to cover their main weakness, their fleet. India alone vs any two or three nations will see their fleet destroyed and probably the small islands taken in amphibious operations. A land invasion of India perse IMO will be bloody and probably repulsed with heavy casualties but India's economic infrastructure will suffer a terrible price for a war like this.

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
Don't take it personal. I just gave my opinion of the possible end result of an Atlantis/US vs Iberia War in the Caribbean.

If you want to turn it around see India's position IMO. The deals India made with SAE and the British were to cover their main weakness, their fleet. India alone vs any two or three nations will see their fleet destroyed and probably the small islands taken in amphibious operations. A land invasion of India perse IMO will be bloody and probably repulsed with heavy casualties but India's economic infrastructure will suffer a terrible price for a war like this.

Dutch ship ranges presume that the northern Indian ocean and routes from the Red Sea will be closed or limited early on. So, the Dutch certainy felt the Indian fleet needed to be eradicated, and coastal raids could inflict serious infrastructure damage...but invasion of core areas was unlikely to be feasible.

Iberia has the advantage of islands, and can fight a defensive war, seeking to inflict considerable pain, but would indeed be hard pressed against either Atlantis or the US, even if only because they are better located relative to the Carrib.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
Don't take it personal. I just gave my opinion of the possible end result of an Atlantis/US vs Iberia War in the Caribbean.

If you want to turn it around see India's position IMO. The deals India made with SAE and the British were to cover their main weakness, their fleet. India alone vs any two or three nations will see their fleet destroyed and probably the small islands taken in amphibious operations. A land invasion of India perse IMO will be bloody and probably repulsed with heavy casualties but India's economic infrastructure will suffer a terrible price for a war like this.

Dutch ship ranges presume that the northern Indian ocean and routes from the Red Sea will be closed or limited early on. So, the Dutch certainy felt the Indian fleet needed to be eradicated, and coastal raids could inflict serious infrastructure damage...but invasion of core areas was unlikely to be feasible.

Iberia has the advantage of islands, and can fight a defensive war, seeking to inflict considerable pain, but would indeed be hard pressed against either Atlantis or the US, even if only because they are better located relative to the Carrib.

I agree with KK in his views of the scenarios. The main problem IMO for Iberia is that the Island of Atlantis is on the way to their Caribbean territories. Pretty much even land based aircrafts will savage the reinforcement convoys.

India alone vs. AEGIS for example will be a war of attrition that India will lose. They can damage my infrastructure while all I can do is respond to their attacks and slowly erode the number of ships available.

In the end though AEGIS would win the naval war vs India, the land war is another matter. AEGIS would have to resort to limited strategic bombing (not alot of suitable bases to use) and naval blockade. Any amphibious landing on the mainland, even if not repelled initially, would face an overwhelming number of troops in subsequent counter attacks and would most likely be beaten back into the sea. In the end India could be ruined infrastructure wise but it would take too many men and resourses to acieve a complete victory on their soil.

Iberia has the missfortune of having too many potential enemys in the Caribbean, Atlantis (long time rival) the U.S. (fought Iberia to stalemate) and last but not certainly least Mexico, who would gladly pile on with whomever is attacking Iberia. Unfortunately for Iberia it wouldn't be a straight 1 v 1 fight, thanks to Mexico. To their fortune however the Caribbean treaty makes this senario less likely while NATO prevents AEGIS participation in a larger war.

US building landing ships? Interesting. Very interesting indeed.

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
US building landing ships? Interesting. Very interesting indeed.

Heh, well, I'm well behind Iberia in this matter.....

Just following the trend.

Britain has been building small landing craft for a year now and is working on two LSDs. I don't hear any sharp intakes of breath.
All navies are waking up to the need and building suitable ships.

I think Russia has like 20.

*whistles inocently*