# Hypothetical Question, RE: Mexico Invasion **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [February 5, 2017, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-re-mexico-invasion/779034 "2017-02-05T00:49:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2017, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-re-mexico-invasion/779034/41 "2017-02-06T22:02:38Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > IRL more likely than a proper set-piece invasion (which the Mexicans could see coming for weeks at least, it’s not like you can just launch out of Fort Hood tomorrow morning) a nonconsensual military intervention in Mexico would be an something involving repeated violations of sovereign space, as in SOF raids and drone strikes, over time, with “impunity” due to undisputed air superiority as far as fuel range allows from the border states. It would work more along the lines of Pakistan/Yemen, not Afghanistan/Iraq. And deal with strikes called on reported Drug Cartel summits “accidentally” wiping out weddings and _quinceañeras_. As I said I think the realistic, though on the far edge of realistic, scenario is US military action against Mexican criminal gangs without Mexican permission. Which is somewhat parallel to Pakistan, though only if neglecting the open secret that operations there have by and large been with Pakistani govt permission\*. Or if not it’s a matter of disputing the political legitimacy of the approving authorities in Pakistan (or Yemen more so) but not a unified govt refusing permission. So assuming the situation now in Mexico of a single legitimate govt with serious problems enforcing the rule of law, but hard to argue it’s actually lost sovereignty to the gangs in any significantly large area, if they actually refused US strikes against the gangs but they still happened it would be a higher level of conflict than the US drone strikes in Pakistan. Still, something along those lines is a whole lot more conceivable than an invasion. \*the Bin Laden raid being an exception tending to prove that rule. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2017, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-re-mexico-invasion/779034/42 "2017-02-07T12:09:31Z")
> [@mikecurtis](#): > > i’m pretty sure he meant the country columbia, not the district. > > mc He may have meant the country Colombia. The confusion arises because of spelling, too. ---
**Author:** ![ZPG\_Zealot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e47c2d/32.png) [@ZPG\_Zealot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZPG_Zealot)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2017, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-re-mexico-invasion/779034/43 "2017-02-07T14:14:36Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > Could Mexico afford our invasion? (I’m assuming here that El Trumpo would force Mexico to pay for his war) Another good question, could we afford another war after our recent budget drainers? ---
**Author:** ![whitetho](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whitetho/32/1059_2.png) [@whitetho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whitetho)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2017, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-re-mexico-invasion/779034/44 "2017-02-07T15:13:13Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > Could Mexico afford our invasion? (I’m assuming here that El Trumpo would force Mexico to pay for his war) Trump mentioned that the U.S. should have siezed the Iraqi oil fields in order to repay the U.S. So it would be consistent to sieze Mexico’s oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico to pay for the border wall, and the northern gas fields to protect the U.S. border. No need to occupy the entire country if you have air superiority. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2017, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-re-mexico-invasion/779034/45 "2017-02-07T15:55:31Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Most likely he meant the country Colombia. Nava’s point is that there is no country called Columbia (unless we count the poetic personification of the United States). It’s an example of how foreign place name spellings are now often enforced as the only correct ones in English when it’s not done in other languages. The English spelling ‘Columbia’ used to be accepted in English for the South American country as can be seen in old books. The idea of the name is basically the same as the poetic personification of the US or British Columbia: parts of the lands ‘discovered’ by Columbus, and they used to be spelled the same way. Colombia is the Spanish spelling naturally used in other romance languages. Writers of German aren’t typically told there’s no such country as Kolumbien, but English writers are now told there’s no such country as Columbia. That said, English spelling is just a matter of convention, and by convention it’s become more common in English than other languages to insist on foreign place name spellings or official transliterations even when English had it’s own different spelling. Though still not always: for example so far Brazil rather than Brasil is still accepted in English. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2017, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-re-mexico-invasion/779034/46 "2017-02-07T16:13:18Z")
The original question contains misconceptions; what it was alleged that Trump threatened to do was to send in troops to knock out cartels without Mexico’s support. (Last I read on the issue, the Mexican government disputes the claim and it hasn’t been supported by anything more than an anonymous leak) This wouldn’t involve invading or occupying Mexico, and in practice the US military is so much stronger than Mexico’s that there likely wouldn’t be anything they could do to keep the US from doing some sort of strike on specific targets. I don’t think that targetting cartels like this would be as effective as some people think, and carrying out military operations in Mexico without Mexico’s approval would generate a lot of international discontent with the US. Like other people have said, an actual invasion of Mexico isn’t something that Congress is likely to support and doesn’t even seem to be supported by Trump. If it happened, the Mexican armed forces would be quickly wiped out without much trouble, then the US would be forced to try to govern a the huge, hostile territory of a nation that already has innumerable loyal nationals living in secret in the US. It would be a quick easy victory followed by an incredible economic catastrophe and a complete disaster in both domestic and foreign politics. ---
**Author:** ![Count\_Blucher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Count\_Blucher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Count_Blucher)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2017, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-re-mexico-invasion/779034/47 "2017-02-07T16:40:48Z")
> [@whitetho](#): > > Trump mentioned that the U.S. should have siezed the Iraqi oil fields in order to repay the U.S. So it would be consistent to sieze Mexico’s oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico to pay for the border wall, and the northern gas fields to protect the U.S. border. No need to occupy the entire country if you have air superiority. _cough_ War Crime _/cough_ ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2017, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-re-mexico-invasion/779034/48 "2017-02-07T20:58:20Z")
> [@Doctor\_Jackson](#): > > If it weren’t for hyperbole, you’d have no bole at all… > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > We put racist fascists into power; history shows how such people act. I largely agree with Der Trihs’s assessment. We have to anticipate the worst, in every arena, now. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2017, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-re-mexico-invasion/779034/49 "2017-02-07T22:01:17Z")
Geez, how much potable water would it take, lest we be felled by Montezuma’s Revenge? ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2017, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-re-mexico-invasion/779034/50 "2017-02-07T22:52:31Z")
Millions of Mexican refugees flooding into the US to get away from the fighting? A massive insurgency not just in Mexico, but all across the USA? Great idea if your hope is to burn both nations to the ground. ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2017, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-re-mexico-invasion/779034/51 "2017-02-07T23:33:16Z")
The rule of thumb force ratio is 20-25 security force members for every 1000 in the population that needs to be secured. For Mexico’s population of 122 million that means 2.44-3.05 million. Total size of the US military including all reserve component troops - 2.2 million. That’s everybody from around the world, ignoring all other security needs, dismantling the institutional force structure needs to sustain the troops in Mexico, ignoring the need to rotate troops in and out over a multi-year year counter-insurgency, no security requirements in border states, etc. We’d need much, much more in the way of a military than we currently have to secure Mexico after the initial victory. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2017, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-re-mexico-invasion/779034/52 "2017-02-07T23:57:45Z")
Oh, but you know these people are going to claim that we are NOT going to “occupy” Mexico, we’re only going to get in, do the job and get out. :rolleyes: While making the Mexicans pay for it. :smack: Most of us will say “No, this is a terrible idea”, the Military will tell Der Trumpenfuhrer that it is a bad idea, Congress will tell the Orange Menace it is a bad idea, but he’ll rant and rave and fire people trying to make it happen. And some dumbass generals will go along with it because he’s the Commander in Chief. ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Jackson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctor_jackson/32/32_2.png) [@Doctor\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Jackson)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2017, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-re-mexico-invasion/779034/53 "2017-02-08T13:37:55Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > I largely agree with Der Trihs’s assessment. We have to anticipate the worst, in every arena, now. So you, too, believe that the US will nuke Mexico. Sad. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2017, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-re-mexico-invasion/779034/54 "2017-02-08T14:55:32Z")
[QUOTE=whitetho] Trump mentioned that the U.S. should have siezed the Iraqi oil fields in order to repay the U.S. [/QUOTE] He did mention that, and it remains stupid. “Seizing the oil fields” (what he actually said was “Take the oil,” which is literally much more stupid) means occupying the country as a conquered state and openly looting it. Aside from being a crime against humanity, it would also have quadrupled the ferocity of the resistance and cost the USA billions of dollars and God only know how many lives more than it already did. ---
**Author:** ![Moonlitherial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4bbf92/32.png) [@Moonlitherial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moonlitherial)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2017, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-re-mexico-invasion/779034/55 "2017-02-08T17:09:50Z")
You guys haven’t even touched on the international reaction. Sure, no one has an army the size of the US, but if you manage to unite the world against the US/Russian alliance it’s a whole new ballgame. I’m presuming that Putin would be on Trumps side but if it looks like that wouldn’t benefit him he’s fully capable of tossing Trump to the wolves and joining the rest of the world. You’re also going to have to deal with the fact that a portion of your army might have stronger ties to your target than to you AND that even if they don’t the suspicion that they do will undermine morale and discipline. The fact that you’re violating international law will almost certainly cause an additional breakdown in discipline and you can expect a huge social media outpouring of information on the precedent that the US helped put in place - Just following orders is not an excuse. ---
**Author:** ![Count\_Blucher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Count\_Blucher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Count_Blucher)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2017, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-re-mexico-invasion/779034/56 "2017-02-08T17:13:19Z")
> [@Doctor\_Jackson](#): > > So you, too, believe that the US will nuke Mexico. Sad. THAT’S the worst you can Imagine? Sad. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2017, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-re-mexico-invasion/779034/57 "2017-02-08T21:54:04Z")
> [@Doctor\_Jackson](#): > > So you, too, believe that the US will nuke Mexico. Sad. At this point, the fart in the Oval Office insists that nukes are on the table for everywhere. So it’s a possibility, yes. Maybe he won’t, but we have to _anticipate_ the worst. Be prepared. Per **Count Blucher** , indeed. Bannon seems to want a race war, and the US military would appear to the incautious to be a grand tool for a global race war. ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-re-mexico-invasion/779034/58 "2017-02-09T00:01:34Z")
> [@Count\_Blucher](#): > > _cough_ War Crime _/cough_ It’s only a war crime if you lose. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-re-mexico-invasion/779034.md?page=2)