| [ X] Steps On the Road: |
| [X ] Web of Association: |
| [X ] Multilingualism: |
| [X ] Southern Strategy: |
| [X ] Financier: |
| [X ] Lifeline of the West: |
| [X ] Truth and Reconciliation Commission: |
| [X ] Independence Referendum |
| [X ] Military Exchange: |
| [X ] Mexican Revivalist Special Status: [ X] United Post Office [ X] Mexican Autonomy: |
The way the options were priced made it necessary that we would have to balance off some things.
Summary: The southern and mexican states are anxious about foreign influence, which could lead to bad side things happening. There are rational reasons to be wary, but this clause is concerned with defusing anxiety, rather than introducing rational measures regarding foreign influence. It does not provide an effective defense against foreign influence, but is a token gesture.
The major worries are about Russia doing something terrible when they fall behind. Which is a fair point, Nick isn't the type to accept losing gracefully. But that is outside the scope of discussion about the southern strategy, since the real point of disagreement is about Brazilian influence.
Southern strategy appeases anxieties and doesn't provide a strong defense. Not picking southern strategy will have no effect on our ability to oppose Brazilian influence later, should we so choose. And we already know the drawback, antagonizing Brazil, a local power with a strong economy. This is a bad and completely unnecessary idea.
Picking the southern strategy is a bad way to communicate red lines to Brazil. The new revivalist movement is organizing themselves just now and Southern Strategy tells local states: "Pick us or Brazil". This will not be received as a message about red lines by Brazil, it will be received as "The revivalists kind of hate us". The reasonable way to go about it is meet with Brazil and clearly state the red lines inside diplomatic talks, like normal states do. To use an analogy: If I don't want somebody to be in a specific party, I don't handle the problem by telling party members "If you talk to much to B, I will blacklist you from future parties", I would go about the problem by telling B "I would prefer if you didn't come to this party".
The South Americans are not suddenly deciding to invest for the first time into the Mouth of the Mississippi. There is no text to support this interpretation. Previous investment would be an entirely reasonable assumption. What they are doing is organizing a new summit for investment, since Victoria has been beaten and the revivalists are picking up steam. In other words, they are organizing a conference because a lot of things have happened in the USA. If your suspicious about organizing conferences in reaction to major events, I can't describe this fear as reasonable.
The southern strategy doesn't make it clear. It's not useful for communicating intentions as I outlined above, since it doesn't even address the actual foreign powers. The Russians have shown themselves to be actively malicious to the USA, Brazil hasn't. If you want to make your red lines clear to Brazil without misunderstandings, this option is terrible for that.
Accurate, but unrelated to the actual point.
We have no evidence for political infiltration. We have no evidence for Brazil trying to make new Orleans into a colonial possession. Antagonizing somebody because we assume the worst scenario is bad idea, as I already outlined.
The object of worries exists as the QM stated and it's a race between Russian and south american influence. As the QM also stated, the southern strategy aims at easing fears, it isn't an effective strategy to curtail foreign influence. It's also not an effective way to communicate limits as you think it is. Even if the thing I'm worried about is real, that doesn't mean that what eases my fear the most is the most rational behavior. Turning the lights is a highly effective way to reduce fear, but doesn't help much with actual threats.
Dude, your plan does not show up as a plan
Kinda late here so I'll get around to most of this tomorrow.
Bed now.
I have addressed QM information extensively in my post, including those sentences. I will be looking forward to your response tomorrow.
The actual effectiveness is non-existent, the detrimental effect (Brazil becoming hostile) very much exists. I can't stretch enough how much of a bad idea the Southern Strategy. If you want to oppose Brazil, do it after we actually have information about their activities beyond vague anxieties. The lack of southern strategy is the reason for this plan existing. A vote for this plan is a vote for non-hostile relations with South America.
I think your plan is identical to the my plan "Don't Step on The Smoking Snake" I posted just above your post.
