[mikkupikku]

If Mexico wants to deter America, their best bet by far is to pose a credible insurgency threat. And in that regard, between the number of Mexican nationals and sympathizers in America, the number of guns in Mexico, the national pride of the Mexican people, and their established proficiency with asymmetric warfare (at least from their cartel elements)... I think they've got their bases well covered. Mexicans have the capacity to make an invasion of Mexico be extremely painful to the American public.

But Mexico using conventional military force to deter America? That's completely absurd.

[mrguyorama]

Except America has shown that it would rather chew through all it's resources and capability than accept that "The public here doesn't want you, that wont change, go home and save the effort"

How many people in the middle east did we blow up or kill? For 20 years. For a supposed outcome we had no chance of ever getting. Multiple presidents even.

The deterrence effect of an occupation didn't stop Russia, did not stop the USA, does not stop someone who believes you can just bomb the occupied lands harder until all resistance is "quiet", and doesn't seem to be stopping China from preparing itself for the occupation of Taiwan.

[AngryData]

The Middle East doesn't have easy access to the US or its infrastructure though either. If the US started shit with Mexico, the insurgency isn't going to be operating just inside Mexico, and support for occupying Mexico will drop to almost nothing when people in the US are regularly going without power, water, telecomms, or perhaps even food.

[mikkupikku]

As soon as US baby boomers go one week without their lawns getting mowed, that war would be over.

[mikkupikku]

Deterrence not existing because sometimes it doesn't work is certainly... a take.