A few points:
Nato would undoubted be involved in the Turkish situation; Turkey is one of the founding NATO members and it would have experienced a devastating attack. This needs to be taken into account. Without Nukes, Iran and Pakistan combined could not handle the Turks alone. Add in the Nato forces that become part of the scenario after Syria's decision to commit sucide by usinng WMD's, and the situation becomes hopeless, particularly as the U.S. isn't encumbered in this TL in Iraq. Use of Nukes against a NATO member (and a more or less staunch U.S. ally, the recent Iraqi situation in OTL notwithstanding) is an exceptionally good way to die. Given your posit that the CACG has managed to offend both Russian AND India would suggest that Pakistan had better worry a good deal more about it's "Hot" border than some nation a thousand miles away.
It is also very likely that a serious state of, if not war, unpleasantness to the extreme, will exist with Venezuela & anyone foolish enough to side with them A "MERCOSUR" nuclear program would be enough to cause preventitive attacks, both by air & by Spec Ops forces. As was noted in a similar thread, the United States has a considerable number of highly trained operators who speak Spanish as a 1st language. It would be close to shocking if at least some of the principals in the Mexican invasion, including Chavez were not deceased well before this time. Given the overwhelming military advantages enjoyed by the United States, an alliance against the States & whatever is left of the OAS (and I must point out that much of the OAS would be far more afraid of an agressive MERCOSUR in the hemisphere than they would be angry at the U.S.) would be cut-off, embargoed, blockaded, and generally in the soup neck high.
After the quasi-war with Venezuela, the U.S. would have firm control over the oil production of Venezuala (and, one can safely assume, Mexico), possibly through the sponsership of "Freedom Fighters". The nuclear facilities of all MERCOSUR countries would be under constat surveillance by "National Technical Means" as well as HUMIT assets. A vessel or aircraft moving nuclear material to another sworn enemy of the U.S. (and incidently, NATO in this scenario) would find itself either intercepted or boarded with predictable results.
Historically, the United States becomes ever more agressive as threats increase against it. This is why the country spends as much money on its military forces as the REST of the world COMBINED. An unfortunate, but very real fact, is that the militaries of any Latin American country exist at the sufferance of the USAF. The combined forces of the entire hemisphere vs. The United States = a U.S. walkover. In this case it would not be the entire hemisphere, as many of the other Latin American states would be line up against MERCOSUR.
I applaude your attempts to have a FTL with such a close POD, however, the military realities that exist, and will exist into the close term (15-20 years?) future, make agressive actions by non Nato forces against Nato members an virtual impossibility. The same can be said, with even more confidence about an attempt to seriously commit agressive war in the Western Hemisphere without the tacit, if not open, agreement of the United States.
You might want to consider the much more difficult to create, but more possible, subversion of governments by internal political forces. Changes of this type can be less interesting to write , and will certainly take longer to effect, but they are also less likely to arouse the anger of the World's 800 pound gorillia, not to mention the various regional 500 pounders (Russia, the EU, India, the PRC) to the point where they feel obliged to take direct action (i.e. find the troublemakers and tear all their limbs off).
Hopefully you will find some of this to be useful.
In any case best of liuck with your TL.
Nato would undoubted be involved in the Turkish situation; Turkey is one of the founding NATO members and it would have experienced a devastating attack. This needs to be taken into account. Without Nukes, Iran and Pakistan combined could not handle the Turks alone. Add in the Nato forces that become part of the scenario after Syria's decision to commit sucide by usinng WMD's, and the situation becomes hopeless, particularly as the U.S. isn't encumbered in this TL in Iraq. Use of Nukes against a NATO member (and a more or less staunch U.S. ally, the recent Iraqi situation in OTL notwithstanding) is an exceptionally good way to die. Given your posit that the CACG has managed to offend both Russian AND India would suggest that Pakistan had better worry a good deal more about it's "Hot" border than some nation a thousand miles away.
It is also very likely that a serious state of, if not war, unpleasantness to the extreme, will exist with Venezuela & anyone foolish enough to side with them A "MERCOSUR" nuclear program would be enough to cause preventitive attacks, both by air & by Spec Ops forces. As was noted in a similar thread, the United States has a considerable number of highly trained operators who speak Spanish as a 1st language. It would be close to shocking if at least some of the principals in the Mexican invasion, including Chavez were not deceased well before this time. Given the overwhelming military advantages enjoyed by the United States, an alliance against the States & whatever is left of the OAS (and I must point out that much of the OAS would be far more afraid of an agressive MERCOSUR in the hemisphere than they would be angry at the U.S.) would be cut-off, embargoed, blockaded, and generally in the soup neck high.
After the quasi-war with Venezuela, the U.S. would have firm control over the oil production of Venezuala (and, one can safely assume, Mexico), possibly through the sponsership of "Freedom Fighters". The nuclear facilities of all MERCOSUR countries would be under constat surveillance by "National Technical Means" as well as HUMIT assets. A vessel or aircraft moving nuclear material to another sworn enemy of the U.S. (and incidently, NATO in this scenario) would find itself either intercepted or boarded with predictable results.
Historically, the United States becomes ever more agressive as threats increase against it. This is why the country spends as much money on its military forces as the REST of the world COMBINED. An unfortunate, but very real fact, is that the militaries of any Latin American country exist at the sufferance of the USAF. The combined forces of the entire hemisphere vs. The United States = a U.S. walkover. In this case it would not be the entire hemisphere, as many of the other Latin American states would be line up against MERCOSUR.
I applaude your attempts to have a FTL with such a close POD, however, the military realities that exist, and will exist into the close term (15-20 years?) future, make agressive actions by non Nato forces against Nato members an virtual impossibility. The same can be said, with even more confidence about an attempt to seriously commit agressive war in the Western Hemisphere without the tacit, if not open, agreement of the United States.
You might want to consider the much more difficult to create, but more possible, subversion of governments by internal political forces. Changes of this type can be less interesting to write , and will certainly take longer to effect, but they are also less likely to arouse the anger of the World's 800 pound gorillia, not to mention the various regional 500 pounders (Russia, the EU, India, the PRC) to the point where they feel obliged to take direct action (i.e. find the troublemakers and tear all their limbs off).
Hopefully you will find some of this to be useful.
In any case best of liuck with your TL.
