I agree with you both that the US setup is by far the least plausible one in Kaiserreich. Yet (IMO) its also both interesting to have a syndie or nationalist USA and a gameplay neccesity to nerf the USA by a long shot in order to prevent a walkover for the side the USA joins. The initial weakness isn't even that farfetched.
I agree that the Reed & Long have no chance if the US is even allowed the vanilla 1936 IC penalty. But it does seem to me that
the scenario does its best to ensure that the democratic US has no chance unless it has a human player. I have played the
US without the IC and dissent hits, just to have the CW be a minor road bump (and yes I got a good deal of evil satisfaction
in that). More seriously, I think one thing that could be done with the democratic US that would give it a better chance under
the AI would be to replicate what happened in our actual Civil War. In that case, when the Southern states started seceding,
there was a good deal of doubt and division in the North as to what to do (modeled in game by dissent). However, once Fort
Sumter was fired upon, all argument ceased, and the North was totally committed to fight. In terms of KR, this would mean
that once Reed and/or Long declared war, US dissent would be set to zero. Other possibilities : If Curtis agrees to all
of Reed's demands, Reed does not secede. If Garner takes a hard line stance against Reed, California does not secede.
BTW, I think the most unrealistic thing of all regarding the US in this scenario is Canada siezing New England, Alaska, and Colon.
It would be sheer idiocy on their part to make it more difficult for the US to defeat the Syndies (whom the Canadians hate). I also find the PSA siezure of Alaska bogus. Since they're at war with the US, they should damed well have to take it by invasion.