It's hard to believe this hasn't been turned into a crappy Harry Turtledove book

[james_davis_nicoll]

Operation Unthinkable was a code-name of two related plans of a conflict between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union. Both were ordered by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in 1945 and developed by the British Armed Forces' Joint Planning Staff at the end of World War II in Europe.

The first of the two assumed a surprise attack on the Soviet forces stationed in Germany in order to "impose the will of the Western Allies" on the Soviets and force Joseph Stalin to honour the agreements in regards to the future of Central Europe.
[...]

The Chiefs of Staff were concerned that given the enormous size of Soviet forces deployed in Europe at the end of the war, and the perception that the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin was unreliable, there existed a Soviet threat to Western Europe. The Soviet numerical superiority was roughly 4:1 in men and 2:1 in tanks at the end of hostilities in Europe.[...] The Soviet Union had yet to launch its attack on Japan, and so one assumption in the report was that the Soviet Union would instead ally with Japan if the Western Allies commenced hostilities.

The hypothetical date for the start of the Allied invasion of Soviet-held Europe was scheduled for 1 July 1945.[...] The plan assumed a surprise attack by up to 47 British and American divisions in the area of Dresden, in the middle of Soviet lines.[...] This represented almost a half of roughly 100 divisions (ca. 2.5 million men) available to the British, American and Canadian headquarters at that time.[...]

Comments

[nojay.livejournal.com]

I would suggest that the sort of people who invaded Vietnam, perpetrated the bombings of Cambodia and Laos, occupied the Phillipines, and installed puppet governments throughout central America and the Middle East were as much interested in their own imperialism as concerned about that of the Soviets. The idea that Kennedy and the military-industrial complex would've been nice blokes if not for Soviet posturing is the sort of nonsense Orwell was always rattling on about.

[(Anonymous)]

How many invasions since the collapse of the USSR?

[bruce munro (from livejournal.com)]

What, Iraq is already down the memory hole? That was quick...

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

Did (Anonymous) mean invasions by the Russians, by the Americans or something else?

[(Anonymous)]

By the US, after it was freed from the threat of the USSR. (Rhetorical question — I remember Iraq and Afghanistan quite well.)

[avram]

By the US and its allies? We’ve had two outright invasions (Afghanistan and Iraq) just in the past decade or so, plus the ongoing bombing campaigns in Yemen and Pakistan, and those in Serbia and the Sudan back in the ’90s. And the hawks are agitating for going against Iran and North Korea.

[nojay.livejournal.com]

Somalia too, don't forget although that was nominally a UN operation like Kosovo. And the intervention in Libya, and Pakistan (the bin Laden mission). I'm sure we're missing a few here and there, like the US troops in Afghanistan who got "lost" and "accidentally" crossed the border into Pakistan and shot a bunch of local soldiers "by mistake", after all it could happen to anyone...

[gohover.livejournal.com]

I get the feeling you're glad the US didn't invade Rwanda to stop a genocide.

[nojay.livejournal.com]

Bu "invade" Rwanda I presume you mean send in a large military force to kill people and blow stuff up rather than gendarmes to prevent the murders being committed there at the time.

It takes time to plan and carry out an invasion, a couple of months at least to select and prepare the forces, stage equipment and supplies, arrange logistics transport and friendly airbases in the locality etc. etc. By the time the first US troops could have arrived in Rwanda and started killing people and blowing stuff up the murders had pretty much stopped, in part because there weren't many targets left since they were either dead or refugees. I'm not sure what good having ten thousand heavily-armed American troops who don't speak the language driving around a country they don't know anything about would do to reduce the ethnic tensions that caused the massacres in the first place.

The UN could maybe have done better with local African support but there were political problems there.

[gohover.livejournal.com]

Bill Clinton acknowledges (and is certainly well aware of) the logistical issues you mentioned, but he claims 300,000 lives could have been saved if the US had sent in troops:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100546207

Your point - that an intervention requires some lead time - appears to be addressed here:
"Classified documents released in 2004 revealed that the Clinton administration knew of a "final solution to eliminate all Tutsis" well in advance of the genocide."
In any case, President Clinton mentions this 300,000 lives number frequently -- for example, he recently cited it to explain why he supports the US doing more in Syria now.

As for the language problem: The United States is fortunate to be located next to a friend and ally which has many soldiers who have more than a passing familiarity with French.

Seriously: Canadian Lt-General Roméo Dallaire, head of the UN peacekeeping force in Rwanda, begged for US military intervention. US soldiers could have helped escort threatened Tutsis (or threatened Hutus) to militarily-protected safe zones. And, more mildly, there was a proposal for the US to use airplanes to jam the local radio station which was inciting violence.

I'm not an expert on the Rwandan genocide, but I think that "arguably it would have been the right thing to do."

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

Bill Clinton also vehemently supported the invasion of Iraq.

[david wilford (from livejournal.com)]

I don't agree. Bill Clinton took the line that if a war in Iraq was necessary he supported it, but in the meantime wanted the U.N. inspections by Hans Blix to continue. Yes, he was trying to have it both ways, but that's not the mark of a vehement supporter of war.

[gohover.livejournal.com]

Lets stipulate that your statement is true (Unlike David, I think it is true). What common-sense logical chain do you want me to follow? What bearing does one of Clinton's many judgements have on his judgement about what should have happened in Rwanda?

Iraq in 2003 was just one of Clinton's military judgements. Here's a list of Clinton's military interventions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_history_events#1990.E2.80.931999
I think all of them did good, or were worth a try. The NATO 1995 bombing to end the Croatian war was the most impressive, because it saved lived, stopped a war, and killed few or no innocent people. Unfortunately, it was much too late in the coming. I think the Croatian war could have been ended much earlier, saving many many lives, had the West bombed sooner. The distinction between the UN and NATO is irrelevant -- first the West (via the UN) chose to be mild mannered, then the West (via NATO) decided to bomb. The 1999 bombing on behalf of Kosovo also did good, and also could have saved many more lives if it had started sooner. I also think the bombs should have been directed only at military targets, and that too many innocent people were killed, but I don't think this negates the overall good the intervention did.

But we could talk about Iraq if you prefer.

[gohover.livejournal.com]

Gah! The adjective "Bosnian" should have been sprinkled liberally throughout my comment.