Alternative realistic post-1945 US wars/large-scale US military interventions?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
20,996
SoCal
#1
In real life, the US has engaged in the following wars and large-scale military interventions since 1945:

-Korean War
-Vietnam War
-Panama invasion
-Gulf War
-Large-scale air bombings in the Bosnian War, Kosovo War, and Libyan Civil War (I'm mentioning these here because they might have very well been decisive in these wars)
-Afghanistan War
-Iraq War

Anyway, what alternative post-1945 US wars/large-scale US military interventions could there have realistically been?

So far, I could think of:

-A US-Soviet Union war during the Cold War ("World War III") or a US-Russia war in 2014 or later (over Ukraine).
-A US-Iran war in 1979 or later.
-A Korean War 2.0 at any time after 1953.
-A US military intervention in Iraq during the Arab Spring (possibly in order to help Iraqi rebels) if there is no Iraq invasion in 2003 and thus Saddam Hussein (or one of his two sons) remains in power there.
-A US military intervention in Darfur during the ethnic cleansing/genocide there.
 
Apr 2017
1,498
U.S.A.
#2
War with Libya in the 80's.
War with Iraq any time from 1992-2002.
Invasion of Cuba in the 60's.
Invasion of Venezuela any time from later 2000's.
Invasion of Nicaragua in the 80's.
Greater intervention in Somalia after the Blackhawk down incident.
Greater intervention in the Lebanon civil war.
Intervening in the Chinese civil war.
Military intervention in Burma/Myanmar after the 2008 cyclone.
Intervention in Russia during the Chechen wars.
Intervention in China during the Tianamen square protests.
Intervention in the Timor crisis.
Intervention in the Falkland war.
Intervention in the Georgia war.

And most notable of all...intervention in the Cod war!
 
Likes: Futurist
Dec 2011
4,862
Iowa USA
#3
....
Invasion of Nicaragua in the 80's.
....

And most notable of all...intervention in the Cod war!
This was the one which George Schultz, maybe more than any other single person, prevented. IMO, there were a lot of National Security Agency people that wanted a full intervention. Plenty of logistical aid given to the Contras, of course, and USA military in harm's way to do those missions.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
20,996
SoCal
#4
War with Libya in the 80's.
Yep.

War with Iraq any time from 1992-2002.
Would Congress have actually approved, though?

Invasion of Cuba in the 60's.
Yep.

Invasion of Venezuela any time from later 2000's.
Would Congress approve, though? I mean, the US tried launching a coup in Venezuela in 2002, but this coup failed.

Invasion of Nicaragua in the 80's.
Yep.

Greater intervention in Somalia after the Blackhawk down incident.
What exactly would be in this for the US, though?

Greater intervention in the Lebanon civil war.
What's in it for the US?

Intervening in the Chinese civil war.
Possible, but would Congress have approved?

Military intervention in Burma/Myanmar after the 2008 cyclone.
Why?

Intervention in Russia during the Chechen wars.
And risk nuclear war? Not happening!

Intervention in China during the Tianamen square protests.
And risk nuclear war? Not happening!

Intervention in the Timor crisis.
Possible, but why do it if Australia already had the situation under control?

Intervention in the Falkland war.
Possible, but why do it if Britain already had the situation under control?

Intervention in the Georgia war.
I've thought about this, but concluded that it was unlikely beyond belief due to the fact that Georgia was the one who actually started that war. Plus, even if Russia were to conquer all of Georgia and annex it, Georgia still wouldn't be significant enough on a global stage (due to its tiny population) for the US to be willing to risk the lives of its soldiers for its independence. This might change if Georgia were to become a NATO member, but Georgia wasn't actually a NATO member back in 2008.

And most notable of all...intervention in the Cod war!
What's in it for the US, though?

Also, what about intervening elsewhere in Southeast Asia in order to stop the spread of Communism?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
20,996
SoCal
#5
This was the one which George Schultz, maybe more than any other single person, prevented. IMO, there were a lot of National Security Agency people that wanted a full intervention. Plenty of logistical aid given to the Contras, of course, and USA military in harm's way to do those missions.
Why was he against this?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
20,996
SoCal
#7
Schultz was probably more sensitive to the difficulties of keeping Atlantic alliance together in case America escalated the conflict. He prioritized the nuclear arms negotiations with the SU over the "adventures" of Cuba in Central Amer.
Would the Europeans have been opposed to a US intervention in Nicaragua since it would have meant that there would have been less US troops available to defend Europe from a Soviet invasion?
 
Apr 2017
1,498
U.S.A.
#8
Yep.
Would Congress have actually approved, though?

Yep.

Would Congress approve, though? I mean, the US tried launching a coup in Venezuela in 2002, but this coup failed.

Yep.

What exactly would be in this for the US, though?

What's in it for the US?

Possible, but would Congress have approved?

Why?

And risk nuclear war? Not happening!

And risk nuclear war? Not happening!

Possible, but why do it if Australia already had the situation under control?

Possible, but why do it if Britain already had the situation under control?

I've thought about this, but concluded that it was unlikely beyond belief due to the fact that Georgia was the one who actually started that war. Plus, even if Russia were to conquer all of Georgia and annex it, Georgia still wouldn't be significant enough on a global stage (due to its tiny population) for the US to be willing to risk the lives of its soldiers for its independence. This might change if Georgia were to become a NATO member, but Georgia wasn't actually a NATO member back in 2008.

What's in it for the US, though?

Also, what about intervening elsewhere in Southeast Asia in order to stop the spread of Communism?
2. At the time there was many potential incidents that could have caused it. His repressions of his people, his evasion of weapons inspections. There were many times the US launched air strikes in Iraq during the 90's. Could have easily escalated to war.
4. Change political rhetoric of the time and now war and terror and who knows?
6. What's in it for the US anytime? We intervene in lots of conflicts to keep the peace and help people, gaining nothing except gripes (Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, etc...). Somalia started as providing aid to war-torn Somalia. The warlords were stealing the aid so we went after them and the mission escalated from there. If Clinton wasn't as worried about public opinion, he might of kept up the intervention.
7. Again, peace and stability. Many countries had peace keepers in Lebanon during the 80's. Nobody gained anything.
8. Truman took a lot of flak for dropping the ball with china, some say that's why he intervened in Korea. Just play up the fear of communism and your good.
9. At the time the Myanmar government was heavily criticized for refusing foreign aid. Some (even democrats) called for military intervention to help the people.
10-11. Get some advisors that think it won't go nuclear and their you go.
12. The US could bring more resources to bear quicker.
13. Pretty much but we were letting them violate the Monroe doctrine.
14. At the time it was pretty contentious, we flew Georgian troops from Iraq back to Georgia and some were afraid this could escalate the situation.
15. Nothing, I was just joking with this one.

As for Communism in southeast asia, we did that during Vietnam.
Intervening in Nicaragua wouldn't have taken significant resources.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
20,996
SoCal
#9
2. At the time there was many potential incidents that could have caused it. His repressions of his people, his evasion of weapons inspections. There were many times the US launched air strikes in Iraq during the 90's. Could have easily escalated to war.
4. Change political rhetoric of the time and now war and terror and who knows?
6. What's in it for the US anytime? We intervene in lots of conflicts to keep the peace and help people, gaining nothing except gripes (Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, etc...). Somalia started as providing aid to war-torn Somalia. The warlords were stealing the aid so we went after them and the mission escalated from there. If Clinton wasn't as worried about public opinion, he might of kept up the intervention.
7. Again, peace and stability. Many countries had peace keepers in Lebanon during the 80's. Nobody gained anything.
8. Truman took a lot of flak for dropping the ball with china, some say that's why he intervened in Korea. Just play up the fear of communism and your good.
9. At the time the Myanmar government was heavily criticized for refusing foreign aid. Some (even democrats) called for military intervention to help the people.
10-11. Get some advisors that think it won't go nuclear and their you go.
12. The US could bring more resources to bear quicker.
13. Pretty much but we were letting them violate the Monroe doctrine.
14. At the time it was pretty contentious, we flew Georgian troops from Iraq back to Georgia and some were afraid this could escalate the situation.
15. Nothing, I was just joking with this one.
Valid points on most of these, but in regards to #13, I was under the impression that the Monroe Doctrine does not apply to territories that are already under European control. In other words, European countries cannot establish new colonies in the Americas, but they are perfectly entitled to hold onto their existing colonies--especially if the overwhelming majority of the population there wants to remain under European rule.

As for Communism in southeast asia, we did that during Vietnam.
I meant elsewhere in Southeast Asia.

Intervening in Nicaragua wouldn't have taken significant resources.
You mean due to its small size and population?
 
Dec 2011
4,862
Iowa USA
#10
Would the Europeans have been opposed to a US intervention in Nicaragua since it would have meant that there would have been less US troops available to defend Europe from a Soviet invasion?
Actually, what I was thinking of was that the West German government in the '85-'87 time frame might still have been a Center-Left coalition. I don't recall precisely when Kohl's coalition began to govern. There were small parties in Chancellor Schmidt's coalition that were pro-Sandinista and pro-Castro.
 
Likes: Futurist