But the proper contrast is not between no costs and costs, but between the costs of invasion and the costs of deterrence.
Agreed -- even assuming that deterrence is possible, itself a question.
While they are, obviously, unknown and in a very serious sense, unknowable, at any given point, the costs of invading the Soviet Union in the late 40s was astronomical. It simply could not be considered.
You mean that the American people had no stomach for it, and Truman demobilized. Militarily, it would have been far from 'astronomical' in cost since our economy outproduced the world, while one-third of the USSR lay in ruins. Not to mention the fact that we had nukes, and Stalin didn't.
The cost of invading Iraq, now would not be in that league. But it should be factored into any conversation about deterrence. That the Bush folk never do that in their public statements is yet one more reason to have misgivings.
The Bush crowd is already talking about a large war and a long occupation, quite publicly. Somehow, I don't think you'd be satisfied until they provided an exact price tag, which is of course impossible. I notice that the peacenik crowd never talks about the costs of deterrence, or whether deterrence is even possible. Yet that creates no misgivings on that side, hmmm why is that? |
