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.
We were disarming rapidly after WWII so there was less than no interest in another war. It could not have happened on those grounds alone. We would not have used nuclear weapons, given the world wide reaction to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And, finally, whatever the shape of the Soviet military at that point, any US invasion would have been resisted at all levels. No, it's not conceivable.
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?
"Peacenik" from your point of view is, of course, a derogatory term. But you could hardly label Madlock a "peacenik." As for whether those who oppose the invasion on the grounds of deterrence, whether they talk about the costs, I actually don't read too many folk who argue for it. The more frequent thing I hear argued is some version of containment. As for the costs, they are, of course, there. But the actual level would depend on the specific strategy adopted. However, my guess is that the "costs" in human lives of deterrence will, almost always, work out to be less than that of invasion.
The only counter argument I can imagine is the one that says, if we wait, Saddam will have nukes, and then the costs are higher. But that's much harder to factor in since it's a future imponderable. Has to be thought through, no question. But the usual form of stating it, the now without nukes or later with them, lacks the uncertainty that the future always brings. |
