[Kat - Part II of a two part rebuttal to the rebuttal]
Having opened the door to a Cold War comparison with "Who Dies First?" and the follow up on Rational State v. Mad Mullahs, it is only fair to respond to Ry's rebuttal: Talking to the Dead.
Ry goes on considerably about he cost calculation and, indeed, notes that the deaths in the ensuing 50 years of Cold War were less horrible than another potential world war or nuclear war with the USSR. I would agree. However, I disagree that it is a viable calculation today because it is, in fact, comparing apples to oranges. Insisting, as it were, that the same equation could be used in determining whether an up front war with Iran is more or less costly than a long war of containment and terrorism.
We do not start at the same bottom line with Iran as we did with the USSR. Let's start with the starting number: 72 million.
According to Wikipedia, approximately 42 million military and civilian deaths were directly attributed to the war. Another 6 million Jews in the holocaust and 25 million who died from famine or disease as an indirect result.
Yes, the few million people who died in the ensuing years does seem like a bargain compared to the possibilities of another large scale war that was later overshadowed by the potential for a nuclear holocaust. No one denies that. But, we shouldn't overlook the fact that people did die during those years due to the conflict and that many still suffer the consequences today.
Nor should we overlook the fact that we are not starting at the same point in this discussion. The same number of people have not died in the lead up to this discussion or a possible war and contrary to some 90 day rule from nuclear energy to nuclear warhead, there is no such indication that Iran has or will be capable of a nuclear warhead in the next 90 days or even 90 days after war might begin.
In WWII/Cold War money, we have not spent nearly as much. Nor have we suffered the same sort of military casualties. And, as Ry mentioned, we have not mobilized anywhere near the capacity we could for war (ie, manufacturing, recruiting, etc). Not that it would be easy or popular today, but it is always about whether the cause or cost is too significant to disregard.
Still, let us talk about death calculations because it is obviously a necessary calculation. So, how many have died to date as Iran has sought to spread its revolution and political power over the region or further? How many will die in the ensuing years of containment without nuclear weapons in Iran's hands? How many more die in an escalated ideological, imperial Iranian drive with a nuclear weapon? How many are at risk or could die in nuclear strikes, even minimal, should the "rational state" calculation turn out to be wrong?
How many die during a military intervention or outright invasion?
It's possible and probable that upwards of a million people could die in Iran in a direct conflict. Maybe more.
Does that calculation equal, in anyway, on the same grand scale, as the calculation that was made at the beginning of the Cold War? Or, even, a historical evaluation of those events being "worth it"?
Apples and Oranges.
If we want to count up the dead, we might keep our eye on what happens when Iran actually does control 1/3 of all oil in the ME with a nuclear weapon. How many people die when fuel does run short? When prices are either driven up by Iranian demands to reduce production in OPEC? Or, simply by the even greater escalating price due to the fear of extracting or exporting oil under the umbrella of a nuclear Iran?
The repercussions go beyond the US, the EU or the ME and branch out into countries around the world since energy will be diminished, food, medicine, clothing and shelter will rise dramatically. More than they are today.
How many millions have to die for the second Cold War to be considered a complete disaster compared to direct war?
