Science fiction has long held the ability to foretell possible futures, no matter how absurd they may seem at the time of publication.

I’ve written before (and probably will again) about how my dad made sure I grew up with the original series of Star Trek — the brilliant, if at times goofy, one from the 60s.

Sometimes, I wonder if that influential show had a direct impact on the future that we actually created — the communicators are perhaps the most obvious example, being cell phones in all but name and form. Perhaps kids who grew up with the show became scientists who invented them.

But for as many of those types of examples exist amongst the genre, there are equally as many — if not far more — tales that serve a more cautionary role.

One example that I have grown increasingly wary of: Star Trek’s “A Taste of Armageddon,” from the first season of the show in 1967.

I’m not going to review the entire episode — you can find it to watch easily enough, or read a summary online — but the brief summary is that the ship encounters a planet which is engaged in a virtual war with a neighboring planet. The planets have determined that this is a more civilized means of warfare — that instead of the suffering and destruction, they can simply allow their computer systems to simulate the battles and then the “casualties” are peacefully executed.

A lot of the emotional value of the episode is that these two societies had grown entirely too comfortable with their simulated war. They told themselves that this was better than the alternative, but it also robbed the civilizations of the desire to make peace because the concept of violence was too sanitized.

I’m old enough to remember our last expedition to the Middle East. I’ve been through this before, and the difference in messaging from our government this time around is making me uneasy.

It rhymes with “A Taste of Armageddon.”

Casual comments from officials about how, well, it’s war and people die (despite that we allegedly aren’t officially at war). Official messages from our government blending war footage, movie footage and video game footage. An air of resignation, that this is simply how it must be.

It’s unsettling.

Video games are not war. War is not a simulation, or a game. It’s not a movie. War doesn’t follow a script.

War is peoples’ lives.

We cannot lose sight of that as a society.

Armed conflict costs us our future: in dollars, in human lives and in advancements unlived.

Every soldier who dies while fighting is the sacrifice of a unique story. All they are and all they could ever be: their potential snuffed out for their country.

This is an incredibly serious cost, and we need to make sure to never forget that — for our nation, for their families and friends, and, of course, for the fallen themselves.

And, no matter how crass it may seem by comparison to a life, we cannot neglect the fiscal cost either.

Perhaps the most effective orator on the subject was President Dwight Eisenhower, noted World War II general. Following the death of Josef Stalin in 1953, Eisenhower tried unsuccessfully to move the world away from the Cold War.

He is quoted in one such speech: “The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.”

That was in 1953.

Today, a single Tomahawk cruise missile costs $2.5 million. An F-35 fighter, depending on the model, could easily be north of $100 million.

Let’s not even talk about an aircraft carrier.

None of this is to say whether the conflict is justified or not, nor to initiate a discussion about who gets to choose to escalate.

There is, unfortunately, always a time and a place where an escalation is inevitable, as a general statement. There are lines which cannot be crossed, and when words fail, actions must succeed.

And, for the record, words have failed with Iran many times.

But, under no circumstances can we allow each other to forget about the dreadful costs, be they measured in blood and lives; in the absence of the things we could have built instead; or in our diminished readiness to stand up for our allies.

Hopefully, at the end of all of this, we can raise up a new Iran, free of radical influence, which can stand with us as an ally in the region and return to their long, prestigious history of cultural and scientific accomplishments.

The road between here and there is long and fraught, though, and making light of the sacrifices that are being asked of our nation to walk that road is shameful.

Arianna McKee is the Design and Editorial Page Editor at The Express.