With a GDP more than ten times the size of the Soviet Unions, the U.S. could spend five percent of GDP on defense, and far outspend the Soviet Union.
This is true, but Russia spend far more of its GDP on defense giving it far greater power than just a GDP comparison would indicate.
And more important, Russia just needed to mobilize their power at the point of attack in West Germany. Make it to the Rhine before we could mobilize our power and get it to Western Europe and the Soviets would have won.
I like Strategypage but I heartily disagree with the implication that the USSR was a paper tiger.
Recall that Japan in 1941 had a GDP a tenth of ours, yet they expanded greatly after Peark Harbor before we halted them and counter-attacked. We had the advantage of being far away from Japan, so their initial rush did not overrun anything critical to our defense.
As I wrote before in regard to the Cold War, location matters:
The most important consideration in assessing the Soviet threat must recognize that the Soviets in the Cold War had one great advantage over World War II Japan: The Soviet objective was less than a couple hundred miles from their starting point.
To break NATO, the Soviets had but to reach the Rhine River and crush West Germany. Yes, Soviet military spending was at only half our level, but the Soviets had their best forces in Eastern Europe. Our superior power had to make it across the Atlantic in time to make a difference. If the Soviet fleet died buying Moscow the time to take West Germany, we'd still lose the war. And our NATO allies were a variable bunch yet held frontage in West Germany. In between high quality American, West German, and British forces there were less capable Dutch and Belgian forces.
We won the Cold War without a fight. Good thing. I think that by the late 1980s we stood a good chance of stopping a Soviet drive west, but don't dare think that there was no threat from the Soviet Union.
