What really struck me was this part:
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. Worse yet, Soviet accounting practices, like so much else they did, were opaque and self-delusional. It wasn't until after the Soviet Union collapsed that anyone could get an idea of how large the Soviet defense budgets were, and it turned out they were less than half the size of the American ones. Suddenly, a lot of Soviet military policies made sense. Russia bought lots of weapons, but did not have the money to maintain them, or even allow the troops to train with them. That was known, and in light of how the Soviet defense budget was set up, was understandable, and inevitable.
The basic point of the article is that the Soviet threat was a sham. I heartily disagree.
First of all, I never doubted the West was stronger than the Soviet Union. But saying that this means that the Soviet Union did not pose a threat to us is an error. How can this be when America had ten times the GDP of the Soviet Union and twice the arms budget? (And I'll ignore how much of our budget went to retirees, and other considerations that would make Soviet spending more potent dollar for dollar.) Let me explain.
Consider that after getting hit by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor and losing our western Pacific holdings to the first offensive, it took us nearly four years of bloody fighting to push our way back across the Pacific and take the fight to the Japanese islands. Was Japan our equal? Heavens no. Indeed, I've read that our economic strength was ten times that of Japan's economy. Yet Japan expanded greatly in their first rush, knocking at the doors of Australia, India, and Hawaii.
Now, the situation between World War II and Japan on the one hand and the Cold War and the Soviet Union on the other is not without major differences. We devoted more resources to Germany so we did not use all of our economic advantage over Japan to beat Japan. The Japanese were certainly better in the air and at sea than the Russians. And Cold War Americans were better prepared than World War II Americans. But the basic point is that Japan was a threat despite economic weakness.
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.
By the time the Berlin Wall was pulled down, I think we stood a very good chance of stopping the Soviets if they headed west (assuming that nuclear war didn't result, of course). But before that time of rearming and training, our Europe-based forces were either still reeling from the effects of losing in Vietnam, being deployed in Vietnam to fight, or just plain weak because we thought nuclear weapons were the only force needed to deter the Soviets. Despite our overall power advantage, our front in NATO was weak for many decades in the Cold War.
And remember, too, that the Russians in World War II managed to slog across the continent pushing the Nazis from Stalingrad to Berlin with ill-trained troops simply shoved forward in sledgehammer blows with little tactical skill. Nor did the Russians have massive superiority in numbers as is commonly believed. Having the initiative, the Russians stripped troops from areas they would not be advancing on to bolster the active front. The Germans--despite being twice as good man-for-man even during the worst times--were in no position to take advantage of those thin Russian front lines even if they had known about them. Would advancing 100-200 miles during the Cold War have been beyond their capabilities?
If, during the Cold War, Western Europe had occupied the area of Brazil instead of Western Europe which was close to the Russians, the Cold War would never have been the tense situation it was. The Soviets could never have threatened the industrial and scientific assets of the West that NATO represented.
These factors must be considered when looking at China. On the one hand, China's threat to Taiwan is real despite our large advantage in military power. The Chinese are close and we are far.
On the other hand, even with a GDP that matches ours, a future China will not be the same type of threat that the old USSR was because China will not be close with direct land access to any vital area whose loss would cripple us.
Further complicating China's position is that we have friends on our borders and China faces formidable actual or potential local opponents in Russia, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, and India. Toss in our power and Australia backing these nations and China has lots of worries close to home.
It is not enough to measure raw power. You have to understand what that power must accomplish to win.
Location, location, location, as the real estate mantra tells us.
