Despite having this inside info on Soviet military, the US experts drastically overestimated Soviet capabilities, and spent an enormous amount keeping up with an opponent over whom they were already far ahead.
If you look at the two point scenarios that were generally talked about -- general nuclear war, and conventional war in Europe (with the Soviets attacking), I don't see a very clear advantage on either side.
In the general nuclear war scenario, I don't think it's likely that either side would have been able to conduct a first strike without retaliation, at least from say, 1970 onward. By the 70s, that retaliation would have meant severe damage to all of the major cities on both sides, and neither side would have been in a position to invade the other in the aftermath, so the result is essentially a draw with both sides losing.
In the invasion of Western Europe scenario, I think it's hard to say exactly how it would have played out. The Soviets had huge numerical superiority on the ground and in the air. The West had a qualitative advantage. On the ground, I'm not that convinced that the qualitative advantage was as severe as was suggested by Gulf War I. The Iraqi troops were not as well trained as the Soviets, their equipment was inferior export models of Soviet equipment, and engagement ranges in the desert were very long, which magnifies the American advantage. In the air, I think the West would probably have won air superiority, but I'm not convinced that tactical air like A-10s and helicopters would have been very effective with excellent Soviet air defense.
The most likely scenario probably would have been the Soviet advance stalling out somewhere on one side or the other of the Rhine due to a long logistical tail.
Either way, whichever side was losing likely would have resorted to tactical nuclear weapons, and it's difficult to see how this wouldn't escalate into a general nuclear war.
The invasion of western Europe happened in 1940 from the east and then in 1944 from the west. This talk of "invasion of western Europe" is ahistorical. In 1956 the communists had 103 seats in the French parliament, the next largest party - the socialists - had 95. The US interventions in Italy's 1948 election exceeded Russian interference in Czechoslovakia in 1948 (the events of which were precipitated by the February resignation of the opposition from the ministry). Up until 1976 the communist party won over one third of the vote in Italy.
This notion of a united "West" fearing an invasion from the east is popular in some quarters, but is not what was the reality in Western Europe, and few western Europeans of the time had this view.
Why were there so few migrants from West to East during the Cold War, while, on the other hand, many were willing to risk their lives to go the other direction?
Germany is a near perfect example. The effort required for someone to migrate from West to East was comparatively small. No new language is required, the culture is very similar, and the distance is short. Where were all the true believers in Soviet style Socialism?
Given the similarity of the languages, today we see large migration flows from Romania to Italy. Why didn't we see the reverse during the Cold War?
huh, check this
Title: "Button that had to destroy world"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8ZrnffyXpU
Quote: "People will not be alive, but ICBMs will still fly"
You can enable english subtitles.
When you're ahead, get more ahead. Wouldn't hurt you if the opponent is still losing more.