I'm not in any kind qualified to answer this question, but have some thoughts. To me it seems like the US military does not have a reason to do a cost-benefit analysis. They can generally just say what they want and will mostly get it. There are always unknown factors in war, and trying to failsafe against more unlikely ones is generally inefficient, but doable if there is a willing payer.
I also wouldn't put it behind Russia to seriously test European unity. Would an attack of Estonia trigger nuclear war? Unlikely. A counter attack on Moscow certainly would. Russian leadership doesn't have that much to lose sadly.