Makes me think if the US project to place a rocket-shield in Central Europe has anything to do with Russia re-activating it's cold war methods.
Meanwhile, the Soviets lived in terror of a nuclear first strike by the West, which they expected at any time and that would utterly destroy their country.
My understanding is that it was Ronald Reagan, of all people, who realised that inflamatory rhetoric ("Evil Empire") is a bad idea when you are facing an opponent who is terrified that you are going to attack them - which the Soviets were (with some justification). Reagan deserves a lot of credit for helping end the Cold War - but it was largely achieved by discussion rather than threats.
I really hope we don't begin that stupendous silliness all over again.
we were told that the Soviet tank armies were
poised to pour through the Fulda Gap
And the rhetoric was supported by the facts on the ground. The quality of training was poor, but the quality and especially quantity of military equipment was enormous.
What I do take issue with is the crazy degree to which vast arsenals were constructed on both sides to a level that was much much more than that required to politically deter an attack.
The problem I have isn't that deterrence with nuclear weapons doesn't work - clearly it does. Rather that we have no good mechanism for limiting the size of arsenals.
Here is a question - are there any records of the Soviets having military leaders who advocated actually invading Western Europe (rather than just planning for it)? [NB I'm asking because I don't know, not because I'm trying to score points.]
Yes, in the same way the US invaded Iraq due to weapons of mass destruction :)
"This system was given major new importance by President Obama in September 2009, when he announced plans to scrap the plans for a missile defense site in Poland, in favor of missile defense systems located on US Navy warships. On 18 September 2009, Russian Prime Minister Putin welcomed Obama's plans for missile defense which may include stationing American Aegis armed warships in the Black Sea, as these would be less effective against Russia's missile attacks."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense...
What I'm trying to convey is that it is not Russia that is a threat in the region. And hasn't been since the Soviets dissolved.
As I said elsewhere, the US unilaterally withdrew from the ABM treaty with Russia back in 2002. This treaty had been active since the 70s and attempted exactly that - decrease the amount of anti-ballistic missiles installed.
There was no rational reason to put up a whole new defense system in Europe (under a false premise of the Iranian threat). It is in no one's interest except the US. And rightly so, many, including Russia, considered this move aggressive.
If the past decade is of any lesson, the magnitude of the US influence and military presence in the world is a greater threat than anything else.