This isn't even plausible revisionism, based, I presume, upon emotion wrung from 20-20 hindsight. The assertion deprives the article of credibility.
Without deterrent, even clunky Soviet technology would have struck the U.S. The USSR would not have occupied the U.S. since that would have proven too expensive. However, Comintern Marxist theory required only control of all means of production internationally. That in turn required an organized, central bureau, and the natural candidate for such a large enterprise was the USSR Politburo.
To achieve domination of all means of production by the USSR only required neutralization of U.S. influence (and so, power), and that did not require occupation of the U.S., only its actual or virtual disarmament, either by war or intimidation.
The Cuban missile bases made the innaccurate Soviet missile technology a genuine threat. To say the USSR was never a threat is patently irrational.
Interestingly, American liberals of that age wanted to strip the U.S. of its nuclear arsenal. The Venona Papers have revealed that some liberals went further than merely advocating a change in domestic politics, actually spying for the USSR to catalyze change, presumably for the greater good of humanity.
Fortunately for us, liberals (like Kerry, McGovern, and Ted Kennedy) who repeatedly voted to reduce defensive preparedness, were thwarted by hawks in both political parties (and by Ronald Reagan in particular). The result: the collapse of the USSR, international communism, by and large, and nearly complete removal of the danger of nuclear destruction of the world. Why liberals hate this remains to me a mystery, except that in hating our nation's liberty they succeed in expiating some imaginary guilt rising from perceived unnecessary prosperity.
Unfortunately, neurosis is no basis for foreign policy. I hope the general electorate realizes that.