Oh.

:P

On 6 September 1962, archaeologist Peter Marsden discovered the first of the Roman "Blackfriars Ships" on the banks of the river Thames in London. The story made the news even then.

Speaking of 1962...........

Cuba.

How to start World War III 11 years later?

@sempaiscuba? So, what exactly was the state of affairs during the Mediterranean Sea Crisis of '73 during the Yom Kippur War anyway?

Or should I call it the October Crisis?

Just out of curiosity sake.

Things were certainly a little tense ;-)

As in: starting WWIII tense?

It certainly had that potential. Every time that the Superpowers faced-off during the Cold War had the potential to escalate into something more.

So, what if it DID escalate?

;)

The Mediterranean Crisis of 1973 was certainly one opportunity for the Cold War to turn hot.

So, in the few weeks/days/hours society has left, what happens if this crisis DOES get hot?

Would it have become WWIII? I suspect probably not, but there we're back in that wild and wacky world of counterfactual history again ...

Hmmm. I don't remember a general feeling that we were that close to the brink at the time (compared to any other time during the Cold War anyway). Then again, I was only 5...

I was a Pad Brat. We were all aware of the background preparations and the build up of tension.

Why not, @sempaiscuba?

No World War III, just a proxy war?

It wouldn't have been a "proxy war" since the US and Russian fleets were facing-off against each other directly in the Med.

But even if the two fleets had engaged each other in the Med, I doubt it would the White House/Pentagon & the Kremlin would have allowed it to escalate further.

But that is the problem with counterfactual history. It all degenerates into guesswork. "Who would have done what next ...".

Hmmm. Looking through things, probably the most salient point is that the US moved to DEFCON 3. That marks it a serious war concern, but not as serious an issue as the Cuban Missile Crisis (DEFCON 2).

The only other DEFCON 2 incident apparently was one I was completely unaware of in '76 involving North Korea.

They killed a couple of US military officers who were trying to cut down a tree in the DMZ. Sounds silly, but the USA in the past has gone to war over far less.

@T.E.D. I know. If only you chaps had learned to drink tea? ;-)

@sempaiscuba It just never tasted right, after being fished out of the harbor.

@T.E.D. :-D

I'd never heard of the Axe Murder Incident before either. But by then my father was back in Civvie St, and we were living in Southern Africa.

So, if the Yom Kippur War escalated, still no WWIII?

@FutureHistorian I dunno. Depends on definition of "escalated". Israel wasn't going to use their nukes unless they got in existential trouble, and it appeared they were holding their own and slowly gaining at the end. So no real danger of that, just preparations.

If the public found out about the Russian ship carrying nukes to Egypt, that could have been trouble. But the US was so consumed with Watergate at the time, perhaps not.

I found it interesting that Nixon was so preoccupied with (weakened by?) Watergate, that he wasn't even consulted about the negotiations with the Kremlin. Responses were drafted in his name and sent without his knowledge. Wow.

Well, still........by "escalated" I mean "starting World War III".

Conventional or otherwise.

So.......any chances that this could have gotten extremely out of control?

As in: conventional fighting or nuclear exchange?

No. From the Wikipedia article:

The Soviets quickly detected the increased American defence condition, and were astonished and bewildered at the response. "Who could have imagined the Americans would be so easily frightened," said Nikolai Podgorny.

"It is not reasonable to become engaged in a war with the United States because of Egypt and Syria," said Premier Alexei Kosygin, while KGB chief Yuri Andropov added that "We shall not unleash the Third World War."

So, no way this could have started World War III?

Even by accident?

Say.......25th/26th of October of 1973 (in the middle of night or early morning), some naval incident, combined with a series of air skirmishes kick off a conventional Third World War, which slowly escalates?

Local confrontations by accident? Perhaps. Escalation beyond that. No.

So, no starting World War III over the Middle East?

Say..................these confrontations building up to a point where one side has to escalate the conflict into Europe?

I refer you back to my earlier comment on wild and wacky world of counterfactual history.

But we have the Soviet leadership saying unequivocally: "No WWIII".

Oh........

Well, at this point, assuming the escalation continues, it may be too late.

The Soviets were not interested in starting World War III, but accidental exchanges of weapons fire (and Soviets getting killed in the process) may eventually push them to the limit.

Same for the Americans.

One of these accidental confrontations WILL push the Americans to the point of starting World War III.

Besides, the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions were going to be deployed in such an event anyway.

So.........are you sure about those minor accidents not eventually building up towards a World War III situation?

Not in the real world. :-)

So, in a realistic scenario, no WWIII from the Yom Kippur War.

Correct?

:(

Correct. when the US escalated to DEFCON 3 the Soviets knew they weren't going to back down. So they de-escalated themselves. From that point, even if Israel had occupied Cairo and Damascus, the Soviets weren't going to push for a military solution.

It was time for the diplomats to do their thing ...

And if no peaceful solution is found?

Excuse me for jumping in (because I hardly join chat, so don't the ethics of it all ...), there's a good book on this very point, i.e. arms race between super-powers ..."The Dead Hand: The Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race and Its Dangerous Legacy"

@JAsia Looks interesting, although mostly about stuff that happened after the events we are talking about, near as I can tell. Worth looking for though.

@T.E.D. - yeah, it's more Reagan, some Thatcher and Gorbachev time, mid-80s, etc. The topic is interesting tho' and the bio-nuclear chapters are pretty shocking.

@JAsia BTW I'd always encourage people to jump in when they have something useful to contribute to a discussion. :-)

Bah, this is a chat. Useful isn't even a requirement.

True, but I'd always encourage useful!

Just ordered a 2nd-hand copy of Hoffman's book on eBay. Will add it to the reading pile when it arrives ... :)

We used to buy a lot of books. Just as a space-saving measure, I've had to switch to using the public library for all but must-haves.

My better-half suggested doubling-up books on bookcases and shelves (i.e. front row and back row on each shelf). It means I have to use a database to find them (2508 title on the database so far), but it works.

Did I mention that I'm a bit of a bibliophile? ;-)

One of those extremely tangential on 'books-we-are-consuming' ... does this not affect the environment, as in globally, more educated developing world (a good thing, but)> buy more books > is this not bad for environmental sustainability? Been at the back of my mind ... have not had time to think it / research it kinda thing.

... not really history (oops)

@JAsia Well, perhaps that's a good productive idea for carbon sequestration. I doubt its going to make up for the permafrost melting, but it would be a start.