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.
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...
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.
@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.
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."
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?
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?
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 ...
@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.
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.
@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.