kernals12
Banned
The decision to build the canal connecting the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans in Panama instead of Nicaragua was a product of fearmongerring, corruption, and intrigue by the Panama Canal Company rather than any inherent advantages. On the contrary, the Panama Canal, due to its flawed location, became a headache.
Because digging wide channels would've been much too expensive, the channels are very narrow. Ships have to be built narrow enough to squeeze through. And the capacity is limited, creating frequent traffic jams. It's because of this that the canal has needed to be expanded several times.
So what if the canal had been built in Nicaragua where it should've been all along. With essentially unlimited capacity and the ability to fit ships as wide as one wants, how would that change maritime history over the last century?
Because digging wide channels would've been much too expensive, the channels are very narrow. Ships have to be built narrow enough to squeeze through. And the capacity is limited, creating frequent traffic jams. It's because of this that the canal has needed to be expanded several times.
So what if the canal had been built in Nicaragua where it should've been all along. With essentially unlimited capacity and the ability to fit ships as wide as one wants, how would that change maritime history over the last century?