Nicaraguan Canal

I know that the other option to the Panama canal was a canal in Nicaragua. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_Canal . Many people believe that the Nicaraguan canal would have been just as practical, and that Teddy Roosevelt went through the bother of encouraging the Panamanian rebellion merely to exert power of Columbia.

What could have led to the construction of the canal in Nicaragua? What would the results of such an action be?
 

maverick

Banned
A different story of the United States in which less people are interested in building the canal. Apparently, the people who wanted a canal in Panama did all they could to prevent the construction of a canal in Nicaragua, including sending postcards of Nicaragua showing a volcano to the US Senate before voting on whether to build the thing in Panama or Nicaragua.
 
this scenario has come up before, and I've noted the same thing every time: a sea level canal would result in the devestation of both Carribbean fisheries and tourism... due to the fact that poisonous sea snakes live on the Pacific side and can't get to the Atlantic side... this canal would allow them to do just that, and you'd have sea snakes suddenly bursting on the scene... the local fish populations have no experience with them... tourism would come crashing down...
 
Hi,

Well, it is interesting. In fact the Nica option was going strong, but ultimately was abandoned due to concerns about geological instability (volcanoes, earthquakes).

Let's suppose that, for some reason, the canal is built via Nicaragua. It has many consequences, the first being the impossibility for the Panamanian independence movement to succeed (no american intervention), so today, after some revolts, Panama would still be a "departament" (state) of Colombia, perhaps with some autonomy in the context of a federal goverment.

I guess the following will happen:

1. Panama will be a prime haven for insurgents. In this ATL it will still be a remote, undeveloped part of Colombia, and a natural extension of the guerrilla activity from the Colombian Chocó region. Also, of course, a lot of coca plantantion, labs, etc.

2. The second largest city in Panama, Colón, won't exist! It was built as a terminus for the Canal. I guess that the population will be considerably less than it is today (from 3 million OTL to perhaps 1 million)

3. No Darien Gap: the Pan-American Highway will be completed. Today it is interrupted at Panama because the Pan goverment just doesn't want much contact with Colombia...but in this ATL they are in the same country. Which will also mean that, by this time, most of the Darien tropical forest would have dissappeared. Also, that you'll see much more inmigration to the US from South America, people coming by land all the way from Perú, Ecuador, etc.

4. No SouthCom in Panama, no Schools of the Americas in Panama, no American bases there, nothing. So the logistics of some interventions will have to change substantially.

And for Nicaragua,

1. Much more money!

2. All the American presence in Panama OTL goes to Nica ATL: SouthCom, bases, the works.

3. How will Sandino's revolt would have fared?

4. And the later Sandinistas? Probably they could never win.

Well, it is interesting: a whole country never exists, and another country gets a boost and more problems at the same time.

Finally, there is some ecological concerns with PAnama's Canal right now: species do move through it.
 
this scenario has come up before, and I've noted the same thing every time: a sea level canal would result in the devestation of both Carribbean fisheries and tourism... due to the fact that poisonous sea snakes live on the Pacific side and can't get to the Atlantic side... this canal would allow them to do just that, and you'd have sea snakes suddenly bursting on the scene... the local fish populations have no experience with them... tourism would come crashing down...
Really? Nicaragua is currently trying to raise the money to build a canal since international shipping has grow so exponentially only 7% of the ships moving from the Pacific to the Atlantic goes through the Panama canal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1886781,00.html
 
I wrote a timeline for an independent CSA having to abandon slavery because of using slave labor for a trans-Nicaraguan canal in the late 1870s with over 500,000 dead (including kidnapped peoples from Africa and Caribbean).
 
The Nicaragua canal was going to be the one as it was not just as viable as Panama but more so.
However a few years before Panama construction did open up it had a rare volcanic eruption.
 
Is it possibe for a Soviet financed and/or built canal, in the 80's? POD: Panama/US shut down the Panama chanal due to the invasion of Afganistan. There where some pro-Soviet group in charge, right? Or what would have happened with the dictator that where in place before the communist take-over after a nazi victory. Could he make the nazis finance a new chanal?
 
Well, we would not have that reversible (what are they called again?) "A man. a plan, a canal...Panama!"
 
More interesting: What if Lesseps went to Nicaragua instead of Panama? Nicaragua is very much "sane" than Panama, and the eruption of the Mt. Peleé is 20 years in the future. In my opinion, it could be open by 1895 instead of throwing the French empress into bakruptcy.

Or better enough: The Mexican Empire survives and the French built a canal along the Tehuantepec istmus. Mexico becomes the foothold of France in America, something that he USA don't like very much...
 
The Nicaraguan Canal is not sea level.

the French couldn't go thru Nicaragua, as the US had a 1850's treaty to build a canal thru Nicaragua.
 

Larrikin

Banned
The Nicaraguan Canal is not sea level.

the French couldn't go thru Nicaragua, as the US had a 1850's treaty to build a canal thru Nicaragua.

Correct, it isn't sea level, but it would only require one set of locks, and the canal section would have been much shorter; and much easier to both widen and deepen. Pity it didn't go ahead.
 
Does any one know why it is the French who were so involved in canals (Suez, Panama, and Nicaragua). Why could the French get involved in a South American canal and not the British?
 
Top