Battle of the Atlantic,etc.
I wonder if losing the Panama Canal temporarily would cause the US to put more of their naval effort into the Battle for the Atlantic in the early years of World War II. Probably not. The navy wanted to be in on the 'real' naval war. I think they would just bite the bullet and send the ships around the cape.
One thing about this scenario though: It wouldn't just be the warships that would be affected. The allies would also have to send cargo of various kinds around the cape instead of through the canal. Given the shortage of shipping in 1942 and early 1943 that would have a significant impact throughout the world. Closing the canal would be the equivalent of sinking a LOT of Allied merchant ships because the ships going around the cape would take more time. Doubling the time it takes for cargo ships to get from New York to California is essentially the same as cutting the number of ships in that run in half. (Yeah, I know port time affects that one way and amount of oil affects it the other, but in terms of order of magnitude that's about right). Making the shipping shortage worse means that US Lend-Lease stuff doesn't get to the allies as quickly and the US buildup in Europe happens more slowly.
Then there is the matter of oil: I know there was some oil production on the west coast. Was there enough to handle west coast demand, plus supply the Pacific Fleet, and presumably allies like Australia?
Another issue: Routing cargo around the cape gives the U-boats more shots at the merchant ships and ties up escort ships longer. Not good for the battle of the Atlantic.
---------
Dale Cozort - 11 years of alternate history e-zines at:
http://members.aol.com/althist1/index.htm
March and May 2008 zines are now up.