WI – Consequences of 3 Pacific-Caribbean Canals

Along with the existing Panama Canal, what would have happened if it was joined by 2 other Canals in Nicaragua (similar to OTL proposal) and in Mexico via the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (the latter possibly as a result of some Dictator or some other scenario where Mexico fares even worse against the US)?
 
Along with the existing Panama Canal, what would have happened if it was joined by 2 other Canals in Nicaragua (similar to OTL proposal) and in Mexico via the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (the latter possibly as a result of some Dictator or some other scenario where Mexico fares even worse against the US)?
Well might find out in 10 to 15 years what the effects of a Nicaragua canal will have on Panama.

But from what I understand the Panama Canal is actually two parallel canals (with a third not normally used), I would say that depending on when each canal was built you'd have enough traffic for two canals. The Mexican one though was always planned realistically to be a railroad, involving constant unloading and loading and can't see that as efficient. The Nicaragua Canal if done around the same time as the Panama could force the Panama to finish the way the French began- as a level canal without locks; this is extremely time consuming and labor intensive and takes a lot more money, but would allow ships to be as long as you want them allowing the Panamamax to be bigger than a "Nicaraguamax".

But this is all moot... once the US picks one, they aren't going to allow a second anytime soon, local unfriendly Dictator or not, in fact ESPECIALLY if it is an unfriendly Dictator. Once the US has their own canal, if European country tries to then they will claim Monroe Doctrine as raison d'etre for stopping it. Only path to multiple canals is US seeing that it is in their best interest and they have control.
 
But this is all moot... once the US picks one, they aren't going to allow a second anytime soon, local unfriendly Dictator or not, in fact ESPECIALLY if it is an unfriendly Dictator. Once the US has their own canal, if European country tries to then they will claim Monroe Doctrine as raison d'etre for stopping it. Only path to multiple canals is US seeing that it is in their best interest and they have control.

Honestly I don't think the US would oppose it at all since it removes some of the strategic vulnerability that a single canal has while at the same time nobody is going to be using any of these canals without US approval. The US has never stopped unfriendly ships from transiting except during war. I believe that even Soviet ships were allowed even if they never used it due to their own security concerns.

A second canal under an unfriendly local dictator is perfect as the US doesn't have to fund it, provides ample spying opportunities on rivals' ships who might use it, and it easy to seize or block if hostilities ever erupted. For the US there are more benefits to a second canal than there are downsides.
 
Honestly I don't think the US would oppose it at all since it removes some of the strategic vulnerability that a single canal has while at the same time nobody is going to be using any of these canals without US approval. The US has never stopped unfriendly ships from transiting except during war. I believe that even Soviet ships were allowed even if they never used it due to their own security concerns.

A second canal under an unfriendly local dictator is perfect as the US doesn't have to fund it, provides ample spying opportunities on rivals' ships who might use it, and it easy to seize or block if hostilities ever erupted. For the US there are more benefits to a second canal than there are downsides.
I disagree that anyone in political or military authority in the early 1900s would ever think that. It goes against any realpolitik thinking. And your assumptions rest on that's assuming there is enough traffic to make both canals profitable. From an economic standpoint I think the pressure of a second canal can lead to problems on both. If a second canal was such a no-brainer it would have been done already OTL.
 
I disagree that anyone in political or military authority in the early 1900s would ever think that. It goes against any realpolitik thinking. And your assumptions rest on that's assuming there is enough traffic to make both canals profitable. From an economic standpoint I think the pressure of a second canal can lead to problems on both. If a second canal was such a no-brainer it would have been done already OTL.

No I don't think its a no brainer but the prompt is that somebody builds it, not would it make any sense to build (because I don't think it does and I think economics would prevent it in the real world). I just don't think there would be a significant lasting effort on behalf of the United States to stop it. Militarily, a second canal benefits the US more than anyone else.
 
No I don't think its a no brainer but the prompt is that somebody builds it, not would it make any sense to build (because I don't think it does and I think economics would prevent it in the real world). I just don't think there would be a significant lasting effort on behalf of the United States to stop it. Militarily, a second canal benefits the US more than anyone else.
Any accurate alternate history will require a WHY, if you want just handwavium and dont believe it's even possible that it would be built then ASB forum is that way. You simply can't expect to properly deduce and predict future events from a PoD that doesn't include what the pod is
 
An easy way to get two canals is an earlier POD. Britain hangs on to the Miskito Coast and starts one in Nicaragua and the Americans eventually start one in Panama due to fear Britain one day having a leg up on them.
 
If the new Nicaraguan Canal is wider than the Panama Canal, a ne w class of larger ships will use it exclusively. After a few decades, the Panama. Canal might deteriorate from under-utilization and be abandoned.
 
If the new Nicaraguan Canal is wider than the Panama Canal, a ne w class of larger ships will use it exclusively. After a few decades, the Panama. Canal might deteriorate from under-utilization and be abandoned.

Unlikely. The first part, sure. Shipbuilders will make a class of vessels just small enough for the larger dimensions. That doesn't mean, however, that the other canal would go unused. Rather, it would be used by all the other ships. They'll keep making smaller ships for the foreseeable future.
 
Unlikely. The first part, sure. Shipbuilders will make a class of vessels just small enough for the larger dimensions. That doesn't mean, however, that the other canal would go unused. Rather, it would be used by all the other ships. They'll keep making smaller ships for the foreseeable future.

Maybe they get in a width war?
 
Maybe they get in a width war?

Why would they? Sure, there will be plenty of ships that make sense to build to maximum specifications. However, there are many reasons to have smaller ships:
- The existing stock will be used for decades
- There are port facilities around the world that are built to handle the current sizes of ships
- There are legitimate uses for not maxing out sizes
- Military ships, by necessity, come in a variety of sizes

Just the first four reasons that occur to me.
 
Why would they? Sure, there will be plenty of ships that make sense to build to maximum specifications. However, there are many reasons to have smaller ships:
- The existing stock will be used for decades
- There are port facilities around the world that are built to handle the current sizes of ships
- There are legitimate uses for not maxing out sizes
- Military ships, by necessity, come in a variety of sizes

Just the first four reasons that occur to me.

Yeah, a width war probably wouldn't happen, and if it did the actual "Battles" (Widening the canal) would likley occour every like 40 years when whoever has the thinner one (by like 6in) widens it and builds some new boats. Then the other one does the same thing.
 
Top