jasonsnow
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 569
Likes: 27
|
Post by jasonsnow on Apr 17, 2018 22:37:44 GMT
The Panama Canal is basically the life source of American maritime trade, and for most nations, it signifies their only trade route for the exercise of commerce and international economy. But what if in the far future - let's say, 2025 - an anti-Western Panama decides to close off the Panama Canal? What would be the consequences?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,856
Likes: 46,001
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 18, 2018 3:51:14 GMT
The Panama Canal is basically the life source of American maritime trade, and for most nations, it signifies their only trade route for the exercise of commerce and international economy. But what if in the far future - let's say, 2025 - an anti-Western Panama decides to close off the Panama Canal? What would be the consequences? The United States would no be happy, a answer i found google say it for me. If the Panama Canal were to close, the major impact would be on the United States. This closure would impact its economy and its military.If the canal were to close, the US military would become less flexible. Ships that were in the Pacific would not be able to move relatively quickly to the Atlantic and vice versa. This might require the country to maintain a larger navy so as to have more ships in each ocean at all times.The bigger impact, however, would be economic. The main thing that would happen is that ground transportation would probably become more important. It is likely that the US would continue to import large quantities of goods from Asia. However, those goods would no longer be able to ship directly to the East Coast through the Panama Canal. Instead, they would presumably have to land at West Coast ports and be shipped by rail and/or truck to destinations across the country.The closing of the Panama Canal would likely not be a huge economic or military blow. It would cause changes and some difficulties, but I do not believe it would be catastrophic.
|
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 1,178
|
Post by raunchel on Apr 18, 2018 5:30:57 GMT
It will certainly have an impact on shipping costs and times, so it's a distirbance, nothing more however. That doesn't mean that the USA and other countries wouldn't be very angry, so we might see a revival of an old American tradition: invading Latin American countries for economic reasons.
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,817
|
Post by James G on Apr 18, 2018 6:25:42 GMT
Liberation, never invasion!
|
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 1,178
|
Post by raunchel on Apr 18, 2018 6:44:48 GMT
Liberation, never invasion! Sorry! They'll be bringing weapons-grade FREEDOM!!!
|
|
jasonsnow
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 569
Likes: 27
|
Post by jasonsnow on Apr 18, 2018 12:12:41 GMT
Liberation, never invasion! Okay. Let's say this new "evil" Panamanian government flirts with Russia and only allows Russian ships through. Even though not economically useful (Russia has direct access to China via land) it would symbolize Russia and Panama are buddies. If the US attempts to "LIBERATE" Panama, that would trigger a war. A WAR AGAINST RUSSIA.
|
|
jasonsnow
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 569
Likes: 27
|
Post by jasonsnow on Apr 18, 2018 12:18:19 GMT
Hell, why not Venezuela? Venezuela can play third wheel in this relationship and land an agreement in which Venezuelan oil can be transported through Russian ships. Venezuela can land an exclusivity deal with China in which China only buys Venezuelan oil. That would prove good for both Russia and China, but really bad for the US. This can start a two vs NATO war. I mean, the US isn't the only one affected by a Panama Canal close-off.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,856
Likes: 46,001
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 18, 2018 13:27:31 GMT
Liberation, never invasion! Okay. Let's say this new "evil" Panamanian government flirts with Russia and only allows Russian ships through. Even though not economically useful (Russia has direct access to China via land) it would symbolize Russia and Panama are buddies. If the US attempts to "LIBERATE" Panama, that would trigger a war. A WAR AGAINST RUSSIA. I think flirting with China is more plausible than flirting with Russia.
|
|
jasonsnow
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 569
Likes: 27
|
Post by jasonsnow on Apr 18, 2018 17:54:29 GMT
Okay. Let's say this new "evil" Panamanian government flirts with Russia and only allows Russian ships through. Even though not economically useful (Russia has direct access to China via land) it would symbolize Russia and Panama are buddies. If the US attempts to "LIBERATE" Panama, that would trigger a war. A WAR AGAINST RUSSIA. I think flirting with China is more plausible than flirting with Russia. Panama will seek protection from the US. Russia can provide that protection.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,856
Likes: 46,001
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 18, 2018 17:57:18 GMT
I think flirting with China is more plausible than flirting with Russia. Panama will seek protection from the US. Russia can provide that protection. How is Russia able to offer protection, think China is a better candidate than Russia in 2025.
|
|
jasonsnow
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 569
Likes: 27
|
Post by jasonsnow on Apr 18, 2018 18:36:31 GMT
Panama will seek protection from the US. Russia can provide that protection. How is Russia able to offer protection, think China is a better candidate than Russia in 2025. China and the US have good relations. When you're an extremist Latin American nation, Russia is your go to place when it comes to anti-US protection.
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,817
|
Post by James G on Apr 18, 2018 18:55:55 GMT
How is Russia able to offer protection, think China is a better candidate than Russia in 2025. China and the US have good relations. When you're an extremist Latin American nation, Russia is your go to place when it comes to anti-US protection. What you say here has merit on the surface but the scale of international relations are far more complicated than that. Public US-China relations give lie to hostility with support for different regimes. Each has overt and covert support for many nations as part of global power games. It is not a black and white issue.
|
|
jasonsnow
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 569
Likes: 27
|
Post by jasonsnow on Apr 18, 2018 19:33:13 GMT
China and the US have good relations. When you're an extremist Latin American nation, Russia is your go to place when it comes to anti-US protection. What you say here has merit on the surface but the scale of international relations are far more complicated than that. Public US-China relations give lie to hostility with support for different regimes. Each has overt and covert support for many nations as part of global power games. It is not a black and white issue. Of course its not. But we're talking about the Panama Canal. Let's say this new Panama has socialist inclinations. What then? The specifics of this new government are your typical, pro-socialist, pro-Russia, Venezuela-like example of a messed-up Latin American regime. That's the real deal here.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,447
Likes: 12,051
|
Post by stevep on Apr 18, 2018 19:47:41 GMT
Damn it. I thought I had posted it but seem to have been lost somewhere. I was asking: a) Are there any legal requirements on Panama preventing it restricting use of the canal, at least in peace time. If not a general one I would be surprised if the US didn't put such a clause in the treaty when they returned the canal zone to Panama, specific to giving the US unrestricted use. That would give the US a clear basis for intervention if the Panamanians tried blocking their use.
b) Could Panama afford to cut use of the canal? It gets a lot of funds from passage fees, albeit from a quick look at the Wiki page for Panama it is less dependent than it used to be. Coupled with possibly economic responses from the US and its allies.
|
|
jasonsnow
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 569
Likes: 27
|
Post by jasonsnow on Apr 19, 2018 12:51:04 GMT
Damn it. I thought I had posted it but seem to have been lost somewhere. I was asking: a) Are there any legal requirements on Panama preventing it restricting use of the canal, at least in peace time. If not a general one I would be surprised if the US didn't put such a clause in the treaty when they returned the canal zone to Panama, specific to giving the US unrestricted use. That would give the US a clear basis for intervention if the Panamanians tried blocking their use. b) Could Panama afford to cut use of the canal? It gets a lot of funds from passage fees, albeit from a quick look at the Wiki page for Panama it is less dependent than it used to be. Coupled with possibly economic responses from the US and its allies. Even if there existed some kind of legal deterrent, I don't think Panama would care. The US officially transferred sovereignty of the canal to Panama in 2000, so it's not like America has a say. In the typical American manner, the US and her allies would impose sanctions on Panama. However, as I said, Panama would be provided by Russia, who has exclusivity on the canal's use. Russia supplies Panama, so the US's sanctions would prove ineffective.
|
|