stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,381
Likes: 12,001
|
Post by stevep on Apr 19, 2018 14:00:27 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. No, if there is some sort of agreement then the US would have a clear and widely supported mandate to intervene. Also if Panama tried anything as rash as restricting the canal to Russian approved traffic only you would have just about the entire world in full support of the US. Both because of the impact on their own economic interests and the precedent it would set on breaching international treaties.
|
|
jasonsnow
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 569
Likes: 27
|
Post by jasonsnow on Apr 19, 2018 14:08:57 GMT
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. No, if there is some sort of agreement then the US would have a clear and widely supported mandate to intervene. Also if Panama tried anything as rash as restricting the canal to Russian approved traffic only you would have just about the entire world in full support of the US. Both because of the impact on their own economic interests and the precedent it would set on breaching international treaties. I mean, yes, the US does has an excuse, but Panama can still close the canal if they wish. What I'm saying is that the government can just ignore it and close the canal anyways, but there will be consequences later on. Even if the whole world is with the US, the US will have to be careful not to trigger war. The US will have to convince Panama, which could lead to a Venezuela-like diplomatic situation in which Panama denies any foreign intervention and recluses themselves. It's a bomb the US will have to deactivate with upmost care.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,381
Likes: 12,001
|
Post by stevep on Apr 19, 2018 14:16:32 GMT
No, if there is some sort of agreement then the US would have a clear and widely supported mandate to intervene. Also if Panama tried anything as rash as restricting the canal to Russian approved traffic only you would have just about the entire world in full support of the US. Both because of the impact on their own economic interests and the precedent it would set on breaching international treaties. I mean, yes, the US does has an excuse, but Panama can still close the canal if they wish. What I'm saying is that the government can just ignore it and close the canal anyways, but there will be consequences later on. Even if the whole world is with the US, the US will have to be careful not to trigger war. The US will have to convince Panama, which could lead to a Venezuela-like diplomatic situation in which Panama denies any foreign intervention and recluses themselves. It's a bomb the US will have to deactivate with upmost care. I disagree. There is the nuclear option where Panama threatens to destroy important parts of the canal, which could close it for quite a long time, probably at least a few years, although even talking about that would make the government in Panama a lot of enemies, including no doubt some internal ones. However the US would have a legal case for intervention, by armed force if necessary, and overwhelming strength and Putin may sometimes appear a rash idiot but he won't get into a shooting war over an hopeless position trying to defend a government in Panama in such circumstances. Try and make plenty of political capital about it but not an actual war. Nor would any other major power.
|
|
jasonsnow
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 569
Likes: 27
|
Post by jasonsnow on Apr 19, 2018 14:23:33 GMT
I mean, yes, the US does has an excuse, but Panama can still close the canal if they wish. What I'm saying is that the government can just ignore it and close the canal anyways, but there will be consequences later on. Even if the whole world is with the US, the US will have to be careful not to trigger war. The US will have to convince Panama, which could lead to a Venezuela-like diplomatic situation in which Panama denies any foreign intervention and recluses themselves. It's a bomb the US will have to deactivate with upmost care. I disagree. There is the nuclear option where Panama threatens to destroy important parts of the canal, which could close it for quite a long time, probably at least a few years, although even talking about that would make the government in Panama a lot of enemies, including no doubt some internal ones. However the US would have a legal case for intervention, by armed force if necessary, and overwhelming strength and Putin may sometimes appear a rash idiot but he won't get into a shooting war over an hopeless position trying to defend a government in Panama in such circumstances. Try and make plenty of political capital about it but not an actual war. Nor would any other major power. Okay, but... what if the canal is blown up? What if this government is crazy enough to detonate a nuclear warhead in the canal, simply as a last-shot attempt to damage the US before being overthrown? I understand there's little chance that would happen, but let's say it did. What then?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,710
Likes: 45,793
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 19, 2018 17:16:51 GMT
I disagree. There is the nuclear option where Panama threatens to destroy important parts of the canal, which could close it for quite a long time, probably at least a few years, although even talking about that would make the government in Panama a lot of enemies, including no doubt some internal ones. However the US would have a legal case for intervention, by armed force if necessary, and overwhelming strength and Putin may sometimes appear a rash idiot but he won't get into a shooting war over an hopeless position trying to defend a government in Panama in such circumstances. Try and make plenty of political capital about it but not an actual war. Nor would any other major power. Okay, but... what if the canal is blown up? What if this government is crazy enough to detonate a nuclear warhead in the canal, simply as a last-shot attempt to damage the US before being overthrown? I understand there's little chance that would happen, but let's say it did. What then? Do you hate the Panama Canal that you want to nuke it with a weapon that is very hard to get.
|
|
jasonsnow
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 569
Likes: 27
|
Post by jasonsnow on Apr 19, 2018 18:14:40 GMT
Okay, but... what if the canal is blown up? What if this government is crazy enough to detonate a nuclear warhead in the canal, simply as a last-shot attempt to damage the US before being overthrown? I understand there's little chance that would happen, but let's say it did. What then? Do you hate the Panama Canal that you want to nuke it with a weapon that is very hard to get. NO! It's just for the sake of the scenario If Panama fells desperate enough they can always get a single Russian nuke and detonate the canal. But nothing evil, just historic supposition.
|
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 1,178
|
Post by raunchel on Apr 19, 2018 18:44:55 GMT
Do you hate the Panama Canal that you want to nuke it with a weapon that is very hard to get. NO! It's just for the sake of the scenario If Panama fells desperate enough they can always get a single Russian nuke and detonate the canal. But nothing evil, just historic supposition. It would actually be very hard to damage the canal with a nuke. You could knock out some locks of course, but it's rather hard to blow up a canal. It would be fairly quick to get back into action, and I don't see the Panama government survive for long.
|
|
jasonsnow
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 569
Likes: 27
|
Post by jasonsnow on Apr 19, 2018 18:51:27 GMT
NO! It's just for the sake of the scenario If Panama fells desperate enough they can always get a single Russian nuke and detonate the canal. But nothing evil, just historic supposition. It would actually be very hard to damage the canal with a nuke. You could knock out some locks of course, but it's rather hard to blow up a canal. It would be fairly quick to get back into action, and I don't see the Panama government survive for long. It's a last ditch attempt, you know. Just plant the nuke in a strategic place (like, the locks or the command center). The physical damage will be nothing compared to the radioactive fallout that will render the site uninhabitable. It will be a pain fixing that. We're talking about the most powerful weapon known to man!
|
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 1,178
|
Post by raunchel on Apr 19, 2018 18:56:11 GMT
It would actually be very hard to damage the canal with a nuke. You could knock out some locks of course, but it's rather hard to blow up a canal. It would be fairly quick to get back into action, and I don't see the Panama government survive for long. It's a last ditch attempt, you know. Just plant the nuke in a strategic place (like, the locks or the command center). The physical damage will be nothing compared to the radioactive fallout that will render the site uninhabitable. It will be a pain fixing that. We're talking about the most powerful weapon known to man! Fallout isn't actually that bad. Especially not if you're basically nuking a but of water. Now, of you somehow magicked the Russians into giving a load of nukes it's different, if only because then you can just do so much damage to your country that you can just call is the Panama Wasteland. If you want to be really mean, you would be better served with a whole bunch of all kinds of different mines. With them, you can just do the worst thing you can do to shipping, drive up insurance rates.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,381
Likes: 12,001
|
Post by stevep on Apr 19, 2018 21:22:05 GMT
Actually from what I know fallout from a water/ground based explosion would be somewhat worse than an air burst. Which since it would be falling over Panama is likely to make the regime very unpopular if it started moving towards such a tactic. Furthermore I can't see Russia being involved in giving a non-nuclear power such weapons as that is seriously illegal, apart from deeply contrary to their deeply embedded desire for control.
As I understand it, although this information is a couple of decades old if you blow the dam that controls the water supply used for the locks it would take some time, i.e. several years to rebuild the dam and fill up the basin behind it. Since its not a sea level canal this would stop any use of the canal. This would be a lot more effective than trying to obtain a nuclear weapon and wouldn't irradiate a chunk of your country.
|
|
jasonsnow
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 569
Likes: 27
|
Post by jasonsnow on Apr 19, 2018 22:07:20 GMT
It's a last ditch attempt, you know. Just plant the nuke in a strategic place (like, the locks or the command center). The physical damage will be nothing compared to the radioactive fallout that will render the site uninhabitable. It will be a pain fixing that. We're talking about the most powerful weapon known to man! Fallout isn't actually that bad. Especially not if you're basically nuking a but of water. Now, of you somehow magicked the Russians into giving a load of nukes it's different, if only because then you can just do so much damage to your country that you can just call is the Panama Wasteland. If you want to be really mean, you would be better served with a whole bunch of all kinds of different mines. With them, you can just do the worst thing you can do to shipping, drive up insurance rates. What do you mean "fallout isn't that bad"? You wouldn't be detonating it on water, obviously. You would be detonating it on land, close enough to the canal, but also close enough to other buildings. Fallout is the very reason the US and the USSR abstained from war: the explosion itself wasn't so bad. The real killer is the nuclear winter that would render the area unfit for living. By making the canal a poisonous shell of ruin and radioactivity, you'll deny the US any access to it for quite some time. Fallout is the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse. If you have a desperate, radical enough Panama, why not?
|
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 1,178
|
Post by raunchel on Apr 20, 2018 6:19:49 GMT
Fallout isn't actually that bad. Especially not if you're basically nuking a but of water. Now, of you somehow magicked the Russians into giving a load of nukes it's different, if only because then you can just do so much damage to your country that you can just call is the Panama Wasteland. If you want to be really mean, you would be better served with a whole bunch of all kinds of different mines. With them, you can just do the worst thing you can do to shipping, drive up insurance rates. What do you mean "fallout isn't that bad"? You wouldn't be detonating it on water, obviously. You would be detonating it on land, close enough to the canal, but also close enough to other buildings. Fallout is the very reason the US and the USSR abstained from war: the explosion itself wasn't so bad. The real killer is the nuclear winter that would render the area unfit for living. By making the canal a poisonous shell of ruin and radioactivity, you'll deny the US any access to it for quite some time. Fallout is the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse. If you have a desperate, radical enough Panama, why not? Which is exactly why any place where nukes have been tested is completely inaccessible. But then again, that doesn't really seem to be the case. I won't claim to be an expert where atomic weapons are concerned, but based on what I've read, they're not actually that awful in the area they're used in. A nuclear exchange is different, then it would be tens of thousands, and even then, the concept of a nuclear winter remains suspect. The reason they weren't used instead is that it really is a weapon of mass destruction, and you really don't want to take the chance of getting them launched at you. Added to that, it generally isn't that politically acceptable to destroy whole cities. Added to that, the nuclear powers haven't really been in situations where it would have been of any use, especially not against opponents with friends who have similar weapons. The only way to really knock out the canal.for some time is through the locks and the like. And I at least wouldn't be surprised if the Americans just so happen to have plans for that kind of thing. They will certainly have made some during the cold war, because it certainly is a target that I would hit in a major war with them.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,381
Likes: 12,001
|
Post by stevep on Apr 20, 2018 10:10:42 GMT
There are two basic ways of increasing the fall-out from a nuclear explosive. One is by some forms of cladding for the bomb which generates long last radiation, cobalt probably being the most notorious. The other is if liquid or solid matter is drawn into the fire-ball, which much of it can be irradiated. [Air is less important since it is a lot less dense]. A ground burst, which would be almost certain to occur in a Panama controlled bomb as I doubt it would have an ability to launch it high, would drawn in a lot of material and as a result have a high level of fallout. Air bursts are actively more destruction again ordinary targets, with fireball, blast and other such effects affecting a wider area. Ground bursts are primarily used against hard targets, such as missile silos for a counter-force strike or if your insane enough to want to generate more fall-out! Or in this case if you can't use the weapon at high altitude.
I can't see such a tactic being practical for Panama even if they managed to get control of one or more nuclear weapons. The blast damage and fallout would seriously damage the most developed and populated region of Panama - i.e. along the canal itself, even if it was far enough away from the two cities at either end of the canal that they 'only' suffered minor damage. You would need a ruler who was a total egomaniac sociopath to order such a strike and no one in the chain of command willing to disobey orders that would ruin their country for the foreseeable future.
Far simpler as I say to use non-nuclear means that only hits your country economically, as a result of the loss of the canal, and doesn't make parts of it a radioactive wasteland and also a political pariah.
|
|
jasonsnow
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 569
Likes: 27
|
Post by jasonsnow on Apr 20, 2018 11:39:00 GMT
I can't see such a tactic being practical for Panama even if they managed to get control of one or more nuclear weapons. The blast damage and fallout would seriously damage the most developed and populated region of Panama - i.e. along the canal itself, even if it was far enough away from the two cities at either end of the canal that they 'only' suffered minor damage. Exactly. That's the radical view I have for Panama, They see the West as the enemy and will do anything - even sacrifice themselves - to make sure they don't exploit what they believe is rightfully theirs. However, that's more fantasy than reality. In a more plausible note, is there an effective way to really close off the canal without involving nukes?
|
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 1,178
|
Post by raunchel on Apr 20, 2018 15:54:47 GMT
It depends on how long you want it to be closed. Big holes in the ground are pretty hard to permanently disable.
|
|