Talk:Panama Canal Zone (1983: Doomsday)

One big question. Was the Canal Zone supposed to be nuked down?. If so, how do we rebuilt it. Since sea shipping has become an important medium of transports post 1983.
 * This also comes from an early version of the Timeline (1991): "After a hard passage to a bombed and nearly unusable Panama Channel the Franklin approaches Continental Europe." Now, how the canal was bombed but still navigable I have no idea.  Maybe engineers blasted a way through it???  But you're right - it's another instance where I think I/we failed to put 2 and 2 together. Benkarnell 16:52, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, I asked because Darién says "Colombia finally made progress in 2008. That year, the League of Nations created a new Canal Zone as one of its first mandate territories. The League gave Colombia primary responsibility for administering the new territory, provided it drop its permanent claim over the zone. A number of people from the Darién Autonomous Region are playing a crucial role in heping to establish League control over the Canal Zone, work that remains incomplete."Possible scenarios I can think of the Canal Zone (Wikipedia):


 * 1) The Canal wasn't nuked. Plausible if Panama City was not nuked. Has you see here, the city and the canal are very close.
 * 2) It was nuked and destroyed both city and Canal (locks and other infrastructure, destroyed, rendered useless or beyond repair). It is not navigational and must be rebuilt .If there was a direct hit to canal itself, forget all what follows and end of story;
 * 3) Only destroyed or heavily damaged the City and damaged the Canal. It could render useless the locks on the Pacific, blocking navigation on one side. Could be repaired in a few years (or decades).
 * 4) Only destroyed or heavily damaged the City and cracked or destroyed both locks. Could be repaired in a few years (or decades).

With the following variations from above (mainly 3 and 4):
 * 1) If both locks where destroyed, the Canal could be flooded, and made a connecting strait to both oceans or obstructed along its water course,
 * 2) If the Pacific lock is destroyed, it could still be navigational up to the next lock.
 * 3) The canal is obstructed or with heavy debris on the Pacific and/or along its course and major removal or repairs needed.

Some ideas for the moment. --JorgeGG 18:15, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * If anyone did not put it together than it was me... I did not want the "Franklin" having to circumnavigate Cape Hoorn, so I simply decided to let the Panama Channel Zone navigable...It was an early stage of the whole TL when I have been working alone practically... did not give it much thought though I got my Bachelor´s Degree in LOGISTICS :):)

But a complicated issue which needs some thinking... (I insist to solve it myself as I did not think about the ramifications.)

So I would solve it by one of these possible scenarios:


 * a)leaving the Channel intact and changing it to NOT being bombed...reason? because the USSR wants to keep the Channel for tactical reasons (giving Cuba and the Soviet allies in the region a way to act freely or occupy it later by conventional meanings.

though this would leave a considerable US military force intact which would have great repercussions on the region and some topics very well explained in articles... --> objective in civil wars around the Channel Zone and the position/involvement of the US forces to it... --> they could decide to cooperate with the (then dictatorship if i remember right?) Panama Government to a "protection for supplies" -Program defending the Zone and an extended area (maybe al of Panama) pledging not to atack any neighbours. THis after some years could leave Panama in a quite important position and becoming at least regionally important...By 1999 (analogous to the US-Panama Treaty on Sovereignty in the region) to scenarios possible:
 * Panama as a the "Bouncer" state guarding a Channel vital and crucial to the post-Doomsday-world playing its own role.
 * Because of strong interest from the Commonwealth (justifying its rights via the ANZUS Treaty) and the SAC to control the passage (maybe even the European Remainder) there might be one or more "Panama Crisis" nearly drifting to war...only to be solved by implementing a form of International Administration...which we somewhere have already mentioned in a LoN administered Channel Zone i think...


 * b) Channel being bombed and unusable: American force wiped out, passage closed, significant problems for international trade. The problem I see is to imagine who might be ablte to rebuilt it, depending on the amount of damage, radiation forget it for the next 20 years?? This would also have effects on the whole region and a LOAD of content written as all is based on nothing in South or Latin America (apart from Cuba) being nuked!! If by definition the damage is not that much (which I would rule out, bomb it or leave it) there might be an engineering race between South America and the Commonwealth to rebuild it as a navigable Panama Channel is crucial and control of it a vital point...giving all the aid convoys, military routings and later restarted commercial relations and trade routes like Celtic Alliance-Punta Delgada-Panama-Tahiti-Commonwealth...

I do not see much more possible scenarios (Panama seezing control by force?? I would doubt, maybe a later war with neighbours but this would contradict a lot of canon work as well). Conventional attack? or a later attack by a Soviet submarine?? I would doubt this would be realistally explicable...

So me personally I would tend to scenario a) as this would have less repercussions (and discussions!!) about well-established and recognized content...and to harmonize it is not unfeasable...a Panama remaining neutral, staying to its borders, keeping out of regional conflicts but focussing itself and the economy. This would also safe my logistics honour in maintaining an important element of world trade.

I am interested in hearing other opinions (what I described is from memory, not researched yet!) or proofs of the channel being "PRiority target in Soviet war plans etc... nontheless I will start working on a Proposal page for Panama (1983: Doomsday)!!

WELL SEEN JORGE !!! Thank you very much. Hope you register soon and become a contributor :)!! --Xi&#39;Reney 18:40, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I think the key question is US military.  They would probably have been the target, and in 1983 they still had a major presence in Panama.  This page gives information on all US bases in Panama, and this map shows where they were.  The most impoortant targets were probably Fort Clayton and Howard Air Base, both right next to the canal on the Pacific side.  One nuke could probably have taken out Clayton, Panama City, and the canal, and done heavy damage to Howard.  Is it remotely possible that a nuclear impact would result in flooding, rather than blockage, of the channel?  The 1991 voyage of the Franklin is a pretty significant plot point, and impacts lots of pages.  Benkarnell

hmm. seems I forgot to read your Darien proposal sorry ben .... :(:(  this would leave a few more variations but cementing the scenario a.... I would prefer not to having the Darién work you did-and which I really like)  being radiactively influenced. So I strictly vote for a non-bombing of the Canal as this is as you mentioned a damn crucial point for a large part of DOOMSDAy, especially the established international relations and the basis for a lot of content written on this... (kicking my ass for not thinking about this...)

I am thinking about a way out...but NOT malfunctioning ICBMs...hmmm --Xi&#39;Reney 18:54, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * We have a complicated situation within Panama (once again sth alike her in Doomsday)... as according to Wikipedia then-strongman in Panama Manuel Noriega -I guess you US citizens like this- just gained power on August 12th 1983...so he was just 1 month in de facto power (not being elected, just head of the armed force" as the world changed...hmmm. This might give a bit of weight to a possible Soviet attack on the Canal...I go on researching to find Soviet intentions on Panama (or Channel ZOnes in general in possible wars between the Superpowers... ) and I think we need to discuss the strategical importance of the US force down there...referring to Cyprus as an example...hmmm...--Xi&#39;Reney 19:08, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of the USSR saving the canal for its own future use, but... no other behavior from Doomsday demonstrated that kind of foresight, did it? DD was kind of an insane burst of destruction.  But if it was spared, conflict between US troops and Panama's government... or even between different factions of Americans and Panamanians... could have gneerated enough refugees to tear apart the Panamanian state and generate refugees (which is the premise for my Darien idea), yet left the canal damaged but basically still serviceable.


 * According to the book I've been using, Noriega didn't have a firm grip on power until 1984. So Panama's power structure was basically unstable.  If there was no nuke, it might be possible for the US troops to take over the country outright.  (For a while.)  Benkarnell 19:18, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit) XiReney, I really do like your "scenario a". It opens up lots of possibilities for tension between ANZ and South America.  And (selfishly) it wouldn't require me to change too much in my Darien page.  Can I suggest, though, that whatever power ended up "winning" in Panama, it wasn't stable?  First a US military junta, then a Panamanian dictator, etc. etc.  The idea of a stable, powerful "bouncer state" in Panama does not seem to fit with what we've been assuming in the region.  There may have been periods where the Canal was not useable because of civil wars.  This would give the ANZ and South America (and, actually, the Soviets) all reason to fight for control of the canal.  And it would also help motivate them to accept LoN arbitration.  After all, all want the canal to be open and working.  But I do think Colombia would get a sort of priveleged role in the Cana Zone, due to its proximity, with ANZ and Soviet officials and forces participating as well.  Maybe even some French as a neutral party that also has an interest in maintaining the canal.  Benkarnell 19:37, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * And you have to consider the possible interest of on the Canal. If theres is war on with  and the rest of Central America, besides controlling the canal for transport reasons, it becomes a military necessity to have control of it before someone else has the same idea. --JorgeGG 19:46, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, so (assuming this will work), our best idea seems to be that Panama was spared a nuclear attack because the Soviets expected to be able to capture it conventionally. That never happened, and basically... for 24-odd years Panama's neighbors began a headless-chicken type of competition for contorl of the canal.  Finally the LoN introduced some kind of compromise solution that was best for everybody.  Now here is the question: How likely is it that the Soviets would not have bombed Panama?  A lot hinges on that question.  Benkarnell 19:58, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * I would go for your unstable Panama...much more attractive for neighbouring and transcontinental potentates...and according to the research I am doing It seems the mmost plausible way having until 1999 or so a fragile country being the playball for ANZC, SAC, Colombia, Costa Rica and whomever you want. I would go for the US Military Junta! The Noriega-led National Guard can not eb a match to what the US have stationed their, not counting what US forces might gather from the region to fall back to the Canal providing a surviving base. (imagine a Carrier Group blockading a least the Atlantic outlet of the Canal!!). This would be kept up al least until the ANZUS order kind of reestablished contact between the dispersed forces...until 1984 or so... but still then I in place of the ANZUS High Command would have a interest in keeping control of the Canal...BUt this kind of brings me to a concern for the famous "Franklin Mission"... if a large US force is still holding ground in Panama, they would for sure be an information HUB in the region... Even with all satellites gone I would guess there was some contact between Australia/Tahiti and Panama resp. the US Forces there...Solution: Panama is a first target for them in the region to go to and regetting supplies.

an intact Panama Canal is a mighty tool in Doomsday...control for the ships passing the channel at the time...

WE NEED A DECISION FIRST BEFORE GOING IN TOO MANY DETAILS: Is the Channel an ICBM target for the Soviets or not?? If there is not a overwhelming and convincing majority against it I call upon the "elderly/admin status" to decide this quickly myself with Ben as this touches the background of 1983: Doomsday (or its flaws, as I admit) and a lot of work currently being done to preserve the integrity of this Timeline.--Xi&#39;Reney 20:07, November 11, 2009 (UTC) So ME casting a strong YES to Panama Canal survival, for the above mentioned reasons. REsponsibility for a flawles and well written explanation lays with me. --Xi&#39;Reney 20:07, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * It's definitely best for the Timeline if the Panama Canal survives... that Franklin voyage is such a turning point.
 * As for the big contradiction, namely: if the US had continuous control of Panama, how to explain this Franklin business? I think we can look at the darker side of human nature to  solve that.  The destruction of the entire USA would have profoundly affected the troops in Panama.  Ideally, they would heroically maintain order in Panama an wait for some kind of US contact.  But there could easily have been divisions and power struggles within the body of US troops.  Maybe when the Gathering Order happened, one faction of the Americans said "We're getting out of here," took everything that wasn't nailed down, and went to Australia.  Those left behind were left to do their own thing, basically becoming caudillo-like rulers themselves.  By 1991 there are other powers active in the region: Colombia, Mexico.  The Franklin may have had a "hard journey" up the canal (as in the timeline), but were able to mostly drive away any attackers.  Now, I still want to know what the Soviets were actually planning in the event of nnuclear war.  Various members here say they've read what their plans were.  Do most printed versions say Panama was a target, or not?  Benkarnell 20:17, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

This is the hard point I... i can not find anyhting in the endless depths of the web which mentions Panama being a primary target or even the US mentioning this apart from what I put in below...I am currently analysing what to find about the military presence in Panama at Doomsday time...

Seems that in general at that time we are looking at about 10.000 american soldiers stationed in the CAnal Zone, even though they were in Kind of reduction since the Panama Canal Treaties fom 1977...Mainly infantry stationed in several forts, including the Jungle combat School, and -most important installation- the US Army South Central regional command and the AFN South network TV and Radio station (important for the later Franklin Mission maybe). The 193 army Brigade, an airborne paratrooper unit something was not very strong until october 1983 I would suppose...

The US installations were mostly assigned to protect the Canal, provide a Intervention unit for some region...not very much pleading for an Soviet ICBM to say good morning...Hard for me to evluate the importance of this regional command or alike...maybe some US guy can shed light on this??

I say this presence ... though significant...would not outweigh a possible tactical importance for the Soviet having an intact Panama Canal at their disposal later on...though leaving it to the US/NATO intact moving their ships through...(though the carriers will NOT fit through the Channel..all assembled invasion scenarios on US soil here in AHwiki place the direction heading via ALaska to the West Coast right?

So I would say let the Soviets plan for the wargame (rememebr we have a SUDDEN TOTAL STRIKE, no conventional kids games month ahead of Doomsday) be with sending a few submarines around the Pacific and Atlantic outlet of the Canal (maybe along with some Cuban kamikaze boat bombers) causing enough trouble and binding enough forces of the NATO in the region to use the assigned ICBM (S) for something else in Europe or Continental United States. --Xi&#39;Reney 20:57, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

HISTORICAL Facts speaking FOR nuclear attack:

Each of these missiles, in short, is capable of striking Washington, D.C., the Panama Canal, Cape Canaveral, Mexico City, or any other city in the southeastern part of the United States, in Central America, or in the Caribbean area - President Kennedy about the CUban Missiles in 1962, naming the Canal as 2nd only to Washington --Xi&#39;Reney 20:16, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

Facts speaking AGAINST nuclear attack: and survival for the CHannel in MY PRIVATE :) key to WW III scenarios in the 80s "The Third World War: The Untold Story" written by the the former NATO HEAD General Sir John Hackett, the Panama Canal is not really mentioned as far as rememeber (I know, this book depicts a mostly conventional war with just one exchange (Birminghan, then Minsk or Kiev), but it explains a lot of strategy, goals etc. of both sides....

REALISM speaking FOR attack: NUCLEAR or CONVENTIONAL


 * I would assume that the Panama Canal is nuked, for the reason of the strategic bonus it would give to the American forces. The Soviet Union would have no hope of capturing it until they were ready to actually ready to invade the United States. That, and the fact that the United States itself is only a couple hundred miles away from its reserves, which could be deployed in days. The Suez Canal is a different situation, since it is within easy access of both NATO and Warsaw Pact forces; therefore, the two are not comparable. With the Soviet Union fighting both China, NATO, fighting in the Middle East, they would NOT plan on taking the Panama Canal, and would wish to deny it to the United States; they would realize that communist forces in Latin America would not be strong enough to take it either. Lahbas 21:10, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * Since this seems to be one of those things that could go either way (there are good arguments for both sides, kind of like the nuclear winter issue), then I move that we declare Panama to NOT be nuked.  This simply makes it easier for us.  I will modify the Darien article accordingly, if that is what we decide.  Benkarnell 21:34, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * I move for Panama to not be nuked. There's something, IMO, for leaving canon largely as it was, because the alternative is to leave the timeline open for constant revision and take the risk of effectively rebooting it every so often. I believe we need to be cautious about revising canon, and make sure we're making changes for the right reasons. Also, is it possible that Russia would have sent a small-yield weapon that would have destroyed the military base and leave the canal (largely) usable?--BrianD 01:30, November 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing nuclear. The base is just about on the canal.  Benkarnell 01:38, November 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, Ben. IF you attack it, then it's done. Panama City would be immediately affected as well, giving the close proximity. Even a small-yield weapon might be enough to render the Canal unusable respectively the occuring chaos would avoid successful repairs. --Xi&#39;Reney 15:26, November 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * I repeat my vote: I declare Panama and the canal NOT being nuked and unusable. Only deciding on historical facts we would be able to go for both...BUt the sake of the TL integrity IMO leaves us not much options.--Xi&#39;Reney 15:26, November 12, 2009 (UTC)