Talk: Panama Canal Zone (1983: Doomsday)

The fate of the canal: two solutions

This discussion has died a couple of times, almost always after I say something... After all the information on the strength of Soviet weapons and their likely effects on the canal, ISTM that it would be possible for Colombia to repair the damaged locks, and bring the ones not attacked back into working order, on its own before the ANZC could intervene directly. It also seems that Colombia would jump on the opportunity to do so as soon as some sort of stabiliy was restored to its government. Now: how long would that take? If, say, this was a ten-year project begun as soon as the government was in place, that would mean the Canal was up and running by 1995. That's still too late for the Franklin's trip in 1991, though... and that trip has been embedded into lots of other pages.

So there are two possibilities I can see to keep the Panama story realistic, yet preserve the storyline's integrity:

Panama was saved by a malfunctioning missile. We never ever use that as a plot device, but this is the one exception. There realistically would have been some missiles that did not reach their targets. The canal was damaged in the ensuing conflict between American troops and Panamanians, but Colombia was able to take control and do the minor repair work before 1991.
The canal was hit, and Colombia began a long, slow rebuilding process that was not completed until 1995 at the earliest. The Franklin went around the south end of South America in 1991 before crossing to Europe.

Either way, I think Colombian control of the canal is most likely before 2000. Maybe after that (but before the creation of the SAC), other powers like Siberia and the ANZC could pressure Colombia to relinquish some control. Maybe there was even fighting... we're always talking about the tension between ANZC and South America; maybe they had a falling-out over the canal zone. Anyway, I really want to nail down the story in Panama and would like to find some consensus. Benkarnell 02:18, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

I say go with the second option, it was hit. For places such as the Panama Canal we can't have another nuke not hitting its target. What would a round trip really change, other than delaying contact for a few months? And somehow we always use the nuke missing its target for Soviet missiles. I mean, are they really that inaccurate?--Vladivostok 07:21, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't think we have more than one actual malfunctioning missile in the canon: some US naval squadron was spared, I think. All other ones have been suggestions that were rejected. I think it's always a Soviet missile, though, because almost everyone (except you and one or two others) has focused on the western bloc. We have not talked about all the small survivor communities in Russia and Ukraine and Kazakhstan, so the idea of malcunctioning American or Western missiles has not come up.

Anyway, I agree that a trip round the horn is best. XiReney earlier said he did not want that, but IMO it can be done without disrupting the timeline. The arrival of the Franklin would not be a major event in the history of the South American countries because they were doing fine, and knew that they were not the only survivors in the world.

So how is this for a sequence of events:

1983: Colombian government troops establish outposts in Darién. (Canon)
1985: Colombia puts a stable government in place; end of civil war. (Canon)
1986: Explorers scout out the canal zone to determine the feasibility of eventually rebuilding it.
1988: Darién Regional Authority created. (Canon)
1989: Colombia establishes a beachhead near the old Panama City.
1991: Visit of the Franklin, which sails past the coast of the CZ and officially notes that the canal is impassable. Colombian engineers begin work on the lock.
1992: Venezuela and Ecuador join the effort.
1994: A minor scouting mission from Hawaii makes the ANZC aware of the reconstrution project.
1996: The ANZC asserts the USA's treaty rights over the CZ. Under its interpretation of the 1977 treaty, the CZ is permanently neutral, and as the legal successor to the USA, Australia-New Zealand has the right and duty to defend it against external forces, including Colombia.
1997: Siberia makes contact with South America and in a voyage to Cuba. (Canon)
1998: With the locks repaired, the hydrological work begins. (Geting water back into the western segment).
2000: Panama Canal re-opened on a limited basis. A treaty with the French Caribbean islands allows them to use it in return for economic advantages for Colombia and its partners. (The RTFA was founded in the Pacific the previous year, and this paves the way for the Caribbean islands joining, and Guyane deciding to become a neutral country.) The Nimitz explores Panama. Shots are exchanged on the shore, and the flotilla bypasses Colombia and Ecuador.
2001: Commercial traffic again passes through the canal. The ANZC is excluded.
2003: An Oz-Kiwi naval squadron clashes with ships from Colombia, Ecuador, venezuela, and Argentina in the Gulf of Panama. The ANZC ships hold their own but are forced to retreat because their position is not tenable with no allies in the region. (Costa Rica refused to protect them if they landed in the Gulf of Puntarenas.)
2004: SAC formed. Panama's status is a bone of contention. The compromise allows all SA nations free and open use of the canal. The CZ is to be managed by a 5-member committee: Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, and two other SAC nations on rotating terms. The 5 members split the profits and the costs from the canal. ANZ and South American forces again clash in the Gulf; this time, tighter cooperation among the South Americans sends the ANZ ships retreating. A plan to arm small bands of ex-Americans in Panama collapses.
2005: The ANZC sends a heavily armed "trading convoy" to Panama. After a stop off Nicaragua it is joined by a few Siberian ships. Anchored off Panama, the convoy demands free passage through the canal under the terms of the 1977 treaty. They avoid open conflict this time. Both Siberia and ANZ recognize South American control of the canal. ANZ recognizes South America as the legitimate successor to the Panamanian government, not an external threat. However, ANZ does not drop its claim of a permanent right to defend the Canal Zone. The treaty is temporary, however, with a term of only 5 years.
2006: ANZ and South America cooperate to create the Municipal States of the Pacific and the RZA, a sign that relations are improving.
2008: The LoN is formed. The goodwill that this fosters leads the ANZ and SAC to renegotiate the 2005 treaty. Its term is extended to 50 years; the SAC agrees to a version of the provisions of 1977 declaring the canal to be neutral; however, it remains in control of the Canal.

Benkarnell 14:56, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, I like the timeline for the Canal thus far and I'd also be more than willing to incorporate the 2005 involvement of the Siberians into the main USSR article.--Vladivostok 15:21, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

OK. I'll put it into a proposal. I will have to make some minor changes to Darién and Costa Rica's history. If this is done right, it can really shed light on the world order in DD, especially since 2000. Benkarnell 17:03, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

I like Ben's proposal, too. I do wonder, if the person who first began the timeline took into account a nuclear attack on the Canal. I would also ask (for clarification) if the impassability was due to the blast or to remaining radiation. BrianD 17:27, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

The blast damaged the two western locks, which caused the water to drain out toward the Pacific Ocean. Panama City itself flooded and was probably still an inhospitable swamp in 1991. Benkarnell 17:39, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

An excellent article Ben. Very logical and thought out. The only thing I really see as needing work are the visuals. A few pictures would do wonders, after all, nobody likes to stare at a wall of text. Perhaps a photoshopped picture of the ANZC and Siberian ships approaching the CZ? Now, that would be something.--Vladivostok 09:14, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. This article is one, if not the best new DD:1983-article of the last months. Grand Prince Paul II. 15:31, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

i like it! HAD 15:26, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, all of you! Yes, I still think of this as a rough draft. Besides images, it needs some general going over for syntax and all that. But there are also some content issues that are missing. First is the Panamanians themselves. They seem to have very little agency in this version of the story, and are just the victims of Colombian troops or their own guerrillas. That's a side that should be added. Second, there aren't many "characters" in this story: the Presidents of Colombia, Venezuela, and Ecuador, and the prime ministers of the ANZC should be worked into the story once we know their names. I'm going to contact Chlewey, who wrote the original Colombia page (and is Colombian himself) to see if he can add or edit this history to get more of the Colombian perspective on things. (EDIT) Finally, the page would really improve if someone with an engineering background could go over it and add details about the actual reconstruction. This will be a work in progress for a long time, but hopefully it's off to a good enough start! Benkarnell 16:41, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Now you made me commenting after a month on something, Ben...

I agree to all before me, this is an excellent article Ben. (on par with your long-standing Hawaii article,IMO). You draw surprising events putting together a lot of background plot (global history) that was missing until now, fragmented. I really like this proving again you being one with the "global insight and overview" of 1983: Doomsday!

So for my part the bombing of the Panama Canal is accepted...we can not always use some "malfunctioning Soviet missile" to keep what we as Westerners like to keep.

--> just a slight doubt remains: will only 5-10 years after a stated 10 megaton explosion radiation levels subside enough to allow for repair works, and even permanent stationment being feasible? I do not know much about this subject (still) ...

Even though,one sugesstion I have:

Role of the ADC (=NATO-successors before the foundation?) would as an ally of the ANZC have vital interest in a shortcut naval line to this ally...Xi'Reney 20:29, January 31, 2010 (UTC)