Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld.
If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works.
To use all features of this page, you should consider registering.
Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process.
If you are already registered, please login here.
Mexican canal
More of a hope that any Second War of the Pacific won't start until after the Mexico Canal is built than anything else.
I'd say that there is little chance of it being finished before 1950. Probably even later if it hasn't already been cancelled.
Really, what's the holdup? I mean, I'll have conquered Panama by then!
You won't of conqoured Panama, it is owned by Iberia & they have some powerful freinds i.e GB, Italy
[It was a joke. I've done nothing but joke this morning. I'm in a good mood. However, thanks for letting me know who Iberia's allies are.]
The holdup would be trying to dig for 100s of miles through solid rock.
[No rivers to take advantage of down in the istmas near Guatemala?]
The Second War of the Pacific, will more than likely begin in 1932, has the historical Chaco War did.
No rivers to take advantage of. Just digging a very long trench.
10 to 12 years, with more nations than historical helping out. No need to dig when you can blast.
The scale of the project is larger than the Panama project and there are rivers and lakes to take advantage of, otherwise the project wouldn't have even been considered in real life as it was.
No need to occupy Panama when you can cut it off, in many ways, should someone get feisty.
There are rivers either side of the continental divide and a rather low pass through the mountains. That will be the main obstacle where heavy excavation will be needed. There were serious proposals for a maritime railway across the isthmus prior to the decision to build in Panama or Nicaragua. Since both of those are Iberian in Wesworld, this was the only viable option. A guaranteed free route between the Atlantic and Pacific is essential to the US Navy. Without it I doubt the US would be too keen on staying in the treaty system. Having that route in the hands of a former and potentially future foe is not acceptable to the US long term.
10 to 12 years? Ha
Rivers and lakes aren't normally navigable to ships that are 300 x 50 x 14m. They seem like some reasonable dimensions. You'll need to dredge all those rivers and most of the lakes. Widen and straighten the rivers. Even with just a 1km stretch of canal that needs building, its still 0.7 cu km of earth to move.
Construction of the 77 kilometers of the Panama canal spans a total of 34 years from 1880 to 1914 (1880-1889 by the French and 1904-1914 by the US) mainly due to all the problems they encountered.
It took 10 years (1859-1869) to construct the Suez canal (163 kilometers).
I would think that it is much harder to construct the Mexican Canal than those other two canals. Perhaps today it can be done in 10-12 years, but in the 1920s/1930s I think you're looking at 25 years, perhaps even more.
Your not talking about a single nation doing the work here. Mexico is one of the most populous nations in the Central/South American region. You also have three major industrial nations (U.S., Atlantis and France) and Chile lending workers to the project and the Philippino's may be in on things IIRC. Ultimately the project would draw further work from other country's in the region.
The only possibly unrealistic portion of this project I can see is the multi-national aspect of the story.
I don't see anything wrong with it. In the end, it's an anti-Iberia project, and that would be the unifying factor.
For some nations maybe, but for others like the U.S. and Atlantis its a security issue while Mexico could use the economic boost.
That is basically how Chile sees this project. Hurting the old double crown without having to do anything to Iberia directly. Plus this gives Chile a source of income if nitrate explosive are used heavily rather than synthetics.
What about the Aussies?
Australia is also in. As I see the American route as the best route to GB, I want to have options in case of war.
Australia wouldn't nessassarily have to be part of the project to get access through the canal as it will be open to commerce, thats one of the main reasons its being built.
That being said its CanisD's storyline so its up to him who's involved really so you won't see any stiff rejection coming from my dirrection.
As I see the American route as the best route to GB
WHAT? Its far shorter to go via Suez and there are lots of British territories and ports along the way. I could understand you having security concerns about India or SAE, but sending ships the other way makes no sense.
Wes. It takes one man 1 hour to scoop all the water out of a hole. How long does it take 1000 men? (clue: not 3.6s)
Chile doesn't look at it as a quick project, but a potential long term source of income. Be it 12 years or 32 years.
WesWorld »
The SIM »
The Meeting Place »
Quoted
More of a hope that any Second War of the Pacific won't start until after the Mexico Canal is built than anything else.
Tuesday, April 16th 2024, 9:29am
Go to the top of the page
