If that is true, then the maximum stated size of a ship has an enormous
amount of lee way. The Kitty Hawk is 100 feet longer than the maximum
allowed and has a beam that is 30 feet wider than the maximum. I know with
the locks at Sue St. Marie, there isn't that much leeway required for
commercial ships.
Dan M.
Me:
There is. The maximum numbers weren't applied to American military ships
because we owned the canal. The Kitty Hawk is one of our older and smaller
carriers, I believe. But the maximum size numbers, as I recall, were
imposed because of erosion on the Gaillard Cut, not because of the lock
size. I seem to recall that the U.S.S. America once scraped the locks when
it was trying to pass through - as the America is a Nimitz class, and
significantly bigger than the Kitty Hawk, IIRC, I would assume that it can
go through. This of course, also ignores the fact that the surface
combatants in the 7th Fleet could go through under any circumstances, and
they have less in the way of strategic mobility than the carriers, which
are nuclear powered and able to move at really astonishing speeds when they
are pressed. Given the brown-water conditions of the littoral warfare in
the Taiwan straits we'd need to deal with the Chinese, they too would be
important.
All I'm arguing, btw, is that Carter should have negotiated a veto over
control of the canal. That's a bare minimum requirement for American
strategic interests, and hardly much to ask given that _we built it_. If
that's an imposition on Panamanian sovereignty, it's a pretty minor one,
and they can learn to deal with it. Fundamentally Carter didn't understand
that pursuing the national interest is important and is actually the
responsibility of the President of the United States. If he couldn't
handle that concept, he should never have run for President. Even the
pathetically PC _The West Wing_ acknowledged a couple of nights ago that
there are problems with his sort of attitude.
Gautam
