PANAMA CANAL

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27472, 5 October 1954, Page 3

PANAMA CANAL

U.S. DEFENCE OF VITAL AREA NO CHANGE OF POLICY (From a Reuter Correspondent) WASHINGTON. American defence experts are reacting hotly to suggestions that the pulverising power of the hydrogen bomb has rendered the Panama Canal obsolete in world strategy. A spokesman of the United States Navy growled an angry composition answer of “Nuts . . . No comment” when asked if there was truth in reports that the American Defence Department have decided to drastically reshape its Panama defence planning because it feels the canal had been stripped of its strategic worth in this era of single bombs with the estimated explosive power of 40,000,000 tons of T.N.T. I Such reports—appearing in responsible American newspapers since Britain announced revision of her Suez Canal defences in the light of thermonuclear power—suggest that inter-continental flying missiles, bombers and submersible seacraft capable of launching sudden atomic attacks seem to have spelt doom for | the Panama Canal. The thesis put forward in these reports is that a hydrogen bomb, with one searing explosion, could toss an entire lock area of the canal miles up into the air as a cloud of drifting fumes and ashes, leaving the canal below a useless chain of un-navigable waterways. Another thought put forward is that the “new look” concept of warfare, with its crushing hammer blows, means that the fighting would all be over before the Panama Canal could have a decisive, or even significant, military effect. It is no secret that the American defence establishment has taken considered note of Sir Winston Churchill’s appraisal in the House of Commons early in August of old-concept military bases. Sir Winston Churchill then said that the appalling development of the thermonuclear weapons had made plans that were well-found a year ago, “obsolete—utterly obsolete,” Sir Winston Churchill gave an Indication he meant what he said by agreeing to the evacuation of all the 80,000 British troops from the Suez Canal Zone base. British soldiers had garrisoned these bases for 72 years, standing close by the canal to defend it with gunpowder weapons. An American defence authority commented: “We have good information concerning Britain’s new approach to the strategy of defence in the Suez Canal region. But thinking which applies there does not necessariy apply to the Panama Canal. It would be absurd to say that we simply are giving up defence of the Panama regions as a hopeless project in view of hydrogen and atom weapons. As these weapons have developed technologically, so have our defences.” ♦ The official added: “I am not breaching security when I say that American naval power is spread in the Pacific and Atlantic regions. In the event of war we conceivably would want to move units quickly from hemisphere to hemisphere, and we would look to the Panama Canal as the quickest means of doing this.” The Panama Canal is formed of a system of lakes and locks, the latter for “lifting” ships 85ft above sea level up over the backbone of the isthmus of Panama. There are six such locks, each of which would seem to offer a logical target for an atomic attack, according to published speculation. In fact, informed quarters say, in 1939 American defence experts estimated a 2000-pound “conventional” bomb could knock out lock mechanism, and began building a parallel canal for use in case of emergency. But, and it is thought significantly— l the work was dropped in 1942 when 1 the awesome power of nuclear weapons was realised. According to good information, work on the subsidiary canal has never been resumed. The defence of the Panama Canal, 50.5 z statute miles long, for many years has been a point of pride among American military planners. Its installations, although always enshrouded in I security secrecy, are doubtless as modern as generally believed. Observers here believed it reasonable to 1 assume that early warning devices would be |hick around this vital spot in American defence, and that an attacker would have a tough job dealing a knock-out blow. Informed observers believe that it would be accurate to say the United States has at least revised its overall pattern for defence of the Panama Canal, possibly with less emphasis on massive concentrations of armies, sea and air forces.