Forces: Maritime Missile Madness
February 2, 2025: Russia is at war in Ukraine and China is making moves against Taiwan and in the South China Sea. In both cases the U.S. Navy is expected to deal with these situations if they escalate to the point where they threaten American interests. Currently the U.S. Navy consists of 475 ships. China has 400 and Russia 370. While the Chinese fleet is new and growing, China has no experience or tradition of naval warfare beyond its own coast. China did not start a modern, oceanic fleet until the 1980s. While China has not fought a major naval war with modern ships, between 1949, when the communist took control of China and the late 1980s, Chinese forces destroyed over 600 hostile ships and aircraft. Two thirds of those losses were ships, albeit small ones. While the U.S. Navy has for decades maintained a force of at least a dozen large aircraft carriers, China only began introducing carriers in the last decade. China currently has three carriers, none of them as capable as the American carriers. China is working towards U.S. style large nuclear powered carriers but not expected to reach that goal until the 2030s or 40s.
The Americans also lead the world in submarine warfare with a current force of 51 nuclear attack submarines and fourteen SSBNs or nuclear powered ballistic missile carrying subs. Eventually there will be more than 60 Virginia-class nuclear attack submarines.
FYEO

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, February 03, 2025 - 04:39 pm: Edit

Alan, you can read into anything, anything you want to.

I did not say that I believed It, I often hear things in the media that I have a hard time accepting. That is when I do my own due diligence.

In this case, it appears that the increase in fees jumped up in the last quarter of 2024. There are several articles that referenced the increase fees, but dit not specify individual rates assessed to any specific vessel.

A few articles did list a specific “tag line” that indicated that the average consumer paid “$10.00 to $15.00” more for products as a result of the fee increases.

If true, (given the size of the U.S. population) the increased fees had to be large, significant and material.

But if you want to dismiss it based on who it was who brought up the topic, feel free.

Of more import, it might be relevant to ask what the government of Panama did with the huge increased revenues that they got since September 2024. They certainly did not use it to modernize the canal, or fix the water levels in the lakes that supply the canal.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, February 03, 2025 - 04:54 pm: Edit

I don't "... want to dismiss it based on who it was who brought up the topic..."; but I am at least tempted to dismiss it because after reading the Panama Canal Commission's "REGULATIONS FOR THE ADMEASUREMENT OF VESSELS TO ASSESS TOLLS FOR USE OF THE PANAMA CANAL", as well as the Maritime Tariff List, the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) - Modifications to Maritime Services Tariffs, and the Notes on Tolls Tariffs & Maritime Services, I can find nothing that supports the claim that Americans pay higher tolls than similarly situated vessels flagged to other powers.

Fee increases per se are irrelevant ot the question of whether the Panama Canal Authority descriminates against American ships or passengers.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, February 03, 2025 - 05:00 pm: Edit

One interesting thing I did learn, that I had not previously known, was that admission into the locks is not on a "first come - first served" basis. The Panama Canal Commission auctions off slots for entry. So a ship in a hurry, backed by someone with deep pockets, may bid a large amount so they will get priority handling, rather than having to wait around for several days until a slot is available.

So American-flagged ships may have the money to bid on priority handling, which does raise the total cost of passage. But it's not discriminatory against the U.S. specifically. Any ship can take advantage of this but we have the money do so more often.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, February 03, 2025 - 08:05 pm: Edit

Alan, I suggest you need to understand some background issues.

You are focusing on very minute details, and missed the forest of trees. 😄

First, the Panama Canal is not being managed as well as it was when the U.S. had control.

For various reasons, there is a water shortage in the lakes the supply water to operate the dam locks.
as a result, along with raising prices, the bureaucratic apparatus has reduced the number of ships that pass thru the canal.

This is clearly a rationing of transits.

Secondly, one of the parts you passed over (perhaps you consider it a non essential component, or something) was the surcharge procedure. It is not. There are several articles that I found using google that explains that ships with hazardous materials,chemicals, volatile liquids etc. are assessed a survharge.

THE COMPANIES that ship such materials all have virtually abandoned using the Panama Canal siting that it is cheaper to route the ships around South America than it costs to pay the fees and surcharges to use the Panama canal.

Third, in general, such cargos tend to come from third world nations that have extraction mining or petroleum resources, and they often ship such cargos to developed nations (such as the United States). Depending on where such cargos originate, determines what route is used to deliver said cargo to a first or second world nation that possessed the industrial infrastructure to use such a cargo.

And many of the places that fit that description, are in the U.S.

Fourth, there is a list of the most corrupt nations in the world. The U.S. is not the lowest ranked Corrupt nation, but if you were to take the time to look, I think you will find Panama and a number of south snd central american nations rank higher.

You look at the Panama Regulations, expecting fair treatment to all national customers. Given the Corruption indigenous to the region, it might be giving the Panamanian government too much credit.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, February 03, 2025 - 09:04 pm: Edit

Well, since I seem to be missing the forest, let me be clear about what I was responding to. From your 9:50 AM post this morning:

---

Quote:

Nor did it announce any change in pricing. (U.S. ships are charged significantly more than other nations vessels are charged for using the canal.)

---

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, February 03, 2025 - 09:24 pm: Edit

By the way,

---

Quote:

THE COMPANIES that ship such materials all have virtually abandoned using the Panama Canal siting that it is cheaper to route the ships around South America than it costs to pay the fees and surcharges to use the Panama canal.

---

---

Quote:

Ships may be charged higher rates depending on what they are carrying (oil or chemicals, for example).

---

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, February 03, 2025 - 10:36 pm: Edit

Mexico has agreed to send 10,000 troops to the US border to block migrants and fentanyl. The "wait in Mexico" camps will be opened.

Canada has agreed to name a fentanyl czar, form a joint task force to fight border crossing/smuggling, and enter into talks on trade balance issues.

Trump suspended the tariffs 30 days while the deals are worked out.

Panama has agreed to expel China from the Canal area and review what charges are made to US ships.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, February 03, 2025 - 10:46 pm: Edit

Alan, sorry that you are offended.

That was not my intention.

And again, you confuse total traffic thru the Panama Canal with the small fraction of ships carrying hazardous materials. The point you missed, is that a large percentage of the Hazardous material shipping have decided to take the long route to avoid using the canal.

I do not have exact numbers, but the article I was siting did state that the the majority of the hazardous materials freighters avoid the canal.

Make of it, what you will.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, February 03, 2025 - 11:40 pm: Edit

Jeff,

Fair enough. I did in fact think your "virtually abandoned" comment referred to canal transits generally but now see you were referring specifically to hazardous materials carriers. My mistake.

And I too am sorry if I was too thin skinned.

But I would still like to know more about where that information comes from. It just seems to me... counterintuitive... that someone would take a ship carrying hazardous materials through the Drake Passage just to save a few bucks on canal fees. Around Cape Agulhas, maybe. The weather there is nowhere near as severe as the weather around Cape Horn and in the Drake Passage. And would shippers (at least, scrupulous ones) really want to risk the latter with a hazardous cargo? Not impossible, certainly; but... strange...

But in any case (and I regret I am being a broken record hear), I still don't see how this supports the claim that Panama is charging the U.S. specifically unfair rates. This claim of discriminatory pricing against the U.S. seems to be thrown around a lot, but with very little supporting evidence.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, February 04, 2025 - 02:49 am: Edit

It is entirely possible, Alan, that you just haven’t done that much analysis of a complicated issue. You really have no idea whether or not you even found all of the data. Because you found some data on how the fees are calculated doesn’t mean there aren’t other fees, factors, penalties, and discounts. I could do no better. Did you check how much they charge US military ships? Did you find actual dollar numbers for amounts actually paid? Did you account for ships which didn’t use the canal because of unfair fees?

You remind me of that high school student who used every bit of data he could find to calculate how many soda straws were used in the entire USA. The answer he came up with was taken as fact and flashed around the media at the speed of light. It dominated the discussion in Congress and the media for months. It was quoted on TV more than a thousand times. Every news source repeated his research and came up with the same answer. Of course, it turned out that his numbers were wrong by 30% or more.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, February 04, 2025 - 07:57 am: Edit

SVC,

I don't disagree with what you've said. In fact, I said the same thing myself. Note, for example, my 9:04 PM post from yesterday, in which I explicitly aknowledged my lack of expertise on the subject matter, and that I might be missing something.

But how does this provide positive evidence that the rates are unfair? You asked whether I checked how much the PCC charges U.S. military ships. I did, in fact, check how much the Panama Canal Authority's^* "Maritime Tariffs List" says military vessels of all nations are charged. It may be that the Panama Canal Administration is charging U.S. warships (and only U.S. warships) a higher rate than this. But is there any positive evidence that they are actually doing this? If there were such evidence, it would support the claim of unfair fees. But so far, all I have seen on this matter is unsupported claims by political entities that this is really happening.

As far as ships not using the canal because of unfair fees is concerned: no I didn't account for that nor do I know how to do so. In fact, I don't know how to confirm why any particular ship didn't use the canal. The shipping company might claim it is due to unfair fees, but is that the real reason? Suppose that some relatively small company cannot afford to bid for transit slots against giants like Maersk or Hapag-Lloyd and must therefor expect an extended wait brfore transit is available. Said owner may regard this as "unfair", even if all charges are being applied in an evenhanded way.


^*Last night in this discussion I referred to the "Panama Canal Commission". This was an error, which I regret. The PCC was the canal authority back when I was stationed in Panama in the late 1980s and early 1990s. But the canal is now managed by the "Panama Canal Authority".

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, February 04, 2025 - 08:01 am: Edit

IIRCD the Panamanians themselves did a major improvement to the Canal not long ago.

An additional set of locks and water saving features in the locks (Progressive water storage)

Panama has little control over how much rain water is in the lakes.

I still say the US should build a canal on the US Border wide enough for 2 supercarriers to pass each other. Blocks migrants, drugs and lets us just ignore Panama. And I wouldn't use a passel of shady contractors for most of it; I would have the Army Corps of Engineers, Seabees, & Airforce Construction guys do it. It would be a giant training site.

By the way, the vast majority of "illegals" overstay their visas; not sneak across the border. The vast majority of drugs illegally imported come via ports of entry (SHipping containers, hidden in cars, etc) and not via someone's backpack.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, February 04, 2025 - 09:14 am: Edit

The evidence of unfair rates, if it exists, is buried in data we don’t have. It is up to the Trump Admin to make the case, but you have proven only that no one on this BBS is qualified to analyze the data, not that Trump is wrong.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Tuesday, February 04, 2025 - 11:05 am: Edit

Mike: there is no practical way to "build a canal on the US Border" -- not one wide enough for two canoes, let alone two supercarriers. There are these interesting and annoying things called "mountains" in the way along the southern borders of New Mexico, Arizona, and California.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, February 04, 2025 - 11:21 am: Edit

China has allowed the 10% tariff to take effect Trump says if they do not stop making fentanyl precursors and cut the trade surplus he will increase the tariff to 25% or more. China imposed a 15% tariff on US energy. China is sending fentanyl precursors into a Mexican port that it controls. Trump wants the port back under Mexican control, but Mexico is making billions there and cannot afford to lose it. Fentanyl is fifty times stronger than heroin and the largest cause of death among Americans 18-45, killing about 73,000 a year. China is now running the money laundering operations for the cartels using encrypted systems the US cannot crack.

Netanyahu is meeting Trump to discuss the ceasefire, Iran, normalizing ties to Saudi Arabia, arms sales, and financial aid. He is the first foreign leader to meet Trump since inauguration. Trump reportedly doesn’t like or trust Netanyahu. A released US hostage said she was amazed that the Palestinian people are all radicalized and support Hamas.

Secretary of State Rubio visited El Salvador. That country offered to house any deported criminals in its own jails. They would also be willing to operate a for profit prison for the worst US citizen criminals. Reports said that Guantanamo would be used to house the worst criminals rather than sending them home to governments that might release them.

Secretary Rubio said USAID did nor recognize any government authority to control what foreign aid programs they give tax money to.

Canada declared Mexican cartels as terrorist organizations.

Mexico sent troops to the border.it is unclear if the troops would be effective and incorruptible. Reports said the cartels are planning attacks on US border guards including ambushes, sniper rifles, and kamikazi drones. The number of aliens trying to enter the US has dropped like a rock and those who did appear were denied entry until they face a judge.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, February 04, 2025 - 11:33 am: Edit

SVC,

I agree. But I also think that Trump has, at least so far, not made the case; and that it is appropriate for citizens to ask what the evidence is.^* I think that is especially true when a proposed course of action is likely to affect our relationships with other countries.

I might not be able to properly analyze the evidence even if I had it. But presumably, if the evidence were widely available, specialists in maritime commerce, or experts who understood the canal's operations on a very detailed level, could analyze it and either support or refute the administrations claims (or explain rhe evidence was ambiguous, if that were to turn out to be the case).


^*I realize this may not always be possible. For example, the evidence supporting a proposed course of action may be based on classified information. But for the Panama case, I think we (the citizens) should definitely want to see more evidence than has so far been provided.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, February 04, 2025 - 11:37 am: Edit

I SAID THAT, Alan. You used 15 times as many words to say what I said with eleven.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, February 04, 2025 - 11:53 am: Edit

Mike G: not quite the nuance. You are counting “flunked immigration hearings” as “visa overstays”. The overstays amount to an average of 700,000 per year including flunkies and “tourists”. (Curiously, Irish make up a notable chunk of tourists.) There are 1.7 million illegal aliens in the US who literally sneaked across the border, were seen on camera, and got away, over the last four years. ALL are a problem that needs to be solved.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, February 04, 2025 - 03:19 pm: Edit

Alan,

Be fair.

You are asking SVC and I to literally “prove a negative”.

That, is impossible, can’t be done.

Asking how many ships transit the Panama Canal? No problem. The data exists and is posted.

Asking for how many ships Don’t use the canal for any reason, is not published.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Tuesday, February 04, 2025 - 03:23 pm: Edit

All Alan asked for was your sources. If you have none, and it is your opinion, simply say so.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, February 04, 2025 - 06:17 pm: Edit

ADM.

Initially.

Then he went farther.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, February 04, 2025 - 06:45 pm: Edit

This is the official list of what Trump did in hid first 14 days. Love it, hate it, dispute it, as you will.

Brought HAMAS to the table on a ceasefire and hostage release.

Declared a national emergency on the southern border.

Deported thousands of dangerous criminals and hundreds of other illegals.

Signed the Laken Riley Act. This law mandates the federal detention of illegal immigrants who are accused of theft, burglary, assaulting a law enforcement officer, and any crime that causes death or serious bodily injury.

Sent military to the southern border. Resumed construction of the border wall.

Reduced the number of people showing up at the southern border and trying to enter by 95%.

Got Mexico to send its own troops to the border to fight fentanyl smuggling. Got Canada to send police to the border to stop smuggling. Designated drug cartels as terrorists which unleashed a lot of government power.

Got Panama to break deal with China.

Ended catch and release, which reduced the number of aliens without legitimate reasons to enter by 90% and ended the “failure to leave” problem. He reinstated remain in Mexico.

Unleashed American energy production and cut stupid regulations which will reduce inflation in a few months. He declared a national energy emergency to support the above.

Purged DEI.

Ordered the Army Corps of Engineers to release water from two reservoirs in Northern California to the aqueducts to Southern California.

Killed the electric vehicle mandate which was going to be impossible to meet and drive up the cost of vehicles and everything else.

Pulled out of the Paris Climate Accords.

Answered 12 times as many press questions in two weeks as the previous president answered in two years.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Wednesday, February 05, 2025 - 03:11 am: Edit

To the list can be added that he ordered the army corps of engineers to release water from two dams in Central California. ADDED

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Wednesday, February 05, 2025 - 07:53 am: Edit

"Palestinian people are all radicalized and support Hamas."

Umm, if you oppose HAMAS you get thrown off a roof. I think there are plenty that are just keeping their mouths shut. Sure there are plenty of supporters, but all is a bit of an overstatement.

THAT IS WHAT THE RELEASED US HOSTAGE SAID, WHICH WAS THE POINT. SHE SPENT 15 MONTHS GETTING TO KNOW THEM.