U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-28-2010, 10:33 AM
 
1,809 posts, read 2,421,240 times
Reputation: 1488

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by justme02 View Post
Wouldnt the government want to save the 10 largest Metro areas to maximize the amount of lives that would be saved?

In a situation like that, it would not matter who the media capital or the oil capital is. It would be about saving the most lives possible.
Better question is, why would the government have to choose? Couldn't they save all of us?

I mean, if they had some sort of magical defense shield against a nuclear strike (they don't), then why would they have to choose ten metro areas? Couldn't they deploy the defense shield over the whole country?

Granted, the scenario was far-fetched to begin with, but it seems like in the event of a nuclear attack, the government isn't going to be prioritizing who to save and who not to save. We're either all going to be screwed, or they're going to have a defense plan in action that's designed to save everybody....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-28-2010, 10:49 AM
 
Location: Willowbend/Houston
13,403 posts, read 20,277,910 times
Reputation: 10181
Quote:
Originally Posted by choosing78 View Post
Denver has the highest number of federal agencies other than Washington DC as well as one of the homes of the US Mint. It's middles of the country location makes it safer (in military terms) to protect than coastal cities. I've heard it speculated that Denver is one of the "alternate" capitals in case of catastrophe.

My list:
DC
NYC
LA
San Francisco
Denver
Boston
Atlanta
Philadelphia
So Denver is more important and worthy of saving than Chicago, Dallas, Miami, or Houston?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2010, 10:51 AM
 
Location: The City
21,945 posts, read 30,797,404 times
Reputation: 7489
Quote:
Originally Posted by justme02 View Post
So Denver is more important and worthy of saving than Chicago, Dallas, Miami, or Houston?

From both a strategic and tactical perspective Houston would have to be up there - Oil is needed to fuel the defense dept
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2010, 10:55 AM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
3,939 posts, read 3,893,286 times
Reputation: 4427
Quote:
Originally Posted by justme02 View Post
So Denver is more important and worthy of saving than Chicago, Dallas, Miami, or Houston?

Of course not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2010, 10:56 AM
 
Location: Bothell, Washington
2,680 posts, read 4,456,862 times
Reputation: 3622
Quote:
Originally Posted by japster28 View Post
Des Moines (I think the pres had to hide somewhere in Iowa during 9/11 )
Actually, It's Omaha, Nebraska where the President had to go on 9/11, and would go any time in the future if we were under serious attack. The bunker is under ground at the Strategic Air Command at Offutt Air Force Base, just outside of Omaha.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2010, 11:15 AM
 
4,675 posts, read 7,806,305 times
Reputation: 1230
Here is my list, subject to change:

Least obvious choices:
Hampton Roads and San Diego(huge naval bases)
Denver (another federal district, important airport)

Logistical choices:
Houston(oil port)
Dallas and Atlanta (railway connections and airport)

Obvious choices:
NYC
DC
LA
Chicago

Perhaps places like Norfolk and San Diego could be replaced by Boston and the Bay Area respectively and function as our new Atlantic and Pacific Naval bases. But the top 10 cities should be important for logistics, economic input, and food/manufacturing production. I have yet to hear anyone bring up which city/metro would help produce the food. This is important too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2010, 11:48 AM
 
Location: Denver
6,628 posts, read 12,112,091 times
Reputation: 4051
Quote:
Originally Posted by justme02 View Post
Wouldnt the government want to save the 10 largest Metro areas to maximize the amount of lives that would be saved?

In a situation like that, it would not matter who the media capital or the oil capital is. It would be about saving the most lives possible.
Not necessarily. Obviously it's the "right" thing to do in order to preserve life...but just because an area has a lot of people doesn't mean it necessarily holds more importance than another area.

From a strategic perspective, it would be smarter to preserve the best and brightest. Think of any disaster movie when a comet is flying towards Earth at ~50 kagillion miles per hour. What is the government doing? They're stuffing the president and a bunch of scientists into a cave because they are supposedly the ones who would allow the human race to prosper in a post-apocalyptic world.

*Totally off topic, but what's up with all the black presidents in disaster movies? Whether it's the financial meltdown, oil spill in the gulf, a meteor flying through space, or massive solar flare which ultimately results in a total tectonic shift, black presidents can't catch a break."*

Anyway! Black on topic (see what I did there? Yes. Zinger.). It seems that from a strategic point of view it makes the most sense to preserve quality of population instead of quantity of population. This doesn't necessarily mean we should preserve Boulder and let Phoenix get blown up because it has a higher % of educated people...but we should take into account how educated certain metros are, and also take into account their flagship industries and how it will benefit the future of the country.

Obviously the #1 and #2 cities to save are New York and Washington. They're the centers of our economy, government, etc. DC is also home to a massive amount of defense contractors...these couple of sentences don't begin to explain how important these two cities are, but they're the only cities no one will contest, so let's save time and move onto other cities.

Let's see who else is worth saving. I think to keep it a little more simple, we should leave out the small cities which house large military ports. Otherwise we'll start arguing whether Norfolk should be saved before Chicago. Military presences in cities are certainly important, but let's try to focus on other factors too. So in no particular order:

Chicago Home to the largest mercantile exchange in the world. It's also the largest transportation hub in the United States. Those are the two most glaring factors that show Chicago's importance...but it has such a diversified economy with very important companies in so many different areas that it's hard to make a #3 reason for saving Chicago based on a single industry. A blend of healthcare, law firms (cue jokes about how we won't need lawyers after the apocalypse), manufacturing, and several transportation-related firms.

San Francisco Bay High tech/Biotech capital of the country. It's also a the financial center of the West. Thanks to its prominence in biotechnology, it's also one of the premier medical research areas in the country. It's an extremely well-educated area, as it is home to Cal-Berkeley, Stanford, UCSF, among others.

Boston Not just because I'm here, but also because it's arguably the medical research center of the country and maybe the world. The medical research in hospitals is extremely important, along with the billions of private dollars which go into the high tech/biotech/nanotech sectors in and around the city. The greater Boston area is both very well educated and the higher education Mecca of the world. Havard, MIT, Tufts, Lesley, Brandeis, Bentley, Wellesley, BC, BU, Suffolk...the list is huge. Having Raytheon doesn't hurt either haha.

Houston this one is nice and easy. Oil and Energy. Yes, the TMC is huge and very important, but it is arguably outshined by several other cities. There is no question that far and away the single reason Houston would need to be saved is the Oil/Energy sector. Big bonus: enormous port.

Atlanta like Chicago, it is a major transportation center. It's not quite as major as Chicago but it's still an extremely important transportation hub. The CDC is important too. It's the regional capital of the Souteast, which holds a great deal of importance. Cartoon Network and TBS probably aren't too important in the post-apocalyptic world (maybe they are for morale purposes), but CNN would be a very important media outlet for the country.

Philadelphia Tons of medical research going on in both the city and suburbs. The pharmaceutical companies strewn throughout the suburbs are very important.

Los Angeles I'm not sure what to think about this one. Los Angeles has an enormous port and has a great deal of manufacturing...but I feel things like manufacturing can be moved to other cities with relative ease. The population is among the least-educated in the country. The flagship industry of the metro is entertainment. At times it seems like Los Angeles is hard to defend when you're looking at percentages...but when you look at the raw numbers, it's impossible to leave off this list.

For the last slot, I can't quite think of any particular metro. Metros that come to mind are: Seattle (Tech/Health), Dallas (it's big?), Miami (international connections, port), Baltimore (Healthcare), Minneapolis (Healthcare)...is there any glaring omission I'm not thinking of?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2010, 11:55 AM
 
4,811 posts, read 8,549,318 times
Reputation: 2743
San Diego is a big terrorist threat because of the Navy and other military here. The largest Navy Fleet in the country is in San Diego. So All 3 California cities SD, LA, and SF are all targets.

Last edited by BacktoBlue; 10-28-2010 at 12:55 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2010, 12:19 PM
 
Location: CT
1,215 posts, read 2,080,020 times
Reputation: 1998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Footballfreak View Post
San Diego is a big terrorist threat because of the Navy and other military here. The largest Navy port in the country is in San Diego. So All 3 California cities SD, LA, and SF are all targets.
Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure Norfolk, VA has not only the largest Naval base in the country, but in the world. San Diego has the largest Naval base on the West Coast according to what I read.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2010, 12:39 PM
 
Location: Denver
6,628 posts, read 12,112,091 times
Reputation: 4051
Yea Norfolk is larger.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top