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, 09:05 PM
 
301 posts, read 545,984 times
Reputation: 186

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnDBaumgardner View Post
Well, everyone has an opinion ... believe it, if Cleveland were to be destroyed as part of what the OP mentioned regarding the "importance of cities" ... it would prove to be devastating to America and it's economy. Cleveland continues to be far more of an important city that most people would even "allow themselves to consider"
HAHAHA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Footballfreak View Post
Just because it's not the largest base doesn't mean it's not in danger of attack. We also have the Coronado-San Diego Bay bridge which connects downtown to the island of Coronado which has 2-3 navy bases. There are new ships coming into the bay/port weekly. I see it all the time.

http://www.rms.com/publications/TRMS.pdf
HAHAHA

NY
DC
CHI
SF
HOU
BOS
PHI
DAL
ATL
DET/LA/MIA

theres a true top 10 list right there.
San Diego and Cleveland MWAHAHAHA. dont worry both cities are safer than other 10, no one wants to waste time nuking them.

Last edited by Ghost of Blasphamany; 10-28-2010 at 09:26 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-28-2010, 09:05 PM
 
Location: CT
1,215 posts, read 2,083,200 times
Reputation: 1998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Footballfreak View Post
Just because it's not the largest base doesn't mean it's not in danger of attack. We also have the Coronado-San Diego Bay bridge which connects downtown to the island of Coronado which has 2-3 navy bases. There are new ships coming into the bay/port weekly. I see it all the time.
I didn't say it wasn't, I was just saying that it's not the biggest. The Pacific is definitely growing in importance but it just doesn't have as big a Naval presence as the Atlantic coast does right now.

But in any case, China isn't exactly a Naval Power at the moment, Russia on the other hand still has the Northern and Baltic fleets on our side, though, they do also have their Pacific fleet at Vladivostok. But all our NATO allies are on our side, and not only do they also use Norfolk, but we'd have to be able to reach em quickly if they ever needed aid or assistance. Plus, look at what Norfolk is guarding, the East Coast, that's 112,060,175 people, the Capital, the largest and most important city, at least 20% of the national GDP from the Northeast, plus all that combined with what comes from the Southeast (I don't have the number, but it's big too obviously), versus the West Coast with a population of 49,366,646 (counting Hawaii and Alaska) and 13% of the GDP from CA plus Washington, and Oregon.

I'm not trying say one place or the people living there are more important or more worthy of saving than the other or anything like that. Just that, if you were in charge, what would you be more concerned about protecting, and if you were the enemy, which would be your target.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2010, 09:50 PM
 
4,677 posts, read 7,817,398 times
Reputation: 1231
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnDBaumgardner View Post
Well, everyone has an opinion ... believe it, if Cleveland were to be destroyed as part of what the OP mentioned regarding the "importance of cities" ... it would prove to be devastating to America and it's economy. Cleveland continues to be far more of an important city that most people would even "allow themselves to consider"
Well, considering the scenario, only 10 metros will survive. With that, the effects of losing nearly all of the metros will be felt. That being said, I don't doubt losing Cleveland would hurt. But, with what Cleveland does, can it be done anywhere else? With, Minneapolis, Detroit, and Chicago in the Midwest; Dallas, Houston, Miami, and Atlanta in the South; NYC, DC, Phily, Boston, and Baltimore in the Northeast; and LA, SD, SF, Phoenix, Denver, and Seattle in the West. That's 18 cities right there. Plus Norfolk for the Naval Base, San Antonio for its military presence, Omaha for its location and agricultural importance. That's 21 cities. And when you look at other factors other cities can be mentioned. Cleveland in the top 10 is just a super hard sell.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2010, 10:39 PM
 
14,007 posts, read 21,986,336 times
Reputation: 4087
Miami and LA aren't that important. They're just 2 cities filled with stars, tourist, and stuck-up people. So when every other city is getting nuked, LA and Miami will be left alone. Finally, they can play each other in the NBA Finals in peace without any outside interruptions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2010, 11:59 PM
 
4,677 posts, read 7,817,398 times
Reputation: 1231
Quote:
Originally Posted by polo89 View Post
Miami and LA aren't that important. They're just 2 cities filled with stars, tourist, and stuck-up people. So when every other city is getting nuked, LA and Miami will be left alone. Finally, they can play each other in the NBA Finals in peace without any outside interruptions.
Way to stay positive...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2010, 10:07 AM
 
2,492 posts, read 3,657,787 times
Reputation: 1385
You guys aren't thinking like the military enemies of the U.S.

A close friend works directly with the nukes at a nuclear base in the High Plains. According to him, during the peak of the Cold War and still today, Cheyenne, Wyo., is a much higher Russian target priority than Denver. In the event of a nuclear war, Wyoming, Nebraska and North Dakota would be blanketed by enemy nukes because that's where most of our nukes are. They don't care about silly tier rankings.
Cleveland as a major nuclear target is laughable. Dayton is BY FAR the most important Ohio city militarily and would be the biggest priority.

This city homerism by some is now at all new levels of weird. "We'd be nuked first because of our world class symphony!"

"No, we'd be destroyed first because of our tourism friendly amusement park!!!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2010, 10:25 AM
 
14,007 posts, read 21,986,336 times
Reputation: 4087
Quote:
Originally Posted by abr7rmj View Post
you guys aren't thinking like the military enemies of the u.s.

A close friend works directly with the nukes at a nuclear base in the high plains. According to him, during the peak of the cold war and still today, cheyenne, wyo., is a much higher russian target priority than denver. In the event of a nuclear war, wyoming, nebraska and north dakota would be blanketed by enemy nukes because that's where most of our nukes are. They don't care about silly tier rankings.
Cleveland as a major nuclear target is laughable. Dayton is by far the most important ohio city militarily and would be the biggest priority.

This city homerism by some is now at all new levels of weird. "we'd be nuked first because of our world class symphony!"

"no, we'd be destroyed first because of our tourism friendly amusement park!!!"
ha!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2010, 10:44 AM
 
Location: Denver
6,628 posts, read 12,128,667 times
Reputation: 4051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hialeah_Rules View Post
i've been repped for that post a couple of times so I guess not everybody agrees with you. I think your comment is unnecessary and it doesn't add anything to the discussion You are just acting like a Bully.

I recommend you watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28mN0GtL2fk
Well why don't we take a look at what you said?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hialeah_Rules View Post
NYC wallstreet
DC The white house

the rest they don't care. they can be easily be replaced.
Wall Street is nearly 100% reliant on outside sources for its power. It is by no means some self-sufficient machine which can live and thrive on its own. Three of the largest American companies are from Texas (Exxon), Arkansas (Walmart), and California (Apple).

The government is another area which is nearly 100% reliant on outside sources for its power. Where does everyone in the government come from? All over the country. Basically no one in the government is actually from Washington DC.

I agree that NYC and DC are the two most important cities and they would be the most important to preserve...but what makes you think we wouldn't need hubs that specialize in transportation, technology, energy or healthcare?

If you can't accept the criticism of a statement that can be so easily proven wrong, then don't make the statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJetSet View Post
I'm not so sure about this, I don't necessarily see their immediate importance in time of war or crisis. What could they do? They don't really have the power to implement anything.
I interpreted this thread as asking what metros would be most important in helping the country move forward after a wartime scenario, not during a wartime scenario. In that scenario you could still make a case for Boston since it is home to Raytheon, one of the largest defense contractors in the world. Would we even need Wall St in that scenario? Outside of selling war bonds, what's the point of trading securities when you're getting carpet bombed?

Quote:
For better access the knowledge and people in these areas could easily be moved to Baltimore which already is a strong medical and research center with Johns Hopkins and UM. Johns Hopkins receives the highest funding for a single institution I believe and no bout has the best hospital in country for many years now.
JH may be receive the most funding of any single institution, but the Boston area receives twice the funding of the entire state of Maryland.

In 2008:
Boston/Cambridge: $1,930,535,103
Maryland: $972,375,730

Longwood Medical Center in Boston roughly equals the entire state of Maryland with over $949 million in funding.


Quote:
Maryland as a whole would probably become the medical epicenter, after all, despite the collegiate institutions in Boston and San Fran, they are not as significant nor do they have the power of the FDA (imagine what they would have to regulate), Department of Health and Human Services and NIH (which is a big reason as to why Boston and San Fran are medical hubs in the first place). They are all in Maryland.
Those government agencies are extremely important...but I don't see how that takes away from the importance of the other medical research centers in the country. You're putting a lot of importance on the institutions who are regulating research rather than those who are actually conducting it.

San Francisco's power comes less from medical research and more from technology. There are tons of technologies coming from the Bay Area beyond what we see as consumers that are very important coming out of the bay area.

Quote:
NSA is in Baltimore area as well.

The Chesapeake Bay would be a very strategic point.

Also consider BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) Maryland was the second largest Beneficiary after Georgia. There's a reason why those Federal Gov made this move. The Baltimore counties are BOOMING because of this (40% of the nations commercial space under construction is in the Baltimore Washington corridor). Wonder why the US Federal Government closed bases in New Jersey and Virginia and Moved them to Maryland, they are bringing over 25,000 jobs to the state.

Walter reed in D.C. is closing and the new base will move to the Naval Medical Center in Bethesda right across the street from NIH main campus. The new base will be called Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.
I'm not sure if this is a pitch against SF/Boston or just for Maryland. I totally agree Maryland is a very important state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2010, 01:39 PM
 
Location: Underneath the Pecan Tree
15,989 posts, read 29,820,914 times
Reputation: 7244
I feel people are overestimating places like Dallas, Philadelphia, and Atlanta. Those cities being attacked won't be as major as attacking NYC, HOU,LA,SF,BOS,and CHI. When you take out those cities; you're destroying extremely important sectors of the US economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2010, 01:45 PM
 
Location: Willowbend/Houston
13,403 posts, read 20,318,137 times
Reputation: 10183
Quote:
Originally Posted by jluke65780 View Post
I feel people are overestimating places like Dallas, Philadelphia, and Atlanta. Those cities being attacked won't be as major as attacking NYC, HOU,LA,SF,BOS,and CHI. When you take out those cities; you're destroying extremely important sectors of the US economy.
Take Houston and Boston out of that and Ill agree.
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