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 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Unread 10-29-2010, 02:55 PM
 
4,345 posts, read 4,235,902 times
Reputation: 1035
I see everyone talking about bio-tech, finance, oil, infrastructure.etc. But two critical things people are leaving out are manufacturing and food production. Which areas would excel here? Boston? NYC? LA? Thinking along these lines some metros like Boise, Omaha, Wichita, etc. may become more important for their food production.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Unread 10-29-2010, 03:03 PM
 
Location: São Paulo
6,163 posts, read 6,749,511 times
Reputation: 3498
Quote:
Originally Posted by adavi215 View Post
I see everyone talking about bio-tech, finance, oil, infrastructure.etc. But two critical things people are leaving out are manufacturing and food production. Which areas would excel here? Boston? NYC? LA? Thinking along these lines some metros like Boise, Omaha, Wichita, etc. may become more important for their food production.
Chicago is huge in that area if I'm not mistaken.

Good thinking though. That's an area nobody has focused on yet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 10-29-2010, 03:06 PM
 
1,589 posts, read 2,016,034 times
Reputation: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by adavi215 View Post
I see everyone talking about bio-tech, finance, oil, infrastructure.etc. But two critical things people are leaving out are manufacturing and food production. Which areas would excel here? Boston? NYC? LA? Thinking along these lines some metros like Boise, Omaha, Wichita, etc. may become more important for their food production.
The Minneapolis - St. Paul area is at the top when it comes to food production as it's home to giants like Cargill (largest private company in the U.S.), General Mills, CHS Inc., Land O' Lakes, Nash Finch Company, The Mosaic Company, Malt-O-Meal Company, etc...

Last edited by BlackOut; 10-29-2010 at 03:20 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 10-29-2010, 03:49 PM
 
4,345 posts, read 4,235,902 times
Reputation: 1035
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr View Post
Chicago is huge in that area if I'm not mistaken.

Good thinking though. That's an area nobody has focused on yet.
I was thinking about that after I posted. I think that's how Chicago came into prominence was due to its wheat trading. But the top 10 metros that are saved must address high GDP production industries such as biomed, high tech, finance, as well as basic necessities such as food production, textiles, and basic manufacturing. That's why I'm thinking a metro in the Great Plains may be necessary. Also, it may be easier to save metros in relatively close proximity to each other. Such as the BosWash and ChiPitts corridor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 10-29-2010, 04:53 PM
 
1,233 posts, read 895,692 times
Reputation: 335
Dont forget coffee production we will need starbucks after the nuclear destruction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 10-30-2010, 08:51 AM
 
Location: Underneath the Pecan Tree
15,753 posts, read 17,601,423 times
Reputation: 6518
Quote:
Originally Posted by adavi215 View Post
I see everyone talking about bio-tech, finance, oil, infrastructure.etc. But two critical things people are leaving out are manufacturing and food production. Which areas would excel here? Boston? NYC? LA? Thinking along these lines some metros like Boise, Omaha, Wichita, etc. may become more important for their food production.
Because manufacturing and Food Production is big in many states. If something happened to Boise or Wichita; we wouldn't all starve to death.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 10-30-2010, 10:06 AM
 
1,233 posts, read 895,692 times
Reputation: 335
The only cities worth saving if it were a nuclear armageddon are cities far away from other metros. Even if you saved Chicago or any other city thats within a 200 mile radius of another urban metro area they would be infected with nuclear fall out. As for food production Outdoor food production would cease to exist for over 30 years. And if they were goimg to save only ten cities in the USA the nuclear blast from the rest of the cities would throw us into a nuclear winter for several years. And when the when the skys finally did clear over 90% of all living stuff would be dead on earth. People also ,because most people live in urban areas. The two main cities I would deem important to keep intact would be Anchorage its half a continent away from other urban areas. And Seattle so people would have a way to get there. And Seattle would be far away from other blast zones not to be as contaminated. People could leave on ships from seattle destined to Alaska. All other pubic infastructure will most likely not be working . Airports,rail service and roads will be inpassible in urban metro areas. I woul think the other major city that would be a gate way and far away from other blast zones would be Denver but that would be my third choice. Because even tthough its far from other blast zones it would still eventually be affected by the nuclear winter and the fall out but make a good escape city for the midwest and east if any of those places still existed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 10-30-2010, 11:26 AM
 
235 posts, read 192,581 times
Reputation: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr View Post

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?
"Lets give a scenario: if we were to be randomly nuked, what are the 10 Metro areas the gov would be on the list to be saved? "

Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr View Post
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.
And where do you think that money is coming from? A lot of research is already done already at NIH, FDA, Naval Medical Center, Walter Reed Annex etc. NIH is far more along finding a cure for AIDs than most of the private industry.

Should they fund themselves and place that on a list?

Not to forget Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Maryland Medical System and University of Maryland, Baltimore.

The decisions of the FDA can drop a Biotechs stock at least 30%. They can make or break any company. FDA watches over our food supply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr View Post
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.
Nope, again "A lot of research is already done already at NIH, FDA, Naval Medical Center, Walter Reed Annex etc. NIH is far more along finding a cure for AIDs(Thanks to a Black man) than most of the private industry."

I am just saying its likely that they would move all that research closer D.C. in order to protect it. Or perhaps some remote area. Either or.



Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr View Post

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.
Just playing devils advocate, you can take it as both.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 10-30-2010, 11:30 AM
 
4,345 posts, read 4,235,902 times
Reputation: 1035
Quote:
Originally Posted by jluke65780 View Post
Because manufacturing and Food Production is big in many states. If something happened to Boise or Wichita; we wouldn't all starve to death.
You're right in that food production is big in many states, but what about cities? What cities could produce enough food to feed all 10 cities left? You see what I'm getting at?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 10-30-2010, 06:25 PM
 
8,454 posts, read 10,636,795 times
Reputation: 1843
Most important/significant/influential U.S. cities/metros:

1. New York
2. Los Angeles
3. Chicago
4. Washington D.C.
5. Atlanta


The rest of the top 10 (in no particular order):
Miami, Dallas, Houston, Boston, and San Francisco


Philadelphia is number 11.



Enough said. Case closed.
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 $74,000 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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:40 AM.

© 2005-2014, 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 - Top