Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
General Trek
»
Geography of San Francisco in Trek times
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Timo: [QB] Depending a bit on how WWIII was fought, I find it quite plausible that the biggest cities would have had better odds of survival than the smaller ones. There could have been advanced missile defenses in place, but they'd have protected Washington better than Tuscaloosa. Or bioweapons might have been unleashed to kill city populations, but their delivery systems would have inflicted relatively little physical damage. Enough perhaps to level a small city, but not a large one. Riker did insist that "major cities were destroyed". Yet we never saw any hint of war damage to the real estate in any episode or movie. Perhaps the bioweapon theory is the best angle here. Or perhaps instead of nukes, the parties used orbital bombardment techniques that destroyed cities block by block, skipping some blocks and resulting in the skylines we witness in TNG. Timo Saloniemi [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3