Barclay's CO says his sister is coming in from Boston. Now, aren't we supposed to assume that a lot of major cities were destroyed in WWIII? Really how hard and how little imagination would it have taken for the writers to insert a name like...Lake Armstrong or, even better, Mojave City? See, it's the little things people.
------------------ Proverbs for Paranoids, 3: If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.
Posted by Elim Garak (Member # 14) on :
It does not take 300 years to rebuild a city.
------------------ Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")
Posted by Xentrick (Member # 64) on :
We know that a lot of people were killed during the war, but that doesn't mean that cities were destroyed: using 21st Century terror weapons, whole populations might be decimated by short-halflife radioactives, chemical agents, or genetically engineered biological weapons while most of the actual "infrastructures" remained standing.
Posted by Mikey T (Member # 144) on :
I would agree that most of the infastructures survived World War III. After all, San Francisco is still standing along with the Golden Gate and the location of Starfleet Command and the Federation Council chambers.And Paris is the location of the Federation President's Office. It's somewhat funny though, San Francisco is the location where the United Nations started, I think. And that's where the Federation Council chamber is.
------------------ I don't care who you are, where you're from What you did, as long as you love me. Who you are, where you're from What you did, as long as you love me.
-Backstreet Boys
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
But Riker does say quite explicitly that most of the large cities WERE destroyed in WWIII. Just listen to him in "First Contact". And he's an Earth native, unlike many other characters. I think the writers are painting themselves in a smaller and smaller corner every time they name a city that miracuously survived!
Then again, perhaps "Boston" in the 24th century is just the area around MIT that the students managed to protect with their newest forcefield experiment?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Well, think about this. I believe Jerusalem was totally wiped out in the early part of the first century of the Common Era. Yet we still have Jerusalem today. Same place, same city. Just because Boston and other major cities were destroyed, doesn't mean people forget where they were. Wasn't Chicago pretty much gutted by a fire not all that long ago. Yet, less than 300 years later, Chicago is sprawling metropolis.
We've also heard mention of Brussels, Portland, New Orleans, Edinburough, and several other present day cities. Thankfully though, D.C. has yet to be mentioned...
------------------ "Resolve and thou art free."
Posted by jh on :
Well, I wasn't saying so much that the city couldn't be rebuilt; just that it would be nice for them to show some imagination. Pretty symptomatic don't you think?
------------------ Proverbs for Paranoids, 3: If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.
Posted by Epoch (Member # 136) on :
I agree that it would take little imagination to make up a new city name. About Boston still being around there are various reasons as to why. Boston my not have been seen as a decent target. You only need to destroy important stuff. Second Riker says that MOST large cities were destroyed, Boston could have come out of WWIII smelling like a rose.
------------------ Death before Dishonor! However Dishonor has quite a disputed defintion.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
JH: Yes, I agree that choosing Boston was extremely unimaginative. I assume it's another reference by one of the writers or production staff to their own shallow, pathetic lives. Of course, we've seen this sort of thing happen with ships names. Why would Starfleet ever name a ship after some caves (Jenolen)?
Regarding World War III, the deaths of "only" 37 million (given in TOS "Bread and Circuses") seem rather small if most major cities were destroyed. If you dropped a large atomic bomb on Tokyo (where I live), I'm sure that at least 10 million people in Japan would die, if not from the immediate blast effects but also from the ensuing radiation, chaos and breakdown in society. An effective biologic or chemical weapon would similarly kill several millions of people, directly or indirectly. A few nuclear weapsons dropped on India, Germany, China, and the United States would easily kill hundreds of millions of people. At the height of the cold war the US had so many nuclear weapons that some analysts predicted that finding enough targets for them all might be difficult. Therefore, I think that in a truly global nuclear conflict, the death toll would be much higher than 37 million.
As far as rebuilding after nuclear annihilation, the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are just as crowded and ugly as any other Japanese city. Most Japanese cities were completely burned out in WWII, but almost no physical evidence remains.
------------------ When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Posted by Galen (Member # 72) on :
Speaking of San Francisco, they got the Golden Gate bridge rebuilt already.
------------------ "Victory is Life!"
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Boy, you people are negative. Naming places we already know is supposed to lend an air of hominess to Earth. Lord knows we don't get to see much of 24th century life that holds any connection with us.
Though a "Cage" reference would have been cool.
------------------ "I wish that everything went just as I wish everything would go." -- John Linnell
Posted by TerraZ on :
Well, Riker in FC gave a death toll of 600 millions. I know most people consider him an idiot, but for once what he says makes a lot of sense...
------------------ -If you ask me, I think continuity is highly overrated... *Brannon Braga*
-Where were you when the brains were handed out? *Sonic the Hedgehog*
Posted by Gepta001 (Member # 231) on :
mabey they ment to say 37 billion and then hold their pinky finger up to the corner of their mouth?
yes Boston is not a large city. and the UN was founded in New York wasn't it?
-FTB
------------------ and I, I took the road less traveled by, and that has made all the diference.
Posted by Lt. Tom on :
Nope, the UN's headquarters are in NYC, but it was founded in San Francisco.
[This message has been edited by Lt. Tom (edited December 09, 1999).]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
Yes the UN is based in NY. But technically IIRC it's not a part of NY, or the US either.
------------------ Calvin: "My life needs a rewind/erase button." Hobbes: "...and a volume control." Federation Starship Datalink - Starship site of the new millennium.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
The agency isn't, no. But if I recall correctly U.N. Headquarters is NYC property, rented by the U.N. (Or is it provided as a gift?)
------------------ "I wish that everything went just as I wish everything would go." -- John Linnell
