What is the second most important city on Earth?

[Winston]

So if the U.S. - or the World at large - were to have a choice between having New York or Washington D.C. obliterated, it would wave good-bye to the former? Washington is more important, right?

Fool the other one.

[Krill]

Originally posted by Barnabas
Why is London that important?

Financial capital of the world?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Washington D.C. should be first, NYC 2nd.

awww....you patriot. One would almost think you were running for Congress


....oh, wait.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Krill


Financial capital of the world?

Home of the Commonwealth?

[Alinestra Covelia]

I dunno. If I wanted to throw a few nukes around and there was actual tactical considerations behind that, I'd probably want to hit something that would disable the decision making ability of as large a portion of the world as possible.

So that presumably means Washington D.C., where America's executive and congressional branches reside most of the time.

However on a day to day basis, I think people in general have a greater interest in your usual financial transactions, so New York would be more important to a civilian than D.C. And there seems to be some pretty strong arguments for saying that London is up there either just below or just above New York as far as financial importance goes.

So if the nuke dropper already hit New York, I can assume they weren't particularly fussed about the military response and just wanted to cause civilian chaos and mayhem.

In which case they probably would after all go for London next. It doesn't make much sense to do so from a military perspective (it would be better to hit DC and decapitate as much of the US leadership as you could) but I can't explain the thought processes of an anarchist, as I gave up being one of those halfway through primary school

[Aeson]

DC first. Even financially it's more important than NYC. We can have financial markets anywhere, but if we don't have the political/military clout to back it... it's all just worthless paper. In any case, it's paper printed by the Treasury, and regulated by the Fed. NYC's importance is undermined by the completely inapplicable (now) inscription on the SoL, the financial system's reliance on corporate bailouts, and the impotence of the UN.

Beijing second.

[Krill]

End of the day though, London also has the fire codes to an awful lots of nukes, enough to make sure that any 1 country gets turned into orangesoda, so while it doesn't have as much significance in the military field as DC, combined with the financial markets it is the most important city in the world.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Beijing second? Moreso than Shanghai or Hong Kong?

I suppose if you're going with the theory of military might being the underpinning of financial stability, then maybe. But China's ability to do anything military beyond its borders is much less than most developed nations. Hitting Beijing would wipe out its central military command and its Politburo, but the main financial centers in the south would escape scot-free. (Edit: You might score bonus chaos points for disrupting the Olympics though. Hadn't thought of that.)

If you want to spread real chaos, London's probably a better bet. It's easily the most important financial and political/military center in England, and ranks among the top in Europe for much the same reason.

[Aeson]

Britain has to stop blindly following the chief idiot in DC before you can even hope to make that case.

[Krill]

Well, if that chief idiot is in charge of the US military, why is DC even worth nuking?

[Alinestra Covelia]

Edited edit: Oh, okay. Post still stands!

(LOL at Aeson's location equating to Krill's description of a nuked area.)

[Krill]

It's an old reference...

[Krill]

...not actually connected to Aeson either, in any straight forward sense.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by Krill
Well, if that chief idiot is in charge of the US military, why is DC even worth nuking?

...

To be honest now "incompetent" isn't always incompatible with "dangerously destructive" though

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
I suppose if you're going with the theory of military might being the underpinning of financial stability, then maybe. But China's ability to do anything military beyond its borders is much less than most developed nations.

It doesn't have to be military action. Political and economic actions work just fine. You just need military to back it.