Oh boy...IDW just brought up the money thing again.

[T'Girl]

The Montana facility held old Titan II class ICBM's, those are considered pretty old even today

The last Titan II missile was deactivated on May 5, 1987.

The last LGM-30F Minuteman-II was removed from Malmstrom AFB on August 10, 1995. They were replaced with the newer LGM-30G Minuteman-III, transferred from Grand Forks AFB.

Malmstrom AFB is likely the base described by Data in FC.

The USAF is dumping a ton of money into the refurbishing of the the MM-III (they're getting the Peacekeeper's warheads). The USAF plans to operate the MM-III until at least the year 2030, then there will either be another round of refurbishment, or it will be replace with a new generation of landbased ICBM missiles.

The military contingent probably fled during the initial attacks and left it abandoned.

Personnel of the United States Air Force (in which both my parents served their country) abandoning their posts? A utter impossibility.

 

[fireproof78]

Not that I have any dog in this fight, but just for kicks and giggles, what about a biological attack as a follow up on the nuke attack? It would be strategically wasteful to nuke a small site like the base in Montana if not heavily armed and you want the ICBMs-fallout is a duel edged sword.

So, nuke the major cities and military targets and use more tactical strikes (infiltration teams, and biological weapon, which would disperse more quickly and be less hazardous to your own troops.

Wait-am I talking about Star Trek or the next Fallout sequel?

 

[Pauln6]

Just read it. Yeah Uhura's comment is very revisionist. In TOS it was largely food and clothing that could be replicated. There is a ton of evidence that raw materials for medicine, ship-building, fuel, and miners' wives cannot be replicated by the Federation so there would be a thriving intergalactic market-place. Even Scotty, an engineer who could probably build his own replicator, was waiting for food supplies in NuTrek. It seems far more likely that Uhura is playing dumb - trying to appear like she has no idea how to barter in a market-place - even if the reality is that it's a mis-step by the writers.

 

[T'Girl]

Not that I have any dog in this fight, but just for kicks and giggles, what about a biological attack as a follow up on the nuke attack?

There is the question of who is fighting whom in the third war world. You're going to be bombing and killing your opponents and not just randomly nuking every nation on Earth. If America isn't one of the participant in the war, she doesn't get bombed.

 

[Kemaiku]

A utter impossibility.

Nope, they're only human like everyone else.

 

[fireproof78]

Not that I have any dog in this fight, but just for kicks and giggles, what about a biological attack as a follow up on the nuke attack?

There is the question of who is fighting whom in the third war world. You're going to be bombing and killing your opponents and not just randomly nuking every nation on Earth. If America isn't one of the participant in the war, she doesn't get bombed.

Is America not supposed to be included? I really am not sure of the particulars of the Eugenics War so that's an honest question.

 

[Kemaiku]

Is America not supposed to be included? I really am not sure of the particulars of the Eugenics War so that's an honest question.

All nations were apparently hit, and if they weren't Data's line implies a general background radiation haze left over from the war that still lingers across the globe.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If America isn't one of the participant in the war, she doesn't get bombed.

I would find that VERY unlikely. In any conception of World War III, the USA couldn't really stay out of it if it tried. (otherwise, why call it a WORLD war? ) We do know the US survived WW3, but I highly doubt it was *untouched* by the war.

The Eugenics Wars, on the other hand, really *didn't* involve the US. It'd be much more likely that the US could have stayed out of those, than WW3. And yes, I treat them as separate wars, so there.

Although I do wonder who WW3's other "factions" were supposed to be. We've got the ECON, centered around China; so are there other alliances of nations that banded together like they did? I don't remember any mentioning of this anywhere.

 

[dswynne1]

I always found the idea of a world with no money to be utterly stupid. Otherwise, why even have a merit system? Or military rank/pay grade? Or, how do trade exists? Clearly, back in TOS, you had such characters as Harry Mudd and Cyrano Jones within the Federation who sought out profit. And there are non-Federation members to deal with, such as the Ferengi (thank goodness for gold-pressed latinum). Now, don't get me wrong. I like the idea that humans of the 24th century believe that perfecting one's self was a much noble proposition than the accumulation of wealth. I fine with that. But I think that the "there is no money in the 24th century" is just another case of GR trying to preach a kind of utopianism that doesn't take into account that greed, not money, is the problem. But, that's just me...

 

[C.E. Evans]

I always found the idea of a world with no money to be utterly stupid.

And yet, our world is increasingly becoming that way with credit/debit cards, online bank transfers, & direct deposit. More and more people don't even see their money these days as more transactions are done electronically. Trek has shied more away from the idea of physical money, but there has been references of people being charged things and buying things, so some kind of economic system still exists, even if it doesn't involve something we'd recognize.

Otherwise, why even have a merit system?

To recognize achievement.

Or military rank/pay grade?

In Starfleet, rank may exist solely to denote authority, but there could be also be some kind of additional compensation for each grade, even if it's not discussed. Such compensation could be in the form of electronic credits possibly (which would allow Crusher to buy a bolt of cloth or Scotty a boat).

Or, how do trade exists? Clearly, back in TOS, you had such characters as Harry Mudd and Cyrano Jones within the Federation who sought out profit. And there are non-Federation members to deal with, such as the Ferengi (thank goodness for gold-pressed latinum).

I think trade varies depending on the parties involved. A simple barter system could exist for some, an credit system for others, while others still may require an exchange of physical currency like gold-pressed latinum.

Now, don't get me wrong. I like the idea that humans of the 24th century believe that perfecting one's self was a much noble proposition than the accumulation of wealth. I fine with that. But I think that the "there is no money in the 24th century" is just another case of GR trying to preach a kind of utopianism that doesn't take into account that greed, not money, is the problem. But, that's just me...

I think in most cases (but not all), the idea of "no money" is limited to no physical money. As far as the rest of Humans not spending most of their lives trying to make money, that could be a case that more value is placed on what people do rather than how much coin they make, and that could be a totally different cultural thing we may never understand. In a very real way, the concept of a different value system is as baffling to us as it is to the Ferengi.

 

[IrishNero]

And that is why I've always kind of looked at the Ferengi as being an extension of ourselves that has been lopped off and made into a species. I've thought that about several of the species; as if Roddenberry wanted to expose those areas of moral turpitude by making them into species that must be challenged or with whom we must contend. I've heard it said now and again that Trek is as close to authentic Shakespeare as we've ever come in modern cinema, and in some ways, I think that is true. We know that G.R. liked to reference old works, and writers have repeatedly referenced them for quotes and story adaptations.

That I know of, there have been no societies that have existed without trade or commerce on some level, and money provides incentive to perform one's tasks. Why else would anyone choose to work on a Starship that encounters danger on a regular basis? I never became 'rich' in terms of money while serving in the military, but the accolades, and prestige that comes with medals and promotions provided extra motivation to perform one's job effectively. But greed wielded its ugly head there too, and there were many examples of persons exaggerating their achievements and 'kissing ass' in order to obtain rank and awards: So an absence of money does not necessarily equate to an absence of greed or gluttony.

There is, however, a tendency to construe money with greed. The majority of people today just want to earn enough to make their lives and their family's lives comfortable. Otherwise, there would be no teachers, nurses, artists or firemen who have extremely rewarding jobs but often work for little pay. Greed is what we see when illegal market trading scams are exposed, and in the exorbitant pay inequities that often exist between many modern corporate executives and those who work for them.

I don't think we will be able to wipe out commerce and money, but it is probably more realistic that humans can eradicate greed to some degree. But even that is unrealistic without a major shift in human thinking. Something on the scale of an annihilating nuclear war could provide the catalyst for such a change.

 

[bbailey861]

And that is why I've always kind of looked at the Ferengi as being an extension of ourselves that has been lopped off and made into a species. I've thought that about several of the species; as if Roddenberry wanted to expose those areas of moral turpitude by making them into species that must be challenged or with whom we must contend. I've heard it said now and again that Trek is as close to authentic Shakespeare as we've ever come in modern cinema, and in some ways, I think that is true. We know that G.R. liked to reference old works, and writers have repeatedly referenced them for quotes and story adaptations.

That I know of, there have been no societies that have existed without trade or commerce on some level, and money provides incentive to perform one's tasks. Why else would anyone choose to work on a Starship that encounters danger on a regular basis? I never became 'rich' in terms of money while serving in the military, but the accolades, and prestige that comes with medals and promotions provided extra motivation to perform one's job effectively. But greed wielded its ugly head there too, and there were many examples of persons exaggerating their achievements and 'kissing ass' in order to obtain rank and awards: So an absence of money does not necessarily equate to an absence of greed or gluttony.

There is, however, a tendency to construe money with greed. The majority of people today just want to earn enough to make their lives and their family's lives comfortable. Otherwise, there would be no teachers, nurses, artists or firemen who have extremely rewarding jobs but often work for little pay. Greed is what we see when illegal market trading scams are exposed, and in the exorbitant pay inequities that often exist between many modern corporate executives and those who work for them.

I don't think we will be able to wipe out commerce and money, but it is probably more realistic that humans can eradicate greed to some degree. But even that is unrealistic without a major shift in human thinking. Something on the scale of an annihilating nuclear war could provide the catalyst for such a change.

Nicely said, although I certainly hope it doesn't boil down to your final thought.

 

[Mytran]

Is America not supposed to be included? I really am not sure of the particulars of the Eugenics War so that's an honest question.

All nations were apparently hit, and if they weren't Data's line implies a general background radiation haze left over from the war that still lingers across the globe.

It's been a while since I read the KHAN!!! comic series, but doesn't the final few pages reveal that the entire story is told by Khan under interrogation, with no way to prove or disprove what he is saying?

 

[Shawnster]

If America isn't one of the participant in the war, she doesn't get bombed.

I would find that VERY unlikely. In any conception of World War III, the USA couldn't really stay out of it if it tried. (otherwise, why call it a WORLD war? ) We do know the US survived WW3, but I highly doubt it was *untouched* by the war.

World War I began in July, 1914; however, the US didn't get involved until 1917. Was it not a world war prior to 1917? US papers called this the European War until the US got involved, then they called it a world war. Had the US not gotten involved, would it still be called WWI today?

Similarly with WWII which began in 1939. Britons called it The War. Roosevelt was the first American to publicly call the conflict the Second World War after the US involvement in 1941.

It sounds more like ethnocentric or geocentric thinking to not refer to either war as a world war if the US doesn't get involved.

At the start of First Contact Lily refers to the peace treaty and wonders why the conflict between the East and the West has started up again. Seems like the WWIII had already transpired and they were just coming out of the conflict.

Perhaps the Montana ICBM silo had been shut down prior to WWIII and therefore no longer a target when the war finally occurred. Perhaps the war wasn't between two strong nuclear combatants, despite the "East vs. West" description.

I've held that the Eugenics Wars (plural) and World War III were separate conflicts. The US not being involved in the Eugenics Wars but was involved in WWIII. Separate instances. In fact, with the plural to the Eugenics Wars, it seems those were not just one conflict, but numerous smaller simultaneous conflicts in the same general location of the world from SE Asia, India, the Middle East and Northern Africa.

 

[robau]

And yet, our world is increasingly becoming that way with credit/debit cards, online bank transfers, & direct deposit. More and more people don't even see their money these days as more transactions are done electronically. Trek has shied more away from the idea of physical money, but there has been references of people being charged things and buying things, so some kind of economic system still exists, even if it doesn't involve something we'd recognize.

Yeah. And I still say the replicator IS a form of economy. There are limits to what one can "buy" from a replicator. It's also an economy that is on earth and in starfleet but NOT necessarily the entire federation. That allows the likes of Mudd and Jones to leave and try to get rich through traditional trade.

 

[IrishNero]

And that is why I've always kind of looked at the Ferengi as being an extension of ourselves that has been lopped off and made into a species. I've thought that about several of the species; as if Roddenberry wanted to expose those areas of moral turpitude by making them into species that must be challenged or with whom we must contend. I've heard it said now and again that Trek is as close to authentic Shakespeare as we've ever come in modern cinema, and in some ways, I think that is true. We know that G.R. liked to reference old works, and writers have repeatedly referenced them for quotes and story adaptations.

That I know of, there have been no societies that have existed without trade or commerce on some level, and money provides incentive to perform one's tasks. Why else would anyone choose to work on a Starship that encounters danger on a regular basis? I never became 'rich' in terms of money while serving in the military, but the accolades, and prestige that comes with medals and promotions provided extra motivation to perform one's job effectively. But greed wielded its ugly head there too, and there were many examples of persons exaggerating their achievements and 'kissing ass' in order to obtain rank and awards: So an absence of money does not necessarily equate to an absence of greed or gluttony.

There is, however, a tendency to construe money with greed. The majority of people today just want to earn enough to make their lives and their family's lives comfortable. Otherwise, there would be no teachers, nurses, artists or firemen who have extremely rewarding jobs but often work for little pay. Greed is what we see when illegal market trading scams are exposed, and in the exorbitant pay inequities that often exist between many modern corporate executives and those who work for them.

I don't think we will be able to wipe out commerce and money, but it is probably more realistic that humans can eradicate greed to some degree. But even that is unrealistic without a major shift in human thinking. Something on the scale of an annihilating nuclear war could provide the catalyst for such a change.

Nicely said, although I certainly hope it doesn't boil down to your final thought.

Me too.

 

[T'Girl]

I would find that VERY unlikely. In any conception of World War III, the USA couldn't really stay out of it if it tried. (otherwise, why call it a WORLD war? )

Likely any war that involves the use of a significanrt number of nuclear weapons is goin to be called world war three. Regardless of who is actually fighting.

One (of many) of the reasons I think America wasn't involved is according to Deanna Troi Humanity was largely back on our feet in only sixty years following the war, this means that someone had to be left to help the war's survivors rebuild, and whoever that is would be the type of nation that comes to the assistance of other, and on top of that who have the means to do so on a massive scale.

Something like the post WWII Marshall Plan.

The Vulcan's you say? The Vulcans would have a limited number of starships to assist Earth, and other commitments too, like the Andorians.

but I highly doubt it was *untouched* by the war.

I can easily see America "untouched" by combat and destruction. But I think after a war that saw the deaths of 600 million people elsewhere on the globe there would be a major economic disruption and a worldwide re-adjustment of who are the major players on the globial stage.

 

[IrishNero]

If that type of war were to come to fruition, there would be no one, and I do mean no country, nation or people that would not face famine, starvation, and all sorts of calamities and challenges that would need to be overcome in order to survive intact. So, when it comes to a total exchange of nuclear weapon detonations between two or more major nuclear nations, what is good for one of us is good for us all. We can't stick our heads in the sand on this one. That's a genie we just don't want out of the bottle. Ever. Or your Maslow's pyramid will be one or two levels tall for quite some time.

Of course, the only way we could really know how that would play out would be to experience it, so I'd rather leave it to conjecture. Thank you very much!

 

[T'Girl]

If that type of war were to come to fruition, there would be no one, and I do mean no country, nation or people that would not face famine, starvation ...

Star Trek stipulate the approximate end date of the war, round figures the total dead and the duration of time for Humanity to get back on our feet following the war. Now, to me that sixty year figure means that everyone wasn't screwed directly by the war. The majority of the Human population weathered the war at a distance and survived. The mere presence of radiation in the atmosphere doesn't equal a drifting "death cloud." An interuption in world trade doesn't mean everyone starves, it mean some people do and some people don't.

If the war was between say China and India (my supposition) the non-combatants would readjust in time, trade would reconfigure itself, countires that did business with the combatants would find someone else, the countries that grow food for export would be looking for new customers.

We can't stick our heads in the sand on this one.

Okay, how would you explain the sequence of events as establish on the show, the timeline?

Maslow's pyramid

A silly concept.

 

[IrishNero]

There seems to be a mistake that inherently and inevitably comes with Internet discussion. I was addressing reality, not the fiction put forth by the show. I thought I made that clear with my post, but apparently not. I will do better next time.

The mere presence of radiation in the atmosphere doesn't equal a drifting "death cloud." An interuption in world trade doesn't mean everyone starves, it mean some people do and some people don't.

What I stated within my post is purely conjecture, as is your post. As I stated in my post, we cannot possibly know of what will happen in a nuclear war, given the extensive list of variables.

A silly concept.

Abraham Maslow was a man who devoted his life to the study of human psychology, and was an esteemed professor at several prestigious universities. He produced several renowned works that still serve as a basis for the study of human needs and social behavior today. I hope you were kidding to be so dismissive of his work. If not, please provide me another theory (of your own) that explains human physiological and social needs in a better way. Again, it's hard to know when someone is joking via the Internet and I apologize if my post appears to make me seem 'sensitive' but I would be interested in your countering theory.

If, however, you did not intend to impugn his work, and are simply trivializing the concept of ranking human needs, I agree.