I'm not being arsey in my short reply, just that I'm on my lunchbreak and want to reinforce a couple of quick points:
No disrespect - and I might be completely wrong here - but my guess is that it's likely you're not the sort of full-time professional photojournalist that the D3 was mainly aimed at, and those people would've got a D3 regardless of the D700 or any other Nikon camera.
The D700 would only have "hurt" sales of the D3 if those sales fell below Nikon's self-imposed targets in their business model... I don't know what those were. But we do know that the D3 was a massive success for Nikon, regardless of the financial aspect and regardless of how many people bought a D700.
The fact that there's been major natural disasters in Japan and yet Nikon (which is quite a specialised company in comparison to other camera manufacturers who have diversified and/or owned by larger consumer electronics groups) have released a D4, D800 and a D3200 with fairly believable rumours of another camera with plenty of announcement opportunity available in the rest 2012... not the actions of a struggling company!