I was wondering, supposing Iraq and Libya were part of Khan's territory in the 1990's, how would that have effected the regimes of Saddam Hussain and Colonel Gadaffi, dictators who, in real world history, have only recently been deposed? If we accept that the whole Iraq invasion occurred in the Trekverse, then Saddam would have to still have been in power in the early 2000's.
Trek's world had super blood in the 70's, sleeper ships in the 90's and a superhuman dictator ruling 1/4 of the world for 4 years. I can't imagine our 9/11, Iraq invasion and whatnot happening at all the same in that environment.
It would easy to see Iraq as being part of Khan's Realm, when Khan was over thrown in the mid 1990's Muslim extremists could have taken control of parts of Khan former area of control. Similarly to how they did in southern and central Afganistan after the withdrawl of Russia. It's also possible the Saddam Hussein might have been left in operational control of Iraq as a puppet ruler. Libya might have been too far from Khan's particular area, but could have been under the control of another of the "supermen." I don't think that Colonel al-Gadaffi would have been as pragmatic as Hussein, so wouldn't have allowed himself to be a puppet, but he could have re-establish himself as the ruler of Libya after the superman in control there (assuming one was) was gone. So could something similar to 9/11 and the event that resulted from it have still happen? Yes, although likely not on the same exact timetable.
9/11 did happen in the Trekverse. I was shown on Enterprise. Storm Front Part 2 it can be seen as one of the historical events floating by Archer and Mr. Daniels as they talk while the timeline corrects itself. So can an image of Osama bin Laden.
Why was that event so significant in a different historical context? I am not sure hwo big a historical event it would be in the middle of a massive war opposed to place. It was a tragedy of course, make no mistake.
Another thing: If Khan ruled virtually all of South Asia and the Middle East by 1992, he would probably have started his campaign of conquest some time before then. I imagine the Middle East would not have easily been subjugated, so any operations there would likely have taken a while to complete. And how would Khan have gone about subjugating the other nations around India in the first place?
You can't use Enterprise as a primary source - the whole show was demonstrated to be nothing more than Riker's shenanigans on the holodeck during the Pegasus recovery incident. Side note: Why the hell Riker was playing Captain Proton while the Enterprise-D was trapped inside a massive-ass asteroid, I have no clue.
Not the entire show, just the last episode. Although it is odd that Enterprise included 9/11 and the like, when it did a 3 part story about Augments and the fallout from the EW.
I prefer to imagine that the whole Enterprise series was a byproduct of holodeck gaming, polywater intoxication, and transporter psychosis. It is without a doubt the worst incarnation of Trek I have ever endured, Abramsverse included.
Eh, I'm no big fan of seasons one and two, but I thought the Xindi arc was fantastic and the fourth season more than adequate.
So, er....how did Khan gain control over South Asia and the Middle East, including Iraq? I can't see him using very brutal tactics at that point in his career, as it was stated that he was one of the least violent dictators, until he was attacked from outside his empire.
Speculation? Nuked em, then blamed the USA for the attack, thus preserving his reputation. You know Khan, always thinking outside the box.
There are two basic ways to approach this. One is the "keep everything as close to real history as possible" approach. This is the approach Greg Cox's The Eugenics Wars novels back in 2001 and 2002 took. In these books, Khan is depicted as having seized control of much of Asia covertly, using blackmail and coercion to keep the national governments taking orders from him while keeping them in charge on paper; Augments were also depicted as leading various nationalist movements, such as the warlords who ascended to power in the Balkans when Yugoslavia broke up. In these books, the American public largely remained unaware of the role of the Augments in world affairs, due to a combination of ethnocentrism and ignorance; it was only after the Eugenics Wars that the Augments' role in society came to be understood. The other way to do it all, of course, is simply to presuppose that Star Trek's history diverges more completely than this, much earlier, and to depict the Eugenics Wars as a World War-level conflict in which the roles of the Augments are well-known by the public. This is the approach taken by the current Star Trek: Khan comic series, and by last year's Federation: The First 150 Years book by David Goodman. ETA: The smartest thing Star Trek Into Darkness did was avoid the issue one way or the other.
I think that divergence first took place first when Quark, Rom, and Nog crashed at Roswell in 1947, followed by several sub-divergences thereafter.
Just because he didn't massacre people under his rule, doesn't mean he wouldn't use brutal tactics in the process of achieving that rule or he wasn't violent. The final act of "Space Seed" shows he wasn't adverse to violence and threats. Earlier we see he has quite a temper. He probably gained control using traditional means, using his charisma to convince people to follow him and then use those followers to usurp the current rulers.
Have they been significantly involved into the fall of the Iron Curtain or did they "simply" take advantage of the situation?
Dialogue in ENT made it seem as if the Eugenics Wars might have taken place in the 21st century rather than in the 1990s. Archer once referred to his great-grandfather fighting in North Africa during the war, so he probably would have to have been born in the early-to-mid 1970s at the earliest if the original date is still correct. Archer was, what, in his early 40s during ENT? So unless his grandfather was born late in his great-grandfather's life, and the same for Henry Archer and then Jonathan himself, the timeline seems a bit muddied.