Kirk Prevented WW3!

[RAO]

I was watching TVH and it occurred to me: "Kirk prevented the Eugenics Wars." Think of all the small and even big changes Kirk and crew caused in 1986. And consider all of the technological and historic predictions came true in Trek before the mid-80's and how massively wrong they were on others (namely, the Eugenics Wars and/or WW3) in our reality. Using the Abrams model of alternate universes, any change creates it's own universe. Therefore, Kirk created our universe by preventing these wars.


Thank you, Colorado.

Edit: to answer any questions, Kirk and crew returned to their timeline because Spock used the exact same coordinates to get back.

[R. Star]

Really World War 3 and the Eugenics Wars were two separate deals. The Eugenics wars were supposed to have taken place in the 90's while First Contact stated WW3 took place in the early 21st century.

It was only a matter of time before the Trek timeline and real one diverged though.

[RAO]

R. Star wrote:

---

Really World War 3 and the Eugenics Wars were two separate deals. The Eugenics wars were supposed to have taken place in the 90's while First Contact stated WW3 took place in the early 21st century.

It was only a matter of time before the Trek timeline and real one diverged though.

I agree and tried to express that above. Perhaps the Eugenics War didn't happen (unless one follows the comic/book canon). But all one has to do is watch the news to see World War III on the horizon. The world has followed the path of the late 20s/early 30s to a tee.

[Timo]

Let's remember that while Kirk mucked about in the 20th century, he never created the sort of "uncontrolled" effects that would have significantly altered the future. He never prevented himself from being born, say, even though this would certainly be the consequence of removing a big war from the timeline. We're supposed to think that time in some mysterious way is self-healing, then, so that even the most blatant changes fail to create "ripple effects" of smaller changes.

On the other hand, McCoy did erase the entire UFP from existence by wandering around stoned in the 1930s. He apparently achieved that mainly through interacting with a "kingpin" figure, though; those might be rare and difficult to find, and simply killing a random bunch of, say, five thousand in any given era would not necessarily result in any sort of a noticeable change in history.

Edit: to answer any questions, Kirk and crew returned to their timeline because Spock used the exact same coordinates to get back.

But that would get them back to a timeline where there were no whales on Earth because nobody had traveled to the past to get any...

If OTOH Spock could guide them to a timeline where they had gone to the past, why didn't he do that right away so that they could have skipped the actual, troublesome going-to-past bit?

Timo Saloniemi

[RAO]

Timo wrote:

---

Let's remember that while Kirk mucked about in the 20th century, he never created the sort of "uncontrolled" effects that would have significantly altered the future. He never prevented himself from being born, say, even though this would certainly be the consequence of removing a big war from the timeline. We're supposed to think that time in some mysterious way is self-healing, then, so that even the most blatant changes fail to create "ripple effects" of smaller changes.

Let me preface this by saying I'm a financial planner, not a physicist and most of my physics knowledge comes from a combination of Art Bell and the science channel. But I believe strongly in the butterfly effect. Look at Gillian Taylor. Yes, she may be a minor player in time. But suppose six months after she left she was meant to cause a car accident killing the man responsible (or even his mother before he was born). Or even something as small as Kirk delaying the double dumbass a few seconds.

On the other hand, McCoy did erase the entire UFP from existence by wandering around stoned in the 1930s. He apparently achieved that mainly through interacting with a "kingpin" figure, though; those might be rare and difficult to find, and simply killing a random bunch of, say, five thousand in any given era would not necessarily result in any sort of a noticeable change in history.

Again, I believe the smallest change can ripple through time like a snowball. One does not have to kill Hitler to prevent World War II nor does killing Rick Berman in 1990 prevent Voyager from being made.

But that would get them back to a timeline where there were no whales on Earth because nobody had traveled to the past to get any...

If OTOH Spock could guide them to a timeline where they had gone to the past, why didn't he do that right away so that they could have skipped the actual, troublesome going-to-past bit?

Consider string theory. The crew's involvement changed the vibration of that universe, creating an all new incredibly slightly different universe. When they returned, Spock (whose understanding of physics dwarfs Kaku and Hawking combined) would've realized this and made the proper adjustments. Imagine every universe as a highway. If one takes Highway A to Point B, which is now Highway B, does he not follow Highway A to get home?

I think you misunderestimate the effects of their incursion. "A Russian agent of an unknown organization somehow gets onto a US Navy nuclear destroyer totally undetected. Then, he somehow drains the reactor and has these odd gadgets our scientists can't figure out. Then he makes a run for it, escapes a fall that should've killed him and then is stolen from the hospital by a man with a lasor gun and a woman who matches the description of a missing whale biologist." You don't think that would cause some major concern from Washington, especially under Reagan?

[Mr. Laser Beam]

How can you be sure that the entirety of ST IV - including Kirk and crew's adventures in the past - weren't part of history all along? They were destined to go back in time and do those things.

[King Daniel into Darkness]

I much prefer the idea of Trek's version of the 90's being a secret history, as told in Greg Cox's Eugenics Wars: The Rise and Fall of Khan Noonien Singh novel duology, the details of which only becoming public knowledge sometime post-WWIII.

Trek writer Roberto Orci is a fan of those novels, so if Khan does crop up in Star Trek Into Darkness or Star Trek XIII, they may base his backstory on the one in those books (similarly to how their George Kirk was loosely based on the version in Diane Carey's Final Frontier and Best Destiny)

[Timo]

I believe the smallest change can ripple through time like a snowball.

In reality, it probably would (if time travel is possible in the first place, and we aren't stuck with the complete lack of any possibility for such change, that is).

In Star Trek, clearly not. We have seen many time-tampering stories, including ones where live after time travel is significantly different from life before time travel, yet none of this seems to erase either the time-traveling heroes or their non-time-traveling contemporaries and loved ones from existence.

Whether this is just predestination (every time travel adventure was always supposed to happen, and only one valid timeline exists) or a case of time repairing itself or being repaired by detail-minded caretakers of some sort, we don't know. But it does seem to follow that one doesn't accidentally prevent WWIII if one sets out to prevent toothpicks from getting invented, or vice versa.

Timo Saloniemi

[Xerxes1979]

Khan was already a grown man in 1986 meaning whatever eugenics program created him had already occured.

Trek history and our's seem to diverge after WWII with fashion and countries superficially similar. Certainly the 1960's space race was vastly different with its covert nuclear weapons angle.

We can't judge the entire Earth by a few scenes of 1986 San Francisco. Also if Kirk created our reality where is transparent aluminum?

[Shawnster]

RAO wrote:

---

Let me preface this by saying I'm a financial planner, not a physicist and most of my physics knowledge comes from a combination of Art Bell and the science channel. But I believe strongly in the butterfly effect. Look at Gillian Taylor. Yes, she may be a minor player in time. But suppose six months after she left she was meant to cause a car accident killing the man responsible (or even his mother before he was born). Or even something as small as Kirk delaying the double dumbass a few seconds.

So, do you believe that the times make the man, or the man makes the time? In other words, do you feel that World events are dictated by the lives of specific individuals, or that specific individuals lives are dictated by World conditions that they live in? Why does it have to be exclusively one or the other? I believe that reality is a little bit of both.

Consider the US Revolution, for example. The American Colonies were under so much pressure from England that revolution was going to happen. If Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc... were not there, I believe someone else would have stepped in and taken their place in history. The times were ripe for change. Those dominoes were going to fall.

Now, how those dominoes fell may have been different if those people were not there. General Washington led his troops and made tactical decisions. Another general may have made different choices. Different battles may have been fought. The British may have put down the rebellion. It's just as likely that the Revolution would have proceeded without the historical figures we know.

So, while specific events may indeed be different, the overall generalities of history may be close enough to our reality. Gillian Taylor may have killed/saved the life of somebody instrumental in starting or preventing the Eugenics Wars. On the other hand, that would only be one individual. Khan wasn't solely responsible for the Eugenics Wars. No one individual has that much influence.

Now, to invoke Godwin's law and bring this argument around to the Nazi state, for example. It seems like a common time-travel story involves going back in time and killing Hitler, as if he was exclusively responsible for the Nazi state and WWII. He wasn't. He had all kinds of fellow henchmen to assist him with his twisted schemes. Had Hitler not been present, would someone else have been influenced by Himmler, Goring or Goebbels? They may have not enacted their ideas in the height of war, but, perhaps, their genocidal desires would still have been acted on. Perhaps the killing of Hitler would have lead those three laying the groundwork for the Eugenics Wars. Meanwhile, Hitler's life or death would have had no influence on the militarism of Japan. Perhaps WWII would have still happened, but the Allies and Axis totally different in structure.

[Herkimer Jitty]

Xerxes1979 wrote:

---

Khan was already a grown man in 1986 meaning whatever eugenics program created him had already occured.

Trek history and our's seem to diverge after WWII with fashion and countries superficially similar. Certainly the 1960's space race was vastly different with its covert nuclear weapons angle.

We can't judge the entire Earth by a few scenes of 1986 San Francisco. Also if Kirk created our reality where is transparent aluminum?

Yo

[T'Girl]

Xerxes1979 wrote:

---

Also if Kirk created our reality where is transparent aluminum?

It's better know today as "Gorilla Glass," (alkali-aluminosilicate) which is transparent, and contains aluminum.

Supposedly Corning invented it in the 1960's, but we know better.