I was a child in the 1990s so I wouldn't have been fighting in the Eugenics Wars. And I'll be in my 60s or even 70s when WWIII ends, so I'm guessing I won't be fighting in that war either.
Earth's Second Dark Age: From Eugenics War to First Contact?
- Thread starter dswynne1
- Start date
Actually we have no idea how old Archer's grandfather WAS when he fought in the Eugenics Wars. It could be that he was a very young fresh-faced Army recruit or something. So this doesn't have to screw up continuity.
As for the Eugenics Wars vs. WW3 thing: Perhaps there was, for a time, a debate over what to call them. Meaning, some people insist on referring to the EW as WW3, and the 2053 one as WW4. I realize this is reaching, but so what?
The only real problem I have with this whole thing is one I've said many times before: Earth's recovery from WW3 is just too damn quick. A worldwide nuclear war in 2053, and then only a few decades later Earth is fully recovered and rebuilt? I have a hard time believing that. It'd take more like a thousand years (or perhaps even two thousand) to recover from a war like that. With Earth's technological capability blown to bits, cities in ruins worldwide, there's no way they could have recovered completely in only a century or so. Hell, even ONE city would take at least a couple hundred years to rebuild, let alone ALL of them...
Oh well. It's a minor thing, anyway. Just have to accept that the Vulcans provided massive amounts of assistance in the rebuilding process, and then held Earth's space program back (as we saw) as 'payment' for their efforts. I guess I can buy that.
Side note: Remember DS9's "Past Tense" in which Kira and O'Brien go hopping around through time? At one point O'Brien finds himself in an alternate 21st century (which we don't actually see) and later says "Earth had its rough patches, but never THAT rough." What the bloody hell could possibly have been worse than World War III?
I suggested as much in my novel Deparment of Temporal Investigations: Watching the Clock. It made sense as an explanation for the anachronistically advanced genetic engineering of the Augments, as well as for Gary Seven's involvement in the novel version of the Wars. Plus it tied into Future Guy's use of genetically engineered agents in the form of the Suliban Cabal.
^ Didn't you also suggest that the reason Earth recovered from WWIII so quickly was also due to temporal intervention?
Wait that would mean in the original timeline the genesis device was a success, since there was not a Khan to steal it. And Kirks son might have survived. Gah my head hurts.
^There isn't necessarily an "original timeline." It could've been a self-consistent time loop where the intervention of time travelers was "always" part of events. Indeed, that's what I implied in the book -- that there was no original cause for the rival factions getting involved in 20th-century Earth history, just that each had historical records showing the other side's involvement and thus were motivated to get involved to counter them, so it was basically a self-fulfilling loop.
Side note: Remember DS9's "Past Tense" in which Kira and O'Brien go hopping around through time? At one point O'Brien finds himself in an alternate 21st century (which we don't actually see) and later says "Earth had its rough patches, but never THAT rough." What the bloody hell could possibly have been worse than World War III?
Having the human race on the verge of extinction, a la "The Road"?
But keep in mind that we don't know how bad the nuclear horror was. I remember this Twilight Zone episode, the second series from the 1980s, called "Quarantine". A man wakes up from cryo-sleep, only to find that WW3 happened, but only an exchange of a dozen nuclear warheads was launch. However, it was enough to collapse the world's civilization, but not enough to kill everyone. The survivors managed to survive and rebuild there world, having abandoned the cities in the process. Interesting premise...
At any rate, we assume that there wouldn't be a missile defense system in place, which doesn't mean that it would be foolproof. Just a few missiles would be more than enough to create the "post-atomic horror" that was described in TNG, and I would certainly think that the Vulcans would be charitable enough to help speed up the process (i.e. dealing with the radiation fallout). They most likely involved themselves thinking that they didn't want a planet that has warp capabilities that was still chaotic globally.
But, I digress...
Unfortunately, I was old enough to be of draft age in 1992. Thank goodness the EW never happened.
I posted this before, if the countries best able to assist war ravaged countries in their rebuilding weren't participants in the third world war, this might explain the quick recovery.
One of the reasons I think America sat out the war.
But the episode does say that the Neo-Trotskite are not effectively dealing with the problems in France.
No, there was no connect made between the events in Europe and the creation of the sanctuary districts .
While there was mention of a economic down turn in America, there was no sign of any (at all) "mass impoverishment." If anything their economy, even with a resent down turn, would seem to be in somewhat better shape than our own, or at least in San Fransisco. The character of Chris Brynner said the sanctuary district in San Fransisco held "something like 10,000 people."
San Fransisco currently has a population of over 837,000 people, with a unemployment rate of 4.9%. In addition the official 2013 San Fransisco homeless count was 7,300 people.
Wrong, the Bell Riots were cause by government actions, and not the lack of them. Providing for shelter and job placement were fair ideas, but the government in typical "we'll fix everything" fashion went beyond that and herded people into the shelters and locked the doors behind them until as such time as the government found jobs for them.
Oh please.
Would they have been somehow better off with socialism? According to the episode "Europe is falling apart." Europe (currently) is a socialist wonderland.
Sisko (as Bell) said it best, the people in the sanctuary district wanted "to stop having to depend on handouts."
Last edited:
Side note: Remember DS9's "Past Tense" in which Kira and O'Brien go hopping around through time? At one point O'Brien finds himself in an alternate 21st century (which we don't actually see) and later says "Earth had its rough patches, but never THAT rough." What the bloody hell could possibly have been worse than World War III?
Having the human race on the verge of extinction, a la "The Road"?
That's what I always assumed would happen in any concept of World War III.
The real world is the one you're in. Neither Trek timeline is real.
^I think killerbee256 just meant a fictional setting that emulates the real-world present, as in "Assignment: Earth" or The Voyage Home or "Future's End" or "Carpenter Street."
I'm pretty sure the Eugenics wars would have had an effect on 2004. Just a guess though.
Furthermore, why would they show Trek 2004 rather than our 2004 to give the "impression" that Star Trek is our future is idiotic. Doing precisely that only dates a show extremely badly. That's why Voyager and ENT are dated compared to TNG.
Secondly, ENT wasn't a reboot. It was a show set within the continuity of the Star Trek universe. You can show modern day times if you're rebooting the whole shebang. nuTrek doesn't need to adhere to continuity. However, prime Trek should have maintained continuity.
Showing me our 2004 does nothing for me. I'm not the lowest common denominator, and I never thought Star Trek fans were either. I'd rather have the writers make a good story within continuity, rather than fill a show with plot holes because of their inability to create a good story.
Furthermore, why would they show Trek 2004 rather than our 2004 to give the "impression" that Star Trek is our future is idiotic. Doing precisely that only dates a show extremely badly. That's why Voyager and ENT are dated compared to TNG.
Secondly, ENT wasn't a reboot. It was a show set within the continuity of the Star Trek universe. You can show modern day times if you're rebooting the whole shebang. nuTrek doesn't need to adhere to continuity. However, prime Trek should have maintained continuity.
Showing me our 2004 does nothing for me. I'm not the lowest common denominator, and I never thought Star Trek fans were either. I'd rather have the writers make a good story within continuity, rather than fill a show with plot holes because of their inability to create a good story.
On some parts of the world IN 2004, yes. But as has been pointed out many times: The USA was not involved in the Eugenics Wars. We simply weren't a player in them.
The guys making the show don't care about the fannish idea of "continuity". No one making the show thinks of it as an "alternate reality". They think of it as the "future" of the world they're living in. As professionals trying to make a product with mass appeal they aren't going to bog a episode down with exposition about it being set in an "alternate reality". Gene Roddenberry certainly didn't intend for Star Trek to be an "alternate reality." Every episode where the characters visit the present ( when ever that may be) its clearly the same reality as the audience.
How are VOY and ENT more dated than TNG? All the shows are reflections of the times they were made in. TNG was set in our future as much as any of the other shows.
There's nothing in the continuity of Star Trek that contradicts the 2004 seen in "Carpenter St." What reason other than
"fanwank" would the characters name drop something from other episodes set years or decades in the past or future of 2004? Were there any references to the Eugenics Wars in the "Neutral Zone"? How could the writers fail to mention it??????
Slavish devotion to "continuity" doesn't make a story good. As Roy Thomas once paraphrased: "A foolish continuity is the hobgoblin of little minds"
All the Trek shows are "dated." TOS is clearly a product of the 60s, TNG is a product of the 80s and 90s, DS9 and Voyager are clearly from the 90s, and Enterprise is clearly a product of the 2000s. The movies also reflect the time periods of their release.
TNG is more dated than VOY, DS9 and ENT in every way imaginable. It's incomprehensible that anyone would think the opposite.
That's not really required, though. The USA was heavily involved in WWI and WWII, but not affected by them, not in the sense of there being anything visible in the cityscapes half a year into the subsequent peaces. So we don't have to avoid US involvement in the Eugenics Wars like plague, if some story point or interpretation is better served by the opposite assumption.
Timo Saloniemi
Wait ten years before you decide that. Maybe TNG just seems more dated because it's more distant from us in time.
The first few seasons or so of TNG were the worst.
Similar threads
