The devil's in the "by extension." Trek's treatment of out near-future history has been more haphazard and inconsistent than people often realize. It's been possible to argue that there were up to three separate world-wide conflicts between the 1960s and Kirk's era.
It's just amusing to me how selective certain people can be regarding canonical issues with NuTrek. They'll bang the drum over 1996 and the eugenics war, but will conveniently ignore all the other mentions of global conflicts. Selective outrage at its finest.
They did admit that was a mistake though
And VOY had its characters visiting 1996 directly, in VOY S3 Futures End and there was no Eugenics War aftermath nor any indication that any such World War had taken place.
Well, the other examples were just ignoring the war. SNW took an active rather than a passive approach.
Really, it's just Kurtzman Trek that gets the blame. It isn't lining up perfectly, it isn't respecting what came before (respect in this instance meaning strict 100% faithful recreation with only minor deviations in the process, not the product), and dares to change everything about characters we know next to nothing about (Chapel, Uhura).
How is not showing the results of a World War where as Spock said: "...massive populations were bombed out of existence..." a 'passive' approach when you're supposedly talking a major event in Trek Universe history?
I'm not going to go down the "Hey, they didn't SHOW the places that were bombed to hell and gone and maybe nobody talked about it?" rabbit hole. (Montana looked pretty nice in 2063.)
It's sure not in ours.
Who doesn't love a good nerd discussion?
