It's also possible that any captured Romulan might claim to be a Vulcan turncoat (which would add some slight reasonability to Stiles's suspicions). Starfleet wouldn't realize the (technically true) deception until after Balance of Terror.
Balance of Terror continuity
- Thread starter captain-brad
- Start date
It's also possible that any captured Romulan might claim to be a Vulcan turncoat (which would add some slight reasonability to Stiles's suspicions). Starfleet wouldn't realize the (technically true) deception until after Balance of Terror.
Which during that time period in the Federation's history might have been basically true.
Not so sure. We see a Federation conference over the admittance of Coridan being held the neutral planet Babel (Journey to Babel). We see a Federation starship having to ask for permission to enter a member worlds' orbit (Amok Time).
It seems more like we're seeing a fledgling Federation... one that may have formed in the not-to-distant past.
And Maybe he meant that Visual ship to ship wasn't done, that why everyone was surprised that Spock looked so much like the Romulan?
just my 2¢ (Yeah I know it aint worth shit,
)
TOS Federation always seemed to me to be similar to the present day UN with a group of completely sovereign planets sharing some common laws and starfleet acting as the "blue helmets."
The impression I received from Spock's briefing was that, it wasn't so much they couldn't take prisoners, they weren't trying to. No quarter means take no prisoners, accept no surrender.
They made no effort to rescue their enemies from space after battle.
...Or at least was seen as such by the UFP's enemies and soon-to-be assimilation victims.
But Spock's phrase clearly blames the technological primitiveness of the ships for the cruelty of the war they fought.
That there was no effort to rescue enemies or to take prisoners was not a decision made freely, as a statement of policy. It was an implementation of the only possible policy - similar to the decisions of submarine fleet commanders in the latter stages of the World Wars not to allow the submarine commanders to give quarter, because doing so would expose the subs to novel antisubmarine weapons and take away their only advantage. Earlier in the war, the policy had been one of clemency, but that was because weapons capable of destroying a mercifully commanded sub did not yet exist.
In contrast, the bit about visual communications is no longer part of the phrase that deals with the technological shortcomings of the ships. So the decision not to communicate visually may have been made "freely", with the opposite option also actually existing.
Timo Saloniemi
If the motivation is the nature of the conflict and the not the technology of the 22nd century spacecraft, what you get is this:
This conflict was fought with 22nd century atomic weapons
This conflict was fought with 22nd century space vessels
This conflict allowed no quarter,
This conflict allowed no captives.
This conflict allowed no ship-to-ship visual communication.
There is absolutely no reason a Starship/Warship constructed at the same general time period as the NX-01 would be technologically incapable of visual communications with anyone, the idea that the Warships were mass produced so incredible cheaply or rapidly that Earth/Starfleet would be "force" to leave out a portion of the communications equipment is absurd and unacceptable. Much more likely is that the nature of the conflict prevents communications from happening, also Earth ships might simply be under orders not to communicate with the enemy ships.
If sensors detect a Romulan ship, you don't hail them, you destroy the ship and kill the crew. The military concept of "no quarter" means, among other things, you don't accept a offer of surrender, the crews of disabled enemy warships are just left behind, while you go looking for more targets.
There's no canon as to exactly how the Romulan war began, if the Romulans began the war by committed a act so egregious, so offensive, so horrifying, then the tactics suggested might be a expected response on the part of the Humans.
The grammar on that doesn't add up: the "which" must refer either to the ships, or then to the fact that the conflic was fought with primitive ships. Either way, the limiting factor on giving quarter or taking captives was the primitiveness of the ships.
If it's supposed to be something generic relating to the conflict, Spock is expressing this against grammar rules. Which I guess is perfectly possible, although Nimoy's lines seldom deviate from grammar rules, suggesting Spock has mastered English and takes pride in getting it right.
In contrast, as said, the part about visual communications is not grammatically related to the primitiveness of the ships, so we don't have to worry about a) technological continuity conflicts with ENT or b) the general improbability of any science fiction starship lacking the ability to transmit visual messages. We can easily argue that the communications remained audio only, or text only, or did not take place at all, specifically because one or both sides refused to employ their existing visual transmission tech. Which ENT makes all the more understandable by showing that Romulans in the 2150s fight wars through lethal disinformation. Earthlings would accept Romulan communications at their own peril!
However, Earthlings could show clemency in and outside combat in many ways even if they couldn't exchange messages with the enemy. It is quite possible to postulate technological limitations that would prevent starships from recovering survivors or capturing prisoners, but ENT invalidates most of those. We need to come up with new technological limitations that match the ENT evidence if we are to take Spock for his word. Mere hatred of the enemy won't cut it. But perhaps some sort of a Romulan weapon that will kill you if you drop your shields for transport or shuttlecraft/spacewalk recovery of Romulan corpses? Something that remains a threat even after you are certain you have destroyed all Romulan vessels in the vicinity?
The cloak would actually explain it very elegantly. If Romulans were invisible in the old war, Feds or Earthlings or Coppers would never dare drop their shields in the debris field of a recent battle: the enemy might still be there. Especially if primitive ships couldn't withstand even one blast from Romulan weapons unless shielded.
ENT has shown that Romulans know how to be invisible or falsely visible in the 2150s. So that alone could already validate Spock's statement on mercy and captives. However, it would at the same time invalidate Spock's claim that invisibility is merely a theoretical possibility as late as the 2260s.
Timo Saloniemi
If it's supposed to be something generic relating to the conflict, Spock is expressing this against grammar rules. Which I guess is perfectly possible, although Nimoy's lines seldom deviate from grammar rules, suggesting Spock has mastered English and takes pride in getting it right.
In contrast, as said, the part about visual communications is not grammatically related to the primitiveness of the ships, so we don't have to worry about a) technological continuity conflicts with ENT or b) the general improbability of any science fiction starship lacking the ability to transmit visual messages. We can easily argue that the communications remained audio only, or text only, or did not take place at all, specifically because one or both sides refused to employ their existing visual transmission tech. Which ENT makes all the more understandable by showing that Romulans in the 2150s fight wars through lethal disinformation. Earthlings would accept Romulan communications at their own peril!
However, Earthlings could show clemency in and outside combat in many ways even if they couldn't exchange messages with the enemy. It is quite possible to postulate technological limitations that would prevent starships from recovering survivors or capturing prisoners, but ENT invalidates most of those. We need to come up with new technological limitations that match the ENT evidence if we are to take Spock for his word. Mere hatred of the enemy won't cut it. But perhaps some sort of a Romulan weapon that will kill you if you drop your shields for transport or shuttlecraft/spacewalk recovery of Romulan corpses? Something that remains a threat even after you are certain you have destroyed all Romulan vessels in the vicinity?
The cloak would actually explain it very elegantly. If Romulans were invisible in the old war, Feds or Earthlings or Coppers would never dare drop their shields in the debris field of a recent battle: the enemy might still be there. Especially if primitive ships couldn't withstand even one blast from Romulan weapons unless shielded.
ENT has shown that Romulans know how to be invisible or falsely visible in the 2150s. So that alone could already validate Spock's statement on mercy and captives. However, it would at the same time invalidate Spock's claim that invisibility is merely a theoretical possibility as late as the 2260s.
Timo Saloniemi
What I'm noticing from folks who want to be able to like "Enterprise" and like the Original Series simultaneously, is that they have to work to create scenarios in their minds that "explain away" why the earlier explanations that took place in a later timeframe don't coincide with the later events in the earlier timeframe.
Good storytelling should not have to make the listener work to explain something to himself. One of the many things that made Balance of Terror not only one of the best Trek episodes ever produced, but one of the most groundbreaking bits of television ever made, was that it alluded to a world in-between ours and theirs where events were more complex because the tools were more primitive. It enabled folks to imagine things getting worse before they got better, and great storytelling is what sparks the imagination. . . for the purposes of building new worlds, not fixing old ones.
The whole promise of ENT was that we might get a real peek into this world that we've been imagining since 1967. And it finally premieres, and what surprises us is that it's just as push-button and automated and single-click as Voyager. It didn't show us the same world at all. So folks who do like ENT, and there are many, are forced to reconcile in their minds between the world they expected and the world they're witnessing.
And they do a great job of it sometimes; the problem is, though, they shouldn't have had to do it in the first place. When you tell a good story, no matter how long it gets, you shouldn't have to tell your listener, "Oh yeah, remember that part I told you about way back in Chapter 2? Forget I said that."
-DF "By 'No Ship-to-Ship Visual Communication,' I Meant That They Hadn't Installed Skype" Scott
Good storytelling should not have to make the listener work to explain something to himself. One of the many things that made Balance of Terror not only one of the best Trek episodes ever produced, but one of the most groundbreaking bits of television ever made, was that it alluded to a world in-between ours and theirs where events were more complex because the tools were more primitive. It enabled folks to imagine things getting worse before they got better, and great storytelling is what sparks the imagination. . . for the purposes of building new worlds, not fixing old ones.
The whole promise of ENT was that we might get a real peek into this world that we've been imagining since 1967. And it finally premieres, and what surprises us is that it's just as push-button and automated and single-click as Voyager. It didn't show us the same world at all. So folks who do like ENT, and there are many, are forced to reconcile in their minds between the world they expected and the world they're witnessing.
And they do a great job of it sometimes; the problem is, though, they shouldn't have had to do it in the first place. When you tell a good story, no matter how long it gets, you shouldn't have to tell your listener, "Oh yeah, remember that part I told you about way back in Chapter 2? Forget I said that."
-DF "By 'No Ship-to-Ship Visual Communication,' I Meant That They Hadn't Installed Skype" Scott
Really, can the soon to be mothballed Space Shuttles take on multiple prisioners?
That is a really poor argument. You're talking about a re-usable vehicle designed solely for short trips (with no crew individual crew quarters) in planetary orbit versus a ship that carries eighty people (and provisions) on a deep space journey at speeds many times of light.
That is a really poor argument. You're talking about a re-usable vehicle designed solely for short trips (with no crew individual crew quarters) in planetary orbit versus a ship that carries eighty people (and provisions) on a deep space journey at speeds many times of light.
That was kind of my point. Timo did infer that any ship that had a crew would be able to take on prisoners.
Spock's words are being taken to literately, even if it was Spock saying them, and I am pretty strict on my canon views. It's absurd to think that a starship capable of carrying and supporting over eighty people for years at a time, hundreds of LY away from Earth cannot establish visual communications. They could do this from the moon to Earth back in the 1960's for crying outloud. But then, this is similar to the argument I here that the NX-01 is more advanced then NCC-1701, because the NX has plasma screens *rolls eyes*,
Honestly, it's this kind of argument that I here, where I feel that people are looking for a reason to find fault with Star Trek: Enterprise. Just like how people bitch about T'Pol's eyebrows, or Andorian Antennae being a couple centimeters off (I've actually read people bitching about this).
In a further argument, it's also absurd to think that the Romulans were not capable of FTL in some form or another. If they weren't, how the hell were the a major interstellar threat capable of fighting a bloody war over vast distances?
Honestly, it's this kind of argument that I here, where I feel that people are looking for a reason to find fault with Star Trek: Enterprise. Just like how people bitch about T'Pol's eyebrows, or Andorian Antennae being a couple centimeters off (I've actually read people bitching about this).
In a further argument, it's also absurd to think that the Romulans were not capable of FTL in some form or another. If they weren't, how the hell were the a major interstellar threat capable of fighting a bloody war over vast distances?
There's no reason why a space shuttle (or, say, a Gemini capsule) couldn't carry prisoners. Say, if it were strategically absolutely essential to capture a Romulan spy from the Moon during Apollo 16, John Young would simply leave Charles Duke behind to die and fly the prisoner to the CSM and then to Earth. But nobody would have to die to transport a Romulan from LEO to Earth on a shuttle. "Prisoners" are in no way different from passengers or crew in terms of the carrying capacity of a vehicle. (Theoretically, the might be "uncooperative". In practice, it's trivially simple to make a prisoner cooperate.)
True enough. OTOH, in my opinion "Balance of Terror" was haphazardly written pulp that had an implausible backstory and cliched plot turns, the only saving grace being that it was an episode of Star Trek acted by Shatner, Kelley, Nimoy and Lenard. That something like "Minefield" doesn't easily mesh with "BoT" doesn't mean that the ENT episode would be less well written than the 1960s piece (although it certainly isn't the most gripping hour of Trek drama, either). It just means that two pieces of poor writing, or two pieces of good writing, or any combination thereof, may or may not be compatible in continuity terms. In this case, they sort of are, if you bother to squint.
Then again, "BoT" was very explicit about the Romulans being FTL-capable. Their weapons easily kept pace with the emergency warp speed of Starfleet's finest; their ship had to be pursued at warp three. How this meshes with their "power" being "simple impulse" (or with our heroes claiming this) is a separate issue, and probably ultimately unrelated to their explicit FTL capabilities.
Timo Saloniemi
True enough. OTOH, in my opinion "Balance of Terror" was haphazardly written pulp that had an implausible backstory and cliched plot turns, the only saving grace being that it was an episode of Star Trek acted by Shatner, Kelley, Nimoy and Lenard. That something like "Minefield" doesn't easily mesh with "BoT" doesn't mean that the ENT episode would be less well written than the 1960s piece (although it certainly isn't the most gripping hour of Trek drama, either). It just means that two pieces of poor writing, or two pieces of good writing, or any combination thereof, may or may not be compatible in continuity terms. In this case, they sort of are, if you bother to squint.
Then again, "BoT" was very explicit about the Romulans being FTL-capable. Their weapons easily kept pace with the emergency warp speed of Starfleet's finest; their ship had to be pursued at warp three. How this meshes with their "power" being "simple impulse" (or with our heroes claiming this) is a separate issue, and probably ultimately unrelated to their explicit FTL capabilities.
Timo Saloniemi
Or, fans of both shows can simply accept the fact that they were produced decades apart, and that there's no reason to let a single line of dialogue intended to establish some rudimentary backstory for one episode to ruin their enjoyment of either show.
Long-running storytelling arcs, whether in television, novels, film series, etc., often have internal contradictions, which the creators usually allow because they'll serve the larger story. In most cases audiences accept and understand (or frankly, most commonly, simply don't notice), rather than fetishising it the way a few very hardcore Star Trek fans do.
I'll wager that the vast majority of viewers of Enterprise never had to work to explain anything, because they either a) weren't aware of the contradiction in the first place, or b) accepted on face value that Spock's line of dialogue didn't make much sense in the story the Enterprise creators were trying to tell.
Look, I love BOT, it's among my favorite TOS episode of all time, but you're really exaggerating here. It was basically just a submarine thriller in outer space, and borrowed heavily from the film The Enemy Below. The storyline was quite familiar to 1960s viewers who were used to Cold War-style storytelling, certainly not "one of the most groundbreaking bits of television ever made."
Sure, that would be a problem in a single novel. In two television shows created decades apart by completely different groups of people for completely different audiences and in two different eras, I think it's no big deal to allow a few lines of dialogue to slip by.
Look, there is plenty to criticize when it comes to the writing on Enterprise. But this has just never seemed like a big deal to me and I still never understand why a few people get so worked up about it.
Flashover
Lieutenant Commander
Sometimes our heroes are just wrong.
The line of dialog that tells us the Romulan ship is impulse only or whatever? Totally wrong. Either someone misread the screen, or sensor jamming distorted the readings, or the warp-drive was powered down stone cold... or romulan ships from that era used a different form of FTL drive than the Federation did.
Say we take Enterprise as Canon here and the events of Minefield as well. Archer mentioned that the Romulan ship had advanced sensor-spoofing technology that made the ship "practically invisible" to their sensors. I don't recall if Archer associated this ship and the minefield with the Romulans in his logs. Assume that he did
Now assuming that Spock even knew about these events... and assuming that he read the logs in detail... he may have constructed that the Romulans had advanced sensor spoofing technology, but given the era in question he decided that the human tendency to exaggerate was in play here. Therefore the Romulan ship wasn't invisible-invisible, just hard to see.
I ain't even trying that hard here, and I can rationalize the differences between eras. I don't worship the characters as Gods and I realize that they can be wrong or make mistakes on screen. Not every word uttered by a character is literal truth that must be adhered to 100%
The line of dialog that tells us the Romulan ship is impulse only or whatever? Totally wrong. Either someone misread the screen, or sensor jamming distorted the readings, or the warp-drive was powered down stone cold... or romulan ships from that era used a different form of FTL drive than the Federation did.
Say we take Enterprise as Canon here and the events of Minefield as well. Archer mentioned that the Romulan ship had advanced sensor-spoofing technology that made the ship "practically invisible" to their sensors. I don't recall if Archer associated this ship and the minefield with the Romulans in his logs. Assume that he did
Now assuming that Spock even knew about these events... and assuming that he read the logs in detail... he may have constructed that the Romulans had advanced sensor spoofing technology, but given the era in question he decided that the human tendency to exaggerate was in play here. Therefore the Romulan ship wasn't invisible-invisible, just hard to see.
I ain't even trying that hard here, and I can rationalize the differences between eras. I don't worship the characters as Gods and I realize that they can be wrong or make mistakes on screen. Not every word uttered by a character is literal truth that must be adhered to 100%
Spock says no Human or Romulan or ally has ever seen the other. That establishes that neither side (or at least from the human side) has ever seen the other. In the least Humans had never seen a Romulan or their allies during the conflict or at least lived to report back about it. In extent it's entirely feasible the Romulans could have captured Humans and/or Earth allies and those never lived to report back.
I agree it isn't that ship-to-ship communication of any kind isn't possible, but that it isn't allowed or accepted by the Romulans. Spock states that the treaty and Neutral Zone are established by voice communication only.
If you're using "primitive" atomic or nuclear warhead weapons (and note both terms were used in the episode) and you also don't have defensive shields then it's most likely that any direct hit on an unshielded ship is going to be lethal. Hence no one to take prisoner on either side. And even if you manage to just cripple an enemy you're not going to take prisoners if the enemy avoids capture by self-destructing. In like manner you might also adopt the practice to avoid allowing the enemy to gain any information whatsoever about you. In TOS it was also asserted that Romulans don't take prisoners, but this might be something of a myth or propaganda. Perhaps during the Earth/Romulan war they chose to obliterate the enemy totally, but taking prisoners is a valuable method of gaining information even if it's only regarding your enemy's biology and psychology and to some extent technical capability. And note that the Romulans were perfectly willing to take prisoners in "The Enterprise Incident" and most particularly willing to capture an enemy vessel if at all possible. The essence of "Balance Of Terror" paints the Romulans as extremely xenophobic and contemptuous of anyone but themselves, but in reality this is exaggerated propaganda. Romulans and Humans could probably identify and empathize with each other more easily than Humans and Vulcans.
The invisibility issue is a sticking point. "Balance Of Terror" clearly establishes that making a ship invisible is a totally new development they've never seen before. You get the sense it's been thought of and researched, but never accomplished or seen before. ENT clearly violated that one.
The design of the Romulan ship is in question, too. Styles seems to suggest that the design of the Romulan ship could be due to spies within Starfleet and the Federation. The inference is that the design is new to Human eyes. Even if no prisoners were taken there would still be records of what Romulan ships looked like during the war. This is elaborated on in James Blish's adaptation of the episode although it's not stated onscreen in the episode. And so it really is a question if it's likely that a more primitive Romulan vessel would bear any resemblance to the one the Enterprise faces a century later. Personally I think ENT flubs this one, too, because it looks like lazy thinking rather than trying for something more distinctive to cement the idea that the 22nd century ships are more primitive. Indeed I think they really flubbed it more because the older Romulan ships look more advanced than the TOS era ones!
Here's the thing: when laying out ENT's concepts when developing the series you would need to really look at what TOS had definately established and you'd have to get a sense of the subtext. That means looking at what you're given in "The Cage" and "Balance Of Terror" most particularly and building backwards from there. They didn't do that. They made a show that was more clearly a prequel to TNG rather than TOS. I'm not talking about productions standards here but of concepts and intent. ENT just doesn't come across as credibly a century more primitive than TOS in its ideas.
The transporter was a good example. There simply shouldn't have been any transport tech in ENT. Don't even talk about it unless/until you come up against a race that has it and gives you the idea that maybe this tech is possible after all, pretty much like TOS dealt with invisibility in "Balance Of Terror."
I felt ENT was inconsistent with TOS from the get-go and long before the "Minefield" episode. Yet it really comes down to how you define inconsistent.
I agree it isn't that ship-to-ship communication of any kind isn't possible, but that it isn't allowed or accepted by the Romulans. Spock states that the treaty and Neutral Zone are established by voice communication only.
If you're using "primitive" atomic or nuclear warhead weapons (and note both terms were used in the episode) and you also don't have defensive shields then it's most likely that any direct hit on an unshielded ship is going to be lethal. Hence no one to take prisoner on either side. And even if you manage to just cripple an enemy you're not going to take prisoners if the enemy avoids capture by self-destructing. In like manner you might also adopt the practice to avoid allowing the enemy to gain any information whatsoever about you. In TOS it was also asserted that Romulans don't take prisoners, but this might be something of a myth or propaganda. Perhaps during the Earth/Romulan war they chose to obliterate the enemy totally, but taking prisoners is a valuable method of gaining information even if it's only regarding your enemy's biology and psychology and to some extent technical capability. And note that the Romulans were perfectly willing to take prisoners in "The Enterprise Incident" and most particularly willing to capture an enemy vessel if at all possible. The essence of "Balance Of Terror" paints the Romulans as extremely xenophobic and contemptuous of anyone but themselves, but in reality this is exaggerated propaganda. Romulans and Humans could probably identify and empathize with each other more easily than Humans and Vulcans.
The invisibility issue is a sticking point. "Balance Of Terror" clearly establishes that making a ship invisible is a totally new development they've never seen before. You get the sense it's been thought of and researched, but never accomplished or seen before. ENT clearly violated that one.
The design of the Romulan ship is in question, too. Styles seems to suggest that the design of the Romulan ship could be due to spies within Starfleet and the Federation. The inference is that the design is new to Human eyes. Even if no prisoners were taken there would still be records of what Romulan ships looked like during the war. This is elaborated on in James Blish's adaptation of the episode although it's not stated onscreen in the episode. And so it really is a question if it's likely that a more primitive Romulan vessel would bear any resemblance to the one the Enterprise faces a century later. Personally I think ENT flubs this one, too, because it looks like lazy thinking rather than trying for something more distinctive to cement the idea that the 22nd century ships are more primitive. Indeed I think they really flubbed it more because the older Romulan ships look more advanced than the TOS era ones!
Here's the thing: when laying out ENT's concepts when developing the series you would need to really look at what TOS had definately established and you'd have to get a sense of the subtext. That means looking at what you're given in "The Cage" and "Balance Of Terror" most particularly and building backwards from there. They didn't do that. They made a show that was more clearly a prequel to TNG rather than TOS. I'm not talking about productions standards here but of concepts and intent. ENT just doesn't come across as credibly a century more primitive than TOS in its ideas.
The transporter was a good example. There simply shouldn't have been any transport tech in ENT. Don't even talk about it unless/until you come up against a race that has it and gives you the idea that maybe this tech is possible after all, pretty much like TOS dealt with invisibility in "Balance Of Terror."
I felt ENT was inconsistent with TOS from the get-go and long before the "Minefield" episode. Yet it really comes down to how you define inconsistent.
This.
I like both series just fine, despite whatever continuity glitches. This is dramatic television, not rocket science. Effective dramatic storytelling is the top priority (whether it is achieved or not). If I care about the characters, I'll follow them anywhere. And I cared about the characters in TOS and in Enterprise.
I enjoyed "Balance of Terror" for what it was, and "Minefield" for what it was. No sleep lost.That being said, I think it's fun sometimes to come up with an explanation to reconcile continuity glitches, or fill in missing scenes. It's a great creative exercise. Do I "work" at it? Nope.
If the motivation is the nature of the conflict and the not the technology of the 22nd century spacecraft, what you get is this:
This conflict was fought with 22nd century atomic weapons
This conflict was fought with 22nd century space vessels
This conflict allowed no quarter,
This conflict allowed no captives.
This conflict allowed no ship-to-ship visual communication.
There is absolutely no reason a Starship/Warship constructed at the same general time period as the NX-01 would be technologically incapable of visual communications with anyone, the idea that the Warships were mass produced so incredible cheaply or rapidly that Earth/Starfleet would be "force" to leave out a portion of the communications equipment is absurd and unacceptable. Much more likely is that the nature of the conflict prevents communications from happening, also Earth ships might simply be under orders not to communicate with the enemy ships.
If sensors detect a Romulan ship, you don't hail them, you destroy the ship and kill the crew. The military concept of "no quarter" means, among other things, you don't accept a offer of surrender, the crews of disabled enemy warships are just left behind, while you go looking for more targets.
There's no canon as to exactly how the Romulan war began, if the Romulans began the war by committed a act so egregious, so offensive, so horrifying, then the tactics suggested might be a expected response on the part of the Humans.
That is why the Romulans should have been behind the Xindi attack on Earth. The Temporal cold war wasn't needed. The Romulans could have lied to the Xindi and gave them false information showing Earth was going to attack them. Then Enterprise could have spent season 3 trying to figure out what was going on and convince the Xindi that Earth was innocent. If you really needed the temporal war maybe a future Romulan was trying to change history and have Earth lose the Earth Romulan War and Daniels stops them with Enterprise's help.
Similar threads
