Kirk was initially under the impression that the spacecraft they encountered was a DY500, and not a DY100. If (when he spoke to Khan) he still though himself to be correct, his "two centuries" could have been based on that.
Eugenics war (world war 3)
- Thread starter hux
- Start date
Perhaps there's an ongoing debate as to what to call these wars. Some might insist on calling 1992-96 "World War III" and 2053 "World War IV." Others would call them Eugenics Wars and WW3 respectively.
I mean, it's not like these wars break out and everyone immediately knows what to call them, amirite? Who gets to decide?
IIRC, World War I wasn't called by that name until after it was *over*. I think World War II was always referred to as such, but with subsequent major wars like what we're discussing here, I imagine there might be a lot of argument as to what to call them.
There might even be such a fear of the term "World War III" as to lead to some kind of cultural blind spot against ever using it, regardless of the actual war.
I mean, it's not like these wars break out and everyone immediately knows what to call them, amirite? Who gets to decide?
IIRC, World War I wasn't called by that name until after it was *over*. I think World War II was always referred to as such, but with subsequent major wars like what we're discussing here, I imagine there might be a lot of argument as to what to call them.
There might even be such a fear of the term "World War III" as to lead to some kind of cultural blind spot against ever using it, regardless of the actual war.
More accurately the term "World War I" wasn't created until after WWII got its name. The conflict now known as WWI was referred to as "the Great War" during the 1920s and 1930s.
Last edited:
Whoops! I'm not good at math either, I guess!
Correct! I have History/"How-Great-is-America?"-propaganda book from 1918 called The Great War: Triumph of American Army and Navy. WWI fascinates me and this is the book that proves to me you need at least a decade or so of perspective before you start writing the history of a thing...
--Alex
Some people today call the Cold War 'World War III'. There might be some truth to that.
I chalk it up to the writers of the episode creating a future past for the episode and not imagining we would be here 50 years later to discuss it in terms of canon. In other words, I dismiss it as a real world consideration of a fictional show trying to be futuristic 50 years ago, and getting it wrong in their crystal ball.
I consider TOS and all but the Abramsverse to be in our timeline or universe despite the mistakes made about the Eugenics Wars. I just ignore and dismiss it - like errata - and I feel fine. You can do the same if you choose. Conversely, however, I do feel distant and disconnected from anything in the Abramsverse because it isn't ours. It's a fundamental problem for me.
Last edited:
But had Kirk accepted Spock's opinion at the time he first spoke to Khan?
Prior to stating it was a DY100, Spock had told Kirk it couldn't be an Earth ship and was immediately proven wrong, so Kirk had every reason to discount Spock's initial identification of the ship.
Just curious, are movies like Avengers ruined for you, because our world didn't have supersoldiers and alien tech-powered Nazi splinter groups in the 1940's? If the Marvel universe can be pretty much ours despite stuff like that, why does the Eugenics War matter any more?
Nope, I must have just missed the news about all those things in the '40s, so it's all good with me. "Night of the Comet" and "The Omega Man" were in our timeline too - I guess I'm just one of the survivors. Again, I must have missed the news. And I didn't know Peter Quill, so I didn't realize he was missing and his disappearance was probably more on local news than anywhere else. But unlike all that, the Abramsverse is not in our future timeline by its own premise.
Yeah, I think we're agreed that the Eugenics War doesn't matter.
It's ridiculous I know, but when it occurs in our past or in our present, it's easier for me to view it as a universe parallel to our own. When however, something is set in the future, I default assume it's our future and so when we eventually catch up to that future and things don't transpire as they did in the fiction, it kinda takes something away from the show/movie/book for me
1984 isn't a good example because that's more about any generic dystopian future. The title and setting have become secondary to the wider themes (even now people use the words "nineteen eighty four" as short hand for describing a totalitarian future). A better example for me would be Back to the Future II where it could have taken pace in our reality but as soon as we get to 2015 and there's no hover boards etc, it suddenly can't be our reality anymore.....it may be silly (in fact it is) but i don't think i'm the only one who sees it like that
Does that make sense?
Still waiting on that first manned flight to Saturn . . . .
Come on, Shaun Christopher, get with the program.
It's not just Star Trek, of course, whose "futuristic" predictions have run afoul of the passing of time. According to THE TWILIGHT ZONE, we should have lifelike robot boxers by now . . ..
Come on, Shaun Christopher, get with the program.
It's not just Star Trek, of course, whose "futuristic" predictions have run afoul of the passing of time. According to THE TWILIGHT ZONE, we should have lifelike robot boxers by now . . ..
Well, that was just a "probe" to Saturn. Apparently, Christopher just sat behind a desk and kept the crowdfunding going so that the little robot that could would keep on sending its findings to a crewed and active receiver rather than to deaf ears. And he failed, and nobody heard of the probe again. It was our fault for not donating enough!
I'd be more worried about the lack of interstellar, artificially intelligent probes for searching sapient life in 2002. If we don't launch those soon, the evil Malurians will take over the universe and steal our women!
Timo Saloniemi
I'd be more worried about the lack of interstellar, artificially intelligent probes for searching sapient life in 2002. If we don't launch those soon, the evil Malurians will take over the universe and steal our women!
Timo Saloniemi
Actually yes it does make a lot of sense. I'm both sad and glad that the Eugenics Wars never happened. It's sad that we aren't living in the Star Trek Universe. However, I'm glad we didn't have to live through a tragedy like that. Same goes for World War III. I hope we wont have to live through that.
In regard to the Opening Post I think that a good in universe explanation for the contradictions in names would be disagreement among scientists. There could be a shift in naming convention between Kirk's era and Picard's.
But had Kirk accepted Spock's opinion at the time he first spoke to Khan?
Prior to stating it was a DY100, Spock had told Kirk it couldn't be an Earth ship and was immediately proven wrong, so Kirk had every reason to discount Spock's initial identification of the ship.
Plus, sometimes we get a wrong idea stuck in our head even after being corrected. It'd be all too human of Kirk to keep thinking 2 centuries / DY 500 even after being pointed out the contrary.
The DY-100 construction and the existence of sleeper cells imply construction between 250 and 275 years before the events of the episode. This doesn't necessarily require launch be 250 to 275 years in the past.
I suppose the least bad way to reconcile Kirk's estimate of 200 years with the later-established dates for the Original Series is that Kirk assumed the latest plausible date for ship launch, a generation or so after the hardware would be obsolete (but presumably more affordable for a crazy project like this) and so that edged the estimate down to two centuries. The shorter the flight the less implausible it is, after all, encouraging an under-estimate.
Of course none of this helps explain why Khan would think it was closer to two centuries past his reign, in The Wrath of Khan; surely he'd have heard from someone that it was closer to three hundred years by that point.
I would add 100 years to the 200 year flight because the mythology eventually pushed Star Trek 300 years into the future. That means when I hear Kirk say "200" I translate it to "300" as if it were a spoken typo. That's generally how I work with canon; consider the real world and apply the retroactive correction.
Kirk accepted it. Science is about changing your mind as new facts become available.But had Kirk accepted Spock's opinion at the time he first spoke to Khan?
Prior to stating it was a DY100, Spock had told Kirk it couldn't be an Earth ship and was immediately proven wrong, so Kirk had every reason to discount Spock's initial identification of the ship.
Similar threads
