No Vulcans = No Romulans = No Nero

[unknown]

Any thoughts on this circle of logic?

 

[JoeZhang]

That your premise is flawed.

Want to take a guess why?

 

[JuanBolio]

If Vulcan is destroyed in the 23rd century, it wouldn't affect the schism between Romulans and Vulcans that happened thousands of years before.

 

[JoeZhang]

If Vulcan is destroyed in the 23rd century, it wouldn't affect the schism between Romulans and Vulcans that happened thousands of years before.

However the general point is good. If vulcan is destroyed, there is no vulcan for Nero to travel back in time to destroy - so the timeline should branch.

 

[DRMidnite]

If Vulcan is destroyed in the 23rd century, it wouldn't affect the schism between Romulans and Vulcans that happened thousands of years before.

However the general point is good. If vulcan is destroyed, there is no vulcan for Nero to travel back in time to destroy - so the timeline should branch.

My head hurts now...thanks guys!

 

[ALF]

^^Try a viewing of Back to the Future II.
Even if it doesn't work, you can enjoy the wacky antics of Chris Lloyd and his flying car.

 

[captainkirk]

Try Future's End. It was a great episode but it makes you wonder how someone could go back in time to stop an event that will only happen if he goes back in time.

 

[fennrysha]

Any thoughts on this circle of logic?

Yeah. It's wrong. Star Trek rules say there can, in fact, be a single starting point regarding changing the past. So Nero could go back and change the past and probably live out his days in the past (although I doubt that's going to happen). I figure if he tried to go back to the future though, he'd cease to exist.

 

[starburst]

Its simply a paradox, same as with Skynet sending a Terminator back in time to kill someone, in the future they arent a problem as they are dead so Skynet wouldnt send a Terminator back.

Simple diversion point where history changes resulting in a paradox (in this case a Terminator being where there is no reason to be), the other way around is the Back to the Future rules where if you change something which either means you wouldnt have travelled back in the first place or were never born you disappear.

If they go by Terminator rules Nero would have to stay in the past or risk returning to the future where there could be another version of him or he never existed. Not sure which he would prefer as he could obviously try to kill himself and take his place.