> Well, he did chose that costume and scenario for his accuse. Plus, it was the VERY first episode of the new Star Trek series. So there certainly was a strong hint implied.
[ATA]Sure, but I think it was more to use something from that we don't know
about because of it's from the future than something we could
recognize an asses for accuracy.
> Hmm... this doesn't make sense at all.
> Why call it a world war, if it was regional and all the dominating powers weren't involved?
[ATA]Well, because he never called it a world war he specificly said
"so-called world war" as I said in the same we today after WW2 still
refererring to WW1 asd the war to end all wars. Probably taken the
opportunity to mock huimans somehow.
>And why not call a 'real' worldwide war just that?
[ATA]because it wasn't one.
> Sure, they might have come up with a new nomenclature, but then nothing is retraceable anymore.
[ATABut they haven't because so far everything falls into place,
perhaps not as neatly as anyone would want.
> [ATA]That would be ENT not TOS and yes, doesn't quite work that well.
> That's what I meant. Of course they couldn't change already existing canon in TOS itself. But they also failed to 'smooth' things with TNG. Maybe they thought, fans wouldn't care. Yeah, how realistic! :D
[ATA]Perhaps. Certainly they were kind of wimpy addressing this