That is true. However, that episode and subsequent adventures in the Mirror Universe have an Alliance of races enslaving humanity and using humans as slaves. In essence, even though humanity may be "alive" and there may still be an Earth (I don't think we ever know that for sure), but it is a radically different Earth. More timeline talk: TNG's "Parallels" shows an alternate timeline where the Borg were successful in assimilating Earth. Why is that not a problem for you in the same way Vulcan being destroyed in another timeline is a problem? See, there WAS a reason for Vulcan to be destroyed. More than one, actually. The backstory is that Spock (a Vulcan) promised to say Romulus and miscalculated. Badly. Therefore, Nero sees Spock as the reason why Romulus and his family are gone. In the end, this is a revenge story as well. Eye for an eye and all that jazz. Plus, by destroying Vulcan, there is an emotional connection with that planet and many fans. It was a smart thing for Orci and Kurtzman (again, NOT Abrams since he received NO credit on the script) to show this is not the Prime Unuverse. DS9 ran into a similiar problem. They wanted to show the Dominion with a foothold on an established planet and thought about Vulcan for the emotional reasons, but nixed it. Instead, Betazed got invaded. Humbly apologies, but it's not just my opinion. It's a fact backed up by canonical evidence in comics written by the movie writers and in the final result. Those diehard fans, and I've heard from a lot of them, range from having rational problems with the movie to being silly. JJ and Paramount did not make the movie for diehard fans. Diehard fans abandoned Trek around the time of Voyager. We were not enough to sustain the franchise. So they had to create a bigger tent, which is the only smart, rational and educated thing to do. From a whopping 15 minutes of footage released and a handful of stills, you're able to deduce this is going to be a revenge movie in the vein of Khan. That can be spoken for: parts of Star Trek IV, V and VI; Generations, First Contact and Nemesis; and WAY too many episodes to count across all the incarnations. I don't see how this is a bad thing, to be honest. How do we know the new movie hasn't done that? We don't know who Cumberbatch is actually playing. It could be Khan. It could be Mitchell. It could be anyone. That discussion, though is much better for the Into Darkness movie thread over in the movies section. Now that is a logical and understandable problem for a lot of people in the movie. Here's my counterpoint: when Pike beamed over to the Nero's ship, he put Spock in command and commissioned Kirk as first officer. Afterwards, with the fleet destroyed and Spock having relieved himself of duty, Kirk was the senior officer. And then, under his command, the Enterprise managed to save Earth and destroy Nero. How was Starfleet supposed to have dealt with that? "Gee, thanks, kid. You did all this stuff and even saved your commanding officer, but we're busting you back down to Ensign and reassigning you?" I agree this is a problem in the movie, but I understand why it was done this way. I respect that people have a problem with the movie and I applaud anyone who has seen it who has a problem with it? Why? Because you took the time to actually watch before saying you don't like it. That makes conversations like this all the easier to have. However, as I've stated in other threads here for a while now, Trek had to evolve. Like it or not, things had to change. I didn't love every change made to TNG during it's run and in the movies (it's my first real-time Trek). But I understand the costumes and sets and actors and stories had to change to keep with the times. That's one of my biggest problems with Enterprise, which I've stated in the BD announcement thread. But I like to think my Trek tent is big enough to TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, the new timeline, comics, books and video games. If it's not, I'm removing myself from a universe that has entertained me for many, many, many years.