Finally, the greatest moral dilemma (and arguably the most successful one in any of the Star Trek incarnations) of any political nation is the decision to wage war on a perceived threat. This dilemma is responsible for the best episodes Balance of Terror (TOS), The Best of Both Worlds I & II (TNG), Redemption I & II (TNG) and Favor the Bold (DS9). In the first re-booted Star Trek, members of the Romulan Empire destroyed a Federation starship, destroyed a Federation member planet (Vulcan) and even threatened the existence of the Federations central government structure. Isnt this enough of a threat for the Federation to declare war on the Romulan Empire? Again? Thats right, because if we follow established Star Trek canon up to the point of George Kirks death, then the Federation will have already concluded its war with the Romulan Empire. Remember that one? It was concluded via subspace radio according to Balance of Terror. So the dilemma here that could be followed up on is an all-out declaration of war with the Romulans for the actions of the Romulan Nero in his obsessive quest. Why not? Of course, there will be all sorts of ways to examine the issue: was he a renegade? Do the actions of an individual from the future constitute the governing policy of a nation in the present? There are many moral questions that could be examined in relation to the decision to go to war and all would fit nicely in the third movie. You know, if were lucky, that decision could possibly end with a complete restructuring of the original timeline, reversing all the previous damage done in the first re-boot, restoring J.J Abrams and J.D. Payne back into the fold of blessed canonical absolution. Im game if they are!