MovieChat Forums > Terminator: Dark Fate (2019) Discussion > Terminator sent back in 2040 to 11am 201...

Terminator sent back in 2040 to 11am 2019 Aug 19 to kill Dani

posted 5 years ago by FilmBoy (1167)
8 replies | jump to latest

Terminators wait 2 mins in 2040 and see the resistance is still active in 2040.
OK then. Didn't work.
ANOTHER Terminator sent back in 2040 to 10am 2019 Aug 19 to kill Dani
Terminators wait 2 mins and see the resistance is still active in 2040.
OK then. Didn't work.
ANOTHER Terminator sent back in 2040 to 9am 2019 Aug 19 to kill Dani
Terminators wait 2 mins and see the resistance no longer active in 2040.
OK then. It worked.
Time for tea.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

???

[–] Strazdas (2472) 5 years ago

Thats kind of the plan with the original trilogy already.

Also one could pressume that the technology to send people back in time may require something that cannot be created indefinitelly, such as some exotic nuclear particle that can only be created in small amounts over time.

[–] cyguration (3951) 5 years ago

They sort of explain it in the other media such as comic books and video games.

Apparently the time machine requires a heck of a lot of power, even for Skynet, which is why the humans had to hijack the time machine by raiding a Skynet facility to send Reece back and later the T-101.

Even Skynet (or Legion) only used it sparingly due to the energy consumption. If it caused a significant blackout in their operations due to the overload, it would make sense why they didn't use it often.

[–] Strazdas (2472) 5 years ago

Ah, sorry, i only saw the movie/tv show media when it comes to terminator. Well, power consumption seems like a shitty explanation. When you control whole world with machines you can just increase power output by building nuclear reactors. And you dont even have to worry about radiation exposure because its worked by robots.

[–] cyguration (3951) 4 years ago

That's true.

However, we have no idea how much power it takes to send something through time.

If it caused disruptions in Skynet's operations, either logistically or operationally, it would make sense that they would avoid relying on it too often.

Also if they increased power by simply building more nuclear reactors, the humans could simply detonate the reactors and kill off Skynet's power supplies with ease.

[–] Strazdas (2472) 4 years ago

I understand that many people are not nuclear engineers but you dont just detonate a nuclear reactor. A 747 boeing could crash straight into the nuclear reactor building and it would continue working thanks to post 9/11 regulations (part of why its expensive). And thats with human security, skynet could protect them better.

[–] cyguration (3951) 4 years ago

You don't need to detonate the reactor per se, but you can detonate the connecting grid via the substations, unless Skynet built everything underground.

[–] Strazdas (2472) 4 years ago

well you could destroy transmitter stations and thus cut the power. But you said specifically "the humans could simply detonate the reactors". Altrough even us, nowadays are trying to put all of this underground. Because this is a real danger in real life too, some electric engineer with a hunting rifle could do a lot of damage before he gets found out.