Hot Seat Answers #44 - DirtyKash

[browntown653]

oh, forgot to use the quote feature?

Yes, I saw the font boxes around it and it threw me off

[DirtyKash]

Here's a better question, why send a human to battle a robot? Clearly seems one-sided.

Another interesting question is why, in Terminator 2, would the Skynet robots from the future send a T-1000 back in time to kill a 13-year old John Connor in 1992, when they could just send one back to kill a pregnant Sarah Connor in 1984-1985 or whatever year it was. Sure, they already failed once when their T-800 failed (at the hands of Kyle Reese!), but couldn't you just send your T-1000 back earlier in time than when John Connor is 13? It's harder to kill a 13 year old than to kill a fetus.

[Kingdom]

I'll top that. It's easier to kill a Sarah Connor fetus than it is Sarah Connor as an adult, pregnant or not. And why not use a massive bomb or even a nuke, to blow up the city to assure death. It's easy, effective, and it's not like they care about many others dying.

[HollywoodLeo]

The potential impact on their present time (future) could be highly unpredictable if they drop a nuke, so that can probably explain the reluctance to go to that extreme.

[Kingdom]

So it wipes out a third of the country, it doesn't wipe out their headquarters. They're from the future, they're robots, they'd probably be able to build a bomb.. that's from the future, thus a lot of technological advancements and precision. Maybe they just make a missile, that seeks out all Sarah Connors to blow them up.

Who knows. The movies just point out that robots aren't the brightest. Go humans!

[realmofotalk]

I don't think it matters how far back in time Skynet sends the T-1000, considering at that same point in time in the future, John Connor can send his reprogrammed T-800 to follow the T-1000.