6

I was re-watching Pacific Rim the other day and got to the scene in Hong Kong harbour where the three Jagers fought Leatherback and Otachi.

I noticed that Leatherback seemed to wait until Striker opened its chest to fire its missiles before triggering its organic EMP weapon.

Was the timing of this significant? Did Striker's chest need to be exposed for the EMP to work or was it the fact that Leatherback had got some space and Striker was about to kill Otachi enough motivation?

3

The Kaiju are very intelligent creatures, and have a Hive mind mentality.. They showed this when they smoke checked Cherno Alpha. So by them having a hive mentality you can assume that they have shared intelligence, so Leatherback knows hes about to get blasted because its brother fell for that same trick the week earlier;as a result he triggered his EMP when he saw his chest open up.

2

It appeared to me that Leatherback's EMP strike was simply used as a surprise ranging weapon to protect Otachi from the intended missile strikes from Striker and to disrupt all electronics in the blast zone, such as the Shatterdome, thereby assisting Otachi in going after Newton. Note: This weapon was immediately targeted by Gypsy so it couldn't be deployed a second time. The same with Otachi's acid spit, this was an evolution of their battle tactics and capabilities that Gypsy effectively countered.

-3

An EMP will just fry all the electronic devices in its range, there is no cover than can avoid it. So probably Leatherback fired when he saw the opportunity.

EDIT: My mistake, as SSumner mentioned, some defense against EMPs can be implemented. I still think that the Jaegers in the film do not have this.

5
  • 2
    That's not true. Structures and equipment can be hardened against EMP
    – The Fallen
    Sep 1 '14 at 12:15
  • My bad - I got confused with other related stuff.
    – Andrew P.
    Sep 1 '14 at 12:17
  • 1
    Such mistakes do not warrant a -1
    – user24562
    Sep 2 '14 at 11:48
  • @caseyr547: The -1 comes from the fact that the mistake was the sole reasoning and "evidence" for the conclusion drawn by this answer. Without that "evidence", the answer doesn't really say anything that the question doesn't. Nov 29 '14 at 15:03
  • The quotation marks could have also been merely a way to say that the evidence provided isn't really evidence of the subject matter. That's merely the opinion of someone looking at the use of written language, and not the opinion of someone looking at the psychology of the writer, so I could be wrong. Possibly relevant: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes Dec 23 '14 at 11:01

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.