Too many of them, not enough ammo!

[Crappingbear]

I understand population densities quite well. My issue is that 20 miles is not that far away from a threat, let alone being 'the middle of nowhere' NOTHING except perhaps, the edible inhabitants of said subdivisions. You're thinking logically, like a living breathing human would. Since the greater food source are the population centers (obviously) so that's where they will remain. Unfortunately we have only the empirical evidence as provided by GAR to go by. In the original 'Night' a great many undead are found wandering aimlessly in open fields and the chief even comments that they previously killed 2 of them near an empty shed. The shed was empty, yet they were still trying to break in. Clearly, the dead do not think like us. Further, the whole premise of 'Night' shows that they don't follow any set plans. First, large numbers of them are drawn to an isolated farmhouse which houses few mortal morsels, yet they disperse by morning even though Ben is still in hiding in the basement. I couldn't agree more. I don't doubt that the living would ultimately triumph in such a situation, but population centers would be the last locations I would choose, and smaller, out-of-the-way towns would be better (but far from perfect) choices for staging a comeback. Yeah, and its not just zoms but human threats gathered in population centers. I'd much rather be in the sticks.

[Wyldwraith]

I understand population densities quite well. My issue is that 20 miles is not that far away from a threat, let alone being 'the middle of nowhere' NOTHING except perhaps, the edible inhabitants of said subdivisions. You're thinking logically, like a living breathing human would. Since the greater food source are the population centers (obviously) so that's where they will remain. Unfortunately we have only the empirical evidence as provided by GAR to go by. In the original 'Night' a great many undead are found wandering aimlessly in open fields and the chief even comments that they previously killed 2 of them near an empty shed. The shed was empty, yet they were still trying to break in. Clearly, the dead do not think like us. Further, the whole premise of 'Night' shows that they don't follow any set plans. First, large numbers of them are drawn to an isolated farmhouse which houses few mortal morsels, yet they disperse by morning even though Ben is still in hiding in the basement. Ok, I'm not understanding your first point though. If we assume the majority of the initial zombies reanimate in the midst of the denser population zones, then it follows these zombies will pursue whatever live humans are close enough for them to perceive. My statements were predicated on the likelihood that more zombies would go in the opposite direction from my small subdivision chain because of the daisy-chain phenomena. One zombie sees a person/people to the east and starts staggering east. Another zombie follows that zombie etc. Zombies seem to be reactive creatures. (All of my statements are based on the behaviors depicted in the GAR universe, and on rough common sense). If zombies move towards what they want to eat, and aren't interested in doing anything but eating living people, then there's a much greater chance of zombies moving in the direction of ever-increasing human population density than in the direction of barren, stimuli-absent ground. Yes, SOME zombies will stagger out to my neighborhood in defiance of all logic/common sense. I was only commenting on the overarching probability of what the majority were likely to do. If the majority of zombies reanimate in downtown Ocala then they're much more likely to move east rather than west. The farmhouse in Night was a perfect example of the daisy-chain phenomena I'm talking about. Bunches of zombies didn't swarm the farmhouse because there were humans in there. The initial zombies who randomly wandered near to the farmhouse were drawn closer, and incited to remain by the stimuli created by the humans inside. The others simply followed other zombies headed in the same direction. What I'm basically saying is that if you're five miles west of a horde of 10,000 zombies, and between you and the horde are a couple hundred random zombies, then the zombies close enough to you to react to your presence will do just that. Their reaction will create a chain-reaction in the zombies close enough to perceive them, and then in the zombies close enough to see them, etc etc. Given enough time (and you remaining stationary), the entire horde of 10,000 could be influenced to move in your direction. HOWEVER, if there is a convoy of buses and trucks to the EAST of the horde, the greater likelihood is that the greater degree of sensory stimuli will influence the horde to move east instead of west. It's that (I believe logical) presumption, that leads me to believe that zombies would be disinclined to initially cross large tracts of barren/empty ground when there are many sources of sensory stimuli coming from the opposite direction. Since we all basically agree that the greatest danger zombies pose is taking humanity unaware of the danger at their throats, then it becomes all about the factors that keep them off your front lawn for every precious minute. The longer their arrival in your area takes, the greater the amount of information you and your neighbors can benefit from, and the more time you have to come up with a plan to utilize the collective resources at your disposal in an attempt to survive. Tiny towns in the middle of nowhere would be affected by an entirely different set of dynamics in a zombie apocalypse, as would large urban areas, or other dense population knots. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- An argument against the exponential zombie math used to argue that the undead would basically wipe out humanity in less than 24hrs: What about the casualties to the undead? In all the various calculations that tally the # of starting zombies, how many people they kill, and how many people the new zombies kill etc, no one has proposed any sort of mathematical theory for how many the zombies would be losing from their ranks, how often. Or how many bodies subjected to zombie attack would be rendered unfit for reanimation, or at the very least, unfit for DANGEROUS reanimation. An undead torso with a head and no limbs is far less dangerous (in most circumstances) than a relatively undamaged zombie. I'm not a math whiz, but I WILL propose that the greater the % of zombies involved in any attack on a human population, the greater the incidence of bodies rendered unfit for reanimation. In other words, when there are 10 zombies loose in an urban area it is nearly 100% likely that anyone they kill, or anyone they bite who escapes after being infected, will rise as a zombie. If there are 5,000 zombies in the same size urban area though, that % drops like a rock. Just some thoughts.

[Publius]

Zombies seem to be reactive creatures. (All of my statements are based on the behaviors depicted in the GAR universe, and on rough common sense). If zombies move towards what they want to eat, and aren't interested in doing anything but eating living people, then there's a much greater chance of zombies moving in the direction of ever-increasing human population density than in the direction of barren, stimuli-absent ground. True, but within a very short period of time there would be a daisy chain in the other direction as people start fleeing the urban centers for destinations they think might be safer. Even from the first moments, there will be traffic headed in both directions along all the roads that head to/from big cities, and zombies will have little way of knowing in the beginning that cars heading inward lead to more prey than cars heading outward. An argument against the exponential zombie math used to argue that the undead would basically wipe out humanity in less than 24hrs: What about the casualties to the undead? In all the various calculations that tally the # of starting zombies, how many people they kill, and how many people the new zombies kill etc, no one has proposed any sort of mathematical theory for how many the zombies would be losing from their ranks, how often. Or how many bodies subjected to zombie attack would be rendered unfit for reanimation, or at the very least, unfit for DANGEROUS reanimation. An undead torso with a head and no limbs is far less dangerous (in most circumstances) than a relatively undamaged zombie. I'm not a math whiz, but I WILL propose that the greater the % of zombies involved in any attack on a human population, the greater the incidence of bodies rendered unfit for reanimation. In other words, when there are 10 zombies loose in an urban area it is nearly 100% likely that anyone they kill, or anyone they bite who escapes after being infected, will rise as a zombie. If there are 5,000 zombies in the same size urban area though, that % drops like a rock. Just some thoughts. Good points. The same things have occurred to me.

[Trin]

I just don't see a GAR-style zombie outbreak ever amounting to much. The whole presumption is that somehow a critical mass of zombies forms. I don't see a scenario where that happens. Here's my expected scenario... assume some event occurs whereby all unburied dead bodies reanimate as GAR-style ghouls... your basic NOTLD scenario. The first group of ghouls comes from unburied dead bodies - a group of which there just aren't that many. They'll be wildly outnumbered. They'll have the element of surprise which will give them the highest chance of biting humans. A good percent of the unburied dead bodies will be in hospitals. This is going to accelerate the awareness of the problem. Hospitals are manned 24/7. They will immediately recognize there is as a problem, even if they cannot define it very well. The CDC and WHO have a highly coordinated alert system that will be activated as soon as something potentially epidemic occurs. Within a matter of just a few hours all the healthcare facilities in the civilized world will be alerted. Once the world is alerted law enforcement will kick in and any hint of ghoul activity will be taken seriously and dealt with. All dead bodies will be isolated and locked down. So the first round of zombie outbreak will be halted before it gets even a token movement. The second round begins when bitten humans start to die. That will happen irregularly - somewhere between a few hours and several days. This is a critical time. Lots of people have been bitten and they may not all be quarantined. Some will surely have been treated with bandages and antibiotics and sent home. But again, as soon as a few deaths occur, and those dead bodies reanimate, the system kicks in and worldwide alerts are issued. Law enforcement is already active and so there's no mobilization effort. This secondary outbreak, like the initial outbreak, is quickly contained. The third round - and this is where (imho) a zombie outbreak is most likely to swell - is when the still living bitten people realize they're doomed. Inevitably, many of those will attempt to flee or will become violent, either of which might cause ghouls to become active outside of contained areas. Ultimately, I think this swell would fail. It would only occur in pockets. It would be quickly recognized. In short order authorities will treat bitten people as infected and quarantine them through force. If you want to talk about masses of zombies in population areas, that's fine. But I'm questioning how we get from a handful of unburied dead bodies into masses of zombies. I just don't see it.

[Publius]

I pretty much agree. It will get bad in some places, but I think those will be more the exceptions than the rule. I can imagine some real nasty hot spots in third world areas, where epidemics, warfare, etc. result in sizable numbers of poorly secured corpses more frequently than in the developed world.

[Crappingbear]

I pretty much agree. It will get bad in some places, but I think those will be more the exceptions than the rule. I can imagine some real nasty hot spots in third world areas, where epidemics, warfare, etc. result in sizable numbers of poorly secured corpses more frequently than in the developed world. I was just about to go where you did. Its not so much the U.S. or Canada that would be destroyed overnight but instead the entire continent of Africa and countries like Inida where bodies are laying around. Mexico and South America would fall quickly and we would probably face a real illegal immigrant problem then.

[Wyldwraith]

Some awesome points, The biggest threat I see for the potentially serious and widespread outbreak to occur would be if the zombie phenomena began IN CONJUNCTION WITH another more "mundane" sort of disaster. It's one thing if you're dealing with initial pockets comprised of bodies in funeral homes, those just declared dead, the small % of bodies that slip through the cracks of the system and the bodies in the various morgues. It's quite another if we're talking about a mass-casualty situation from something like a hurricane or earthquake, or even a major social disturbance like a riot. Under THOSE conditions a zombie epidemic could get serious fast. I've always had a problem with the notion that every population center great and small will uniformly succumb to the undead and swell their ranks vastly. Take my home town Ocala for instance. Say that for whatever reason we're on our own to deal with the zombies generated inside our town. Due to the higher-than-average number of seniors and disabled individuals the preliminary gains may very well be in the zombies favor. In short order we might have 500-1000 zombies loose in town, and an equal number of still-living infected individuals. If you can find ONE HUNDRED believers in what's really going on at this point with the skills to react effectively, I put forward that such a "vigilance committee" could solve the problem on their own. It might get stickier as the infected start to die, and people haven't made the connection between the bites and lethal contagion followed by reanimation yet, but by the time you get that far in more individuals have been made into believers and rally to the defenders. Just for the sake of argument. What happens if my town of 114,000 effectively stamps out the initial epidemic, and then institutes effective patrols to take care of body disposal and zombies wandering in from elsewhere? Wouldn't we tend to increase the likelihood of our smaller immediate neighbors also succeeding? Let's say it goes just like SRP imagines in Miami, Tampa, Orlando and St. Petersburg. In short order south florida begins to swarm with a million zombies. The million aren't going to march north like a regimented army. They'll trickle north at first, and then start arriving in clumps of 50 here, a 100 there. Even if the knots of zombies come north 250-375 at a time they'll just be even less discrete in their movements. Vultures and crows flocking around them, clouds of flies wherever they go...plenty of signs to warn patrollers that they're coming. If you look at the zombie uprising as groups of 100-1000 zombies that all together add up to a million in one state instead of a monolithic mass of a million zombies in a single horde, the picture is completely different. I wonder how we'd view a potential zombie outbreak the same if we looked at it like we do an outbreak of any other level 4 pathogen? I've been trying, but I'm having a really hard time coming up with math to describe the likely casualties to the ranks of the living and the undead. One of the major difficulties I'm having is the Infected Combatant variable. What I mean is that even if you have someone with a minor bite that's doomed them, they could go on to destroy a great many undead before the infection progressed far enough to incapacitate them before they died. So many variables... Would be interested in feedback on these sorts of thoughts...

[Mike70]

Mexico and South America would fall quickly and we would probably face a real illegal immigrant problem then. that could possibly be mitigated by limited nuclear strikes along the border with mexico (creating a no man's land between the US and mexico) and the coast guard and navy interdicting any ship trying to enter US waters. since the situation would be dire (could it be more dire?) and harsh times can demand harsh measures, i think that would be a good starting point for stopping folks getting across the border.

[Eyebiter]

While the initial blast and fires from a nuke would stop some Zombies, they won't be destroyed by nuclear fallout. However any zombies that pass through the impact area will be contaminated with fallout. Makes corpse disposal tricky, can't simply burn radioactive zombie carcasses. Instead you would have to find a location to bury them intact, hopefully somewhere where they won't contaminate the ground water and provoke future outbreaks.

[axlish]

What would happen with the US troops in the middle east? If the shit hits the fan, do all the troops round up and head home? What percentage makes it back, and what percentage heads where they want to? If you could contain the problem quickly on a battleship, theres not many safer places I can think of.

[Mike70]

While the initial blast and fires from a nuke would stop some Zombies, they won't be destroyed by nuclear fallout. However any zombies that pass through the impact area will be contaminated with fallout. Makes corpse disposal tricky, can't simply burn radioactive zombie carcasses. Instead you would have to find a location to bury them intact, hopefully somewhere where they won't contaminate the ground water and provoke future outbreaks. i wasn't talking about stopping zombies, dude. i was linked into CB's post about a possible immigrant problem. so take zombies out of your equation because that isn't where i was going with that post.

[AcesandEights]

Yeah, Scip, but the two may be considered intrinsically linked if we're assuming that Mexico is going to be overrun fairly easily or a fair number of Latin Americans running for the border will be infected and turn on or close to the border (Sounded like some were assuming this further up the page). The idea of setting off nukes to cleanse population centers or set up dead zones/barriers is one I hear a lot of and it's definitely an interesting topic, precisely because its so dark and antithetical to what most people would want to do--setting off nukes to make a situation more survivable is definitely a great mind fuck in good fiction.

[Trin]

I don't believe that third world countries would fare significantly worse than the civilized world. Most are ruled with military power which means more regimented boundaries and less freedom of movement. These are countries that are used to quelling riots amongst large bodies of its populace. While the individual people would likely suffer higher losses the countries themselves would survive. The oceans are ruled by naval power, and the navies of the world would be very unlikely to succumb to zombies. So containment to continents is assured. Asia, Europe, and Africa constitute the largest landmasses where third world countries abound, and each of those areas is filled with impassable natural geographic boundaries. Zombies aren't going to meander across the Carpathians to invade neighboring countries. For the same reason that the Turks have never been conquered by China, Russia, or India it won't be conquered by invading zombies. Look at it another way - what is the ratio of unburied dead bodies to gun-toting maniacs. In every country, regardless of how they treat their dead, the ratio favors the gun-toting maniacs. Some awesome points, The biggest threat I see for the potentially serious and widespread outbreak to occur would be if the zombie phenomena began IN CONJUNCTION WITH another more "mundane" sort of disaster. This is a more interesting scenario. But I think you have to go beyond a localized disaster. A hurricane, earthquake, or flood will only swell zombie ranks in a small geographic location. And that location will already be a recognized disaster zone. People won't be likely to flee into it and people will be very wary of anyone fleeing out of it. Containment may take longer but should still be attainable. Look at something like an EMP that destroys all electronics in the northern hemisphere. Communication loss, immediate widespread death due to systems failures, long term death due to disease and starvation, riots, etc. People will be struggling to survive. Add a zombie outbreak to that and you're in deep deep shit.

[AcesandEights]

I was just about to go where you did. Its not so much the U.S. or Canada that would be destroyed overnight but instead the entire continent of Africa and countries like Inida where bodies are laying around. Mexico and South America would fall quickly and we would probably face a real illegal immigrant problem then. You know, I actually am not sure about Africa. On the one hand they have low population density in several areas, plentiful firearms/automatic weapons in many parts of the continent and I think there would be little to no civil obstacles early on in an outbreak in killing those suspected of infection. Sure, most of the countries don't have what could be considered a very robust infrastructure, military-industrial, communications grid etc. and there wouldn't be so much consumer-driven detritus to scavenge upon as there might be in the West. Hmmm... Of course, Africa would be a charnel house, but then so much of it is now anyway and discussing how bad things would get there is a pretty large topic, in reality. But I'm more thinking about how things would shake out after 6 months, a year, five years and on down the road in Africa.

[Publius]

Some awesome points, The biggest threat I see for the potentially serious and widespread outbreak to occur would be if the zombie phenomena began IN CONJUNCTION WITH another more "mundane" sort of disaster. The virus theory of zombies often hypothesizes a two-stage infection, à la "Alomal-137": a virus that asymptomatically infects the living first, then upon death of the host converts to a different form that reanimates the host. I've often thought that one way to get the zombie plague moving along quickly is to give the virus a significant mortality rate -- say 5-10% -- among the living. Like you say, you need to get the death rate well above normal. One key to making this work would be very rapid spread of the virus, because if it doesn't appear everywhere at once the places that have it would serve as a warning to the places that don't. The most plausible scenario is probably a deliberately spread bioengineered virus, as in Tom Clancy's novel Rainbow Six.