Too many of them, not enough ammo!

[GrimStories]

Hello, been gone for a while, completed a few big projects and got stuff done, back for a visit.

OK, so here's something I used to put numbers and distance in perspective when it comes to writing and thinking about the living dead. It's a silly exercise, but an eye opener.

While on a short drive at dusk on a weekend...not a week day when there's lot of traffic, but go a few miles in the suburbs and count the headlights that you meet oncoming. One pair of headlights equals one walker...I figure that this is a good indication of interval and numbers for scattered living dead through the same area, if you're moving rapidly on foot...why? Why not? This gives you a small percentage of the number of people in an area, perhaps as many as would be wandering the streets after our collapse...it's not overwhelming, so it seemed reasonable. Just count the cars coming toward you in that short distance for thinking about later.

Anyway, I figure that even as a good shot, I'd need maybe four or five shots to snap shoot a low moving but small target at closer ranges. What shocked me is within a half mile or so, with a few dozen cars coming my way, I realized a person would be emptying magazines regularly...going a mile or so with even light traffic, I couldn't carry enough magazines to go a few miles. Even at night the traffic might astonish you. This doesn't take in to consideration fatigue, weather, fear, and the fact that once you start firing everyone of them that's mobile will come toward you.

It's a silly thing to do but if you just count the cars on the road and realize that in the suburbs and urban areas there's multiples of people out there, it almost makes the notion of shooting your way out pathetic.

:eek:

[Mike70]

Holy sheyat! tom martin rides again.

how has everything been out in washington state? still keeping miscreants behind bars and all that?

[dirtydwarf]

Glad to see you back Grim. Your input and knowledge was always a big help. Hope you stick around.

[p2501]

welcome back fukker.

your point works but it's also a variable. initially the math would hold up, but you also have to factor in multiple shooters, unless were getting into some rambo ****.

Even just a two man element should be able to press forward by leapfrogging unless your dealing with a medium to large sized crowd. but then a group that size i'd assume you'd see or notice it coming and would be able to either withdraw, find shelter, or elevation to work from too then thin the heard at a slower pace. having said all that if cornered to jumped by a large size crowd yeah ammo would be a concern real damn quick.

[Kaos]

welcome back fukker.


Where do you put the comma?

welcome, back fukker or
welcome back, fukker

Calling Grim a back fukker on his first post in the new forum is just poor manners. :p

JUST KIDDING:clown:

It is good to see a familiar face. Welcome back, Grim.

[Andy]

Welcome to the new forums, i hope your stay is enjoyable.

:elol:

[GrimStories]

I am factoring multiple shooters...

Suppose you're out there with P2501...I can see having to pull him back and reminding him, the small end goes toward the living dead, the broad end goes against the shoulder...then there's the mirth factor...I can see aiming in on an especially horrific looking one and P2501 tapping you on the shoulder urgently...you turn and he snickers "You better not miss!"

I counted one evening and I was shocked! In some areas you can't make a kilometer without expending more magazines than you can carry!

[triste realtà]

I've always thought a super sharp sword would work well, like a samurai sword. Hands reach for you, gone, then the head. As long as they're spread out pretty good. :)

[p2501]

wait wait, the barrel goes downrange?

the guys at the range had me holding it sideways. but then they've been telling me that sites are for pussies anyway, so yeah.....

anywho. i dunno i ran the numbers last night just on the town i live in and i think the numbers are managable, but then i'm optomistic.

also do you wanna field the cuttlery question?

[Neil]

I've always thought a super sharp sword would work well, like a samurai sword. Hands reach for you, gone, then the head. As long as they're spread out pretty good. :)

And you'd be worn out in 2 mins!

[p2501]

that or the sword would get stuck .

or it would break.

or bend.

or he'd drop it.

and then fall on it.

or overswing and then hyper extend his wrists (i saw that done once, yeeseh).

all of these would be quality viewing.

[triste realtà]

I'm talking one of those really expensive high quality sharp as a razor swords. I think those may be very durable. I'm sure I'd be a little winded, but I'm also saying that they are spread out and slow. I don't see a problem if you're in reasonable physical shape (above slob but not hercules). I'm thinking the type of situation where you don't have to run, like in Night 90. You could just walk around killing. Something else would have to be invented for crowds, like a mobile tree shredder.

[AcesandEights]

Sharp as a razor swords dull quickly and still are open to breaking fairly easily. Certainly most steel mill repro katanas and the like would break fairly quickly with regular use.

I'll take a nice distance weapon in a common caliber and a lead pipe for when all else fails, thank you very much.

[rightwing401]

If you're going for universal caliber, then 5.56mm would be the recomended choice (at least in the US), it's the general type used by both police and military.

Enviornment of engagement would depend on what kind ammunition would be carried. In close quarters, such as inside buildings, you'd want to be using short barreled shotguns and pistols. In suburban areas, everything except long range rifles would do fine. I could go on, but you get the idea.

(A blunt weapon, with appropriate tactics to maximize its effectiveness, would be far better than a sword. Blunt weapons can be made with relative ease also)

So you've come back Grim. Any plan on swinging by the fiction section any time soon?

[LoSTBoY]

The samurai sword would do the damage but, as already mentioned it would have to be sharp and not a replica.

If I had to go with a blade it would have to be a heavy duty machete, one thats about a fill arms length with a heavy head. (BTW don't google machete for a picture :dead:)

You have the argument that you would get tired after awhile using it but if you use it sensibly it would be OK (Hit the back of the neck to sever the spine, leg joints and you can take them to the floor, then run like scooby doo!). Also you generally don't get replica machetes so they should be made to last.

I would also have a short stabbing sword or large knife in the other hand, this would be used for eye stabs and if possible right through the throat to hit the spine in the back.

I'm considering this from a UK point of view and ruling out items you be lucky to get (Just give me a Battle axe and a sadistic smile :sneaky:), if I was in the US I would be tooled up with every gun in the store.

[Yojimbo]

Dudes, having taken a little bit of Kendo in my youth, I can tell you that it is not easy to be able to cleave something in half with a Katana.

I remember a demonstration given by my Sensei: They would roll up several straw mats (called "tatami" mats) together and then stand these up. Apparently, these were supposed to approximate a human body's resistance to a sword blow. Given that he was a master, the Sensei was able to slice straight through the mats, however when one of the stronger kids in the group (bigger and older than the rest, but still on our beginner skill level) gave it a shot, he barely made it a quarter of the way through. It was mentioned that many (not reproduction) original Katanas had been broken throughout the centuries while attempting to slice through a human body. Bones, flesh, muscle, apparently, can snap even the finest sword if that sword is used improperly.

Not having stuck with Kendo, with the little insignificant training I received I would probably end up breaking my sword if I tried to cut a ghoul's head off, or even if I tried to lop off it's arm or cleave through the longbones of the legs. Even with an original, master forged and folded carbon steel Katana, chances are that I, and most of you all who also are not trained in swordsmanship would risk snapping the blade or hurting yourself by landing a glancing blow.

So if I was going to use a blade of some sort, it would have to be something a little more forgiving than a Katana, like an axe or something along those lines.

[dirtydwarf]

I wouldn't trust a slashing blade. Too likely to get stuck in bone or break. Would carry A nice strong knife though for utility or a last resort weapon.

[Yojimbo]

I wouldn't trust a slashing blade. Too likely to get stuck in bone or break. Would carry A nice strong knife though for utility or a last resort weapon.

Exactly. Which is probably the only right way to view a bladed weapon in spite of what those who take Max Brooks as gospel might say. In the real world, with the exception of the Congo, bladed weapons are used in combat only as a supplement to firearms.

Even affixed as a bayonet, most bladed weapons require some amount of training in order to be useful.

[bd2999]

Yeah, there are lots of people around. Best bet in everything is to not shoot anything unless you need to, trying to be a mans man and kill them all is just not going to fly unless you pretty much have a military base to yourself that is full of ammo and weapons for your use and you are good with them all.

Otherwise it is going to be rough.We thought about a similar idea the other week. Even with a thousand rounds of ammo and consider you are in a small town of a few thousand. If they are all dead and walking then even if you get one shot one kill there are still several thousand more in the general area alone.

[GrimStories]

I don't want to get close enough to smell them much less close enough to use a blade!

Heck, think about it...swinging a sharp implement, handling it, with vile fluid on it...ew!

[triste realtà]

Ginsu cuts clean.

[Skippy911sc]

Well I tried to embed a youtube vid but was unable...must research this more...

I like the idea of keeping the zeds as far away as possible...however I think a hand to hand weapon is a necessity ...so maybe a sickle

[SRP76]

Hello, been gone for a while, completed a few big projects and got stuff done, back for a visit.

OK, so here's something I used to put numbers and distance in perspective when it comes to writing and thinking about the living dead. It's a silly exercise, but an eye opener.

While on a short drive at dusk on a weekend...not a week day when there's lot of traffic, but go a few miles in the suburbs and count the headlights that you meet oncoming. One pair of headlights equals one walker...I figure that this is a good indication of interval and numbers for scattered living dead through the same area, if you're moving rapidly on foot...why? Why not? This gives you a small percentage of the number of people in an area, perhaps as many as would be wandering the streets after our collapse...it's not overwhelming, so it seemed reasonable. Just count the cars coming toward you in that short distance for thinking about later.

Anyway, I figure that even as a good shot, I'd need maybe four or five shots to snap shoot a low moving but small target at closer ranges. What shocked me is within a half mile or so, with a few dozen cars coming my way, I realized a person would be emptying magazines regularly...going a mile or so with even light traffic, I couldn't carry enough magazines to go a few miles. Even at night the traffic might astonish you. This doesn't take in to consideration fatigue, weather, fear, and the fact that once you start firing everyone of them that's mobile will come toward you.

It's a silly thing to do but if you just count the cars on the road and realize that in the suburbs and urban areas there's multiples of people out there, it almost makes the notion of shooting your way out pathetic.

:eek:

Very true, and that's not all we have to worry about:

In addition to the randomly-staggering locals, you have the urban sprawl effect. That is, dead from the cities leaving those cities, pursuing the masses of panicked live ones that fled. Once on that trail, they won't just turn around and go back to the city. They will continue down the roads out into the rurals. That means that while you're walking down the highway dodging locals, you have a horde coming along behind you, closing the distance every time you stop.

Also, zombies move in all directions. You may be walking down the road, but they probably won't be. On a rural highway, you have thick foliage on both sides of the road, no more than 20 feet off the shoulder. Many of them will be staggering through that. So, while you're looking down the double-yellow line, you'll have these freaks climbing out of the woodwork on both sides of you. Not a good scenario.

It is literally a case of being surrounded at all times, and you're never very far from the nearest ghoul. And if you fire your gun, like you said, the bumrush is on.

And the whole "swing a sword" idea will get us eaten in hours. It isn't possible to physically slice or bash very many of them. Try throwing just your fist, as hard as you can, just 10 times. Notice how weak you got?

After a dozen ghouls, you'll be pathetically setting your weapon harmlessly onto a zombie's head, your strength gone. Then, it's lunchtime.

[p2501]

well put.

[Mike70]

would dipping bongholio, chaos, steve, and socal in barbecue sauce and using them as human shields be a valid defensive strategy?

[p2501]

aww that's just mean. I liked Bong he was interesting.

as for the others, sure why not.

[mista_mo]

would dipping bongholio, chaos, steve, and socal in barbecue sauce and using them as human shields be a valid defensive strategy?

no, but i'd question what sort of sexual fetishes you have.

[Mike70]

no, but i'd question what sort of sexual fetishes you have.

:lol: none that involve these 4 of that i can fully assure you. i was more thinking about throwing the ghouls something akin to human snausages, whilst i make my escape.

[Dommm]

Personal opionon but due to living in the uk guns are pretty hard to come (if you ignore the papers these days) so even if I do manage to get a gun I would hold onto it and the ammo and use only in the most extreme of circumstances. For two reasons 1. due to the noise and level of attention it would attract. 2. having to maintain it more use means more maintenance (though even with no use I would have to clean and oil it regs). I would probs try and keep silent, in an out of the way area sleeping high above the ground in a hidden area. My main weapon of choice would be a cudgel/club/baseball bat for small numbers of ghouls a sword ('most any type) for hostile humans either armed sim or unarmed and gun when I have to make a quick break through a small crowd (15+) of ghouls to open an immediate gap or when a large number of hostile humans appear. Hopefully I would be meeting only the friendly kind of human. This is all based on GAR's zombies

[Deadman_Deluxe]

[I]... it almost makes the notion of shooting your way out pathetic.:eek:


Firstly,

Hi again, and welcome back again, of sorts ;)

Secondly, i couldn't agree with your closing statement more!

In that particular scenario, i guess your best option would be a brisk walk without firing ANY shots at all.

[Yojimbo]

In that particular scenario, i guess your best option would be a brisk walk without firing ANY shots at all.

Fighting without fighting.

Agreed with that. Yes, like Domm, I say best thing to do is to conserve ammo and shoot only when necessary. Unless you have an endless stockpile of ammo - and I assume you would not if you were on the move - I would not attempt to exterminate every ghoul I happened upon.

[EvilNed]

Forget the katana idea. The sword would probably break after only a few strokes. If it's supersharp, then it'll just break all the easier. If it's not,then it'll be dull and worthless for chopping off heads.

Historically, slashing swords were not as effective as thrusting swords when you went into battle. If you're crowded with enemies then slashing took more time and energy to perform. Slashing blades were, after the romans conquered it with their short, thrusting blades, mostly used by cavalrymen. If you ever wondered why european swords were straight, and not curved, it's because they were supposed to deal with a variety of situations which a curved blade would have more trouble dealing with. And thrusting was it's main purpose. Thrusting requires less energy and time to deal out a piercing, more lasting would. As Caesar said; The barbarians who slashed with their swords, wasted more time to deal inferior wounds. While his own troops, the romans, simply stabbed the barbarians to cause piercing of flesh and organs. A thrust also easier penetrates armor and flesh.

With that in mind, I wouldn't go for a big sword overall, if I wanted one. A short-ranged machete or the greek falcata sword would be my first choice and then only reserved to desperate, emergency situations. I have no delusions of being able to wield such a blade with expertise. But it would be a hell of a lot easier for me, a non-warrior, to wield than a longer sword.

That said, while thrusting works marvels against humans, it probably wouldn't work against a zombie. Even if you pierce his organs, he would still be coming after you.

The best defence against zombies would probably be to run.

[Mike70]

or ned one of these trusty puppies at your side for use in those desperate instances.

http://www.a2armory.com/images/new-swords/RomanGladiusSword.jpg

[EvilNed]

Of course, but choosing the gladius is sooooo, 100 B.C... You do know that 332 B.C., retrostyle, is whats hip this year, right?

[Mike70]

Of course, but choosing the gladius is sooooo, 100 B.C... You do know that 332 B.C., retrostyle, is whats hip this year, right?

:lol:

well 100 B.C is fine with me and is an interesting time period anyway. that was about the time the republic began to show signs of the decay that would lead to the rise of the empire.

the late republic is very interesting. my deal academically is when the republic was at its height (around 200 BC) and rapidly beginning to expand to the east.

[dracenstein]

I think a mace will be better than a sword.

1) A mace won't get trapped in a zombie/human body (just in case you have to defend your last tin of Spam from another starving soul, human or zombie).

2) A mace is designed to break bones, and in medieval times, the kinetic shockwave on plate armour was just as devasting (trapped in a suit of armour, when a mace struck it, the shockwave going through flesh is like a ripple through water, and could burst vital organs). A decent whump! with a mace to a zombie's head should be enough to stop it dead.

3) You don't need to keep it sharp.

[mista_mo]

ALL I WOULD NEED IS THIS.

http://www.cairnsmowercity.com/images/craftsman%20chainsaw%2035020.jpg

[dracenstein]

And the spray of blood, bones and brains will go everywhere, including on you, and if it sprays on you, or even in your mouth, will that make you infected?

[mista_mo]

I think scipio and capn would get my previous post :P

[MaximusIncredulous]

ALL I WOULD NEED IS THIS.

http://www.cairnsmowercity.com/images/craftsman%20chainsaw%2035020.jpg

Till you run outta gas. Then you're stuck with a very unwieldy club.

The mace might work, until you club yourself in the head from all that wild swinging around with it.

Best weapon really are your legs. If you're going to get exhausted from expending energy fighting them, may as well run like Hell when approached by large numbers of those things and hope you've got some distance from them before you crap out.

[SRP76]

I think the numbers are going to overwhelm you/us regardless of what weapon is used. That's the point the OP was making: there are simply too many, no matter where you run.

The only "safe" (yeah, famous last words) strategy that I can come up with is using a boat. If you can haul a bunch of ammo onboard, you can sit offshore and take potshots at the dead as they wander toward the water. They shouldn't be able to stagger out into the ocean after you, so you'll be safe to thin the herds a bit.

Once they stack up too much for comfort, you can simply take the boat further up/down the coast to an area with fewer of them, and start again. By the time you have to leave this area, the first area should have dispersed a bit, so you can go back and plink away again.

Keep cruising up and down the shoreline in this manner, and rack up a huge number of relatively safe kills.

[Mike70]

. They shouldn't be able to stagger out into the ocean after you, so you'll be safe to thin the herds a bit.

unless big daddy and his merry band of underwater walking marines come after you.:lol:

[MaximusIncredulous]

... Keep cruising up and down the shoreline in this manner, and rack up a huge number of relatively safe kills.

Until hunger and thirst sets in, unless the boater in question is good at fishing and desalinating saltwater.

[Mike70]

I think scipio and capn would get my previous post :P

that you're a lumberjack and you're ok?

[SRP76]

Until hunger and thirst sets in, unless the boater in question is good at fishing and desalinating saltwater.

Supply runs ashore will obviously be made once an area is cleared. The key is to spend as little time on land as possible. It sure beats just staying on land all the time, and waiting to be eaten.

This would work best if many people have the same idea, and you get a whole bunch of boats patrolling.

[strayrider]

If you're going for universal caliber, then 5.56mm would be the recomended choice (at least in the US), it's the general type used by both police and military.

Enviornment of engagement would depend on what kind ammunition would be carried. In close quarters, such as inside buildings, you'd want to be using short barreled shotguns and pistols. In suburban areas, everything except long range rifles would do fine. I could go on, but you get the idea.

(A blunt weapon, with appropriate tactics to maximize its effectiveness, would be far better than a sword. Blunt weapons can be made with relative ease also)

So you've come back Grim. Any plan on swinging by the fiction section any time soon?

No, .22 Long Rifle would be better. It can be used in rifles and pistols and you can carry loads of it.

-stray-

[SRP76]

No, .22 Long Rifle would be better. It can be used in rifles and pistols and you can carry loads of it.

-stray-

But can it penetrate a dense human forehead at say, 100 meters? All the ammo in the world won't help if you have to get close to the dead to destroy them.

[Dommm]

I would still remain on dry land, and keep to previously sparsley or non populated areas, unless I get the opportunity to build what I have said in another thread. As far as waepons go, only kill what is ness. only make noise if no other choice, run first if you can.

[Bill-117]

Go for stuff like shovels and hoes (the garden tools...) and pitchforks. Long reach, like a pike. If you can forge your own poleswords or axe-halberds, all the better. As for guns, they're better when you aren't on the move. In a watchtower or up a tree, perhaps.

[Zombill]

I guess its time to head to a space station and sit it out for about 25 years

[Yojimbo]

Again, rather use a firearm against zombies (or better yet, walk right past them). But, if I had to go the blade route, I'd choose this.

http://csstoreonline.stores.yahoo.net/90vt.html

Special Forces Tomahawk, used in Vietnam. While it does not replace a gun, it can be used for close quarters, deployed easily and (best of all) does not require a lot of skill to be used effectively, something which will work against you if you are trying to use a sword or a knife (or a chainsaw) against the walking dead.

I should add that throwing one of these at a target would probably not be the way you would want to go since unlike using it like a hatchet, throwing one of these effectively requires a lot of skill and luck.


But can it penetrate a dense human forehead at say, 100 meters? All the ammo in the world won't help if you have to get close to the dead to destroy them.

SRP is correct, BTW. .22 has the advantage that you can carry a $hitload of ammo, but I doubt that it would be very effective at 100 meters, let alone have enough stopping power to deal with an angry, meth crazed freak who is charging at you while swinging a machete. I would wager that you could put five bullets into his chest and not stop him from chopping your body up. Yeah, he might die from bleeding hours later, but what good would that do you?

If I was going to go the .22 rifle route (which does make some sense) I would supplement the .22 with a decent caliber pistol, like a .357 magnum loaded with nice Elmer Keith style semi-wadcutters, or a .45 automatic.

[Bill-117]

I wonder how well tracer fire in particular would work against zeds... I mean, the magnesium coating? It'd burn right through the brain. Even if you just "grazed" the skull cavity, you'd do lethal damage.

[Yojimbo]

I wonder how well tracer fire in particular would work against zeds... I mean, the magnesium coating? It'd burn right through the brain. Even if you just "grazed" the skull cavity, you'd do lethal damage.

I think if you grazed the "skull cavity" with any proper bullet that this would cause lethal damage, though I do not know if this would be any more significant with a tracer round. If by "graze" you mean a bullet does not penetrate the skull and simply glances off of the cranium, again, I'm not certain that a tracer round would be any more significant. One of our resident veterans might be able to have a more informed opinion.

In this regard, I have heard of folks taking a .22 LR rimfire round to the head, only to have the bullet travel along the cranium, under the skin of the scalp and the exit without causing any damage to the brain further than a simple concussion. Perhaps a tracer round, if taking the same path, might cauterize the wound channel (and potentially cause more pain), but I have yet to see a .22 LR tracer round.

Again, maybe one of our veteran members could clarify if a tracer causes more damage and if this has ever been avaliable for .22 Long Rifle.

[Bill-117]

I mean, like, enters the skull - through the nose maybe, or on the side - but doesn't impact the brain. Maybe what we need is a sort of shotgun round - .22 bullets with tiny bits of metal mixed with the gunpowder.

[SRP76]

For handguns, I'd go with a simple .38 revolver (and of course speedloads are a must). Revolvers don't have the jamming troubles clips in pistols are vulnerable to, making them more reliable. The .38 is sufficient for blasting into a brain, and will get the point across to your average methheaded machete-wielder as well. But it's also lightweight, as is the ammo, and has very small kick. Perfect balance.

Running around like Dirty Harry might sound like fun, but after you have to fire that .44 Magnum about 10 times to get out of a crowd, you'll see how much fun it's not. It's work, and you don't need to deal with that when fighting for survival.

Best to strike a balance between killing power and punishment to your own body with a medium-caliber.

[Yojimbo]

For handguns, I'd go with a simple .38 revolver (and of course speedloads are a must).

Best to strike a balance between killing power and punishment to your own body with a medium-caliber.

I agree with SRP. My personal favorite piece is a Ruger Speed Six .357 magnum snubnose. Being a .357, you have the option of loading either the magnum cartridges or .38 Specials. The .38s shot out of the heavier frame of the .357 makes recoil totally manageable, and the piece is reliable and accurate with practice. Plus, it is virtually indestructible and can stand being dropped on the ground or rolled around in dirt and still come up firing. Try that with an automatic!

[rightwing401]

It's like that saying, "You put two in the chest, one in the head, they won't know the difference."
Exact reason why I would never use a high powered rifle, and when I say high powered, I mean like an FNAL. .308 caliber sounds bad a**, but when you've fired one of those suckers once and it nearly breaks your shoulder, you change your mind real quick.
That's why I still say a 5.56mm round is fairly good, it can universally be used for both dead and living. For long term use, I don't think an M-16 or any other complex gun would be good idea. Far too many parts to keep in order or replace.
SPR76 got it right. .38 special will do the job just fine, only 5 or 6 shots, but each of them guaranteed. A 357 magnum would work good too, you could moderate between .357 and .38 caliber rounds.

[strayrider]

Again, rather use a firearm against zombies (or better yet, walk right past them). But, if I had to go the blade route, I'd choose this.

http://csstoreonline.stores.yahoo.net/90vt.html

Special Forces Tomahawk, used in Vietnam. While it does not replace a gun, it can be used for close quarters, deployed easily and (best of all) does not require a lot of skill to be used effectively, something which will work against you if you are trying to use a sword or a knife (or a chainsaw) against the walking dead.

I should add that throwing one of these at a target would probably not be the way you would want to go since unlike using it like a hatchet, throwing one of these effectively requires a lot of skill and luck.



SRP is correct, BTW. .22 has the advantage that you can carry a $hitload of ammo, but I doubt that it would be very effective at 100 meters, let alone have enough stopping power to deal with an angry, meth crazed freak who is charging at you while swinging a machete. I would wager that you could put five bullets into his chest and not stop him from chopping your body up. Yeah, he might die from bleeding hours later, but what good would that do you?

If I was going to go the .22 rifle route (which does make some sense) I would supplement the .22 with a decent caliber pistol, like a .357 magnum loaded with nice Elmer Keith style semi-wadcutters, or a .45 automatic.

I agree. Carry something of a larger caliber with you in case of hostile human contact.

Zoms, however, are not a threat at 100-yards, or 50, or 25. You just avoid them. If they're "wall-to-wall" in every direction, you're screwed whatever gun you might be carrying. The goal is to avoid them.

Save the bladed weapons for exercise in controlled situations -- to blow off a little steam against a handful, maybe. Even then the threat might be from infection from blood/fluid splatter. A droplet of infected blood in your eye could prove just as fatal as a bite or scratch.

:D

-stray-

[SRP76]

Zoms, however, are not a threat at 100-yards, or 50, or 25. You just avoid them. If they're "wall-to-wall" in every direction, you're screwed whatever gun you might be carrying. The goal is to avoid them.



The problem is they cannot be avoided. To avoid them is to give up on life, and just surrender. They will see you and follow wherever you go, never stopping. As soon as you stop somewhere, anywhere, they will begin to catch up. Next thing you know, you're under siege, in a hopeless situation.

Sooner or later, you will have to deal with every zombie you encounter. It's best to do it at the longest range possible.

[Skippy911sc]

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c323/mj911sc911/DSC02616.jpg

hell with the 44 try the 460...on the right then the 357 then the 38

or...

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c323/mj911sc911/DSC02597.jpg
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c323/mj911sc911/DSC02607.jpg
notice the night vision attached...this is my choice but thats just because I can shoot it WELL and reload.

Or...

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c323/mj911sc911/DSC01297-1.jpg

the 308 and 556

Any way you go I would still have a 22 or 17...because as said before...the ammo is every where and small no recoil. Not very loud...although it is still loud!!!

[SRP76]

How long do the power cells on the nightvision scope last? You wouldn't be able to recharge it in a zombie scenario, since power will go out everywhere pretty quick.

[Skippy911sc]

It uses readily available batteries...AA or CR23 smaller camera style batteries. they last along time!

[SRP76]

Well that's a plus. I was afraid it would have some specialized battery type like phones do. That would have sucked for this situation.

[Yojimbo]

Nice ones, Skip. I think when the dead start walking I would want to hang out with your crew.

[strayrider]

The problem is they cannot be avoided. To avoid them is to give up on life, and just surrender. They will see you and follow wherever you go, never stopping. As soon as you stop somewhere, anywhere, they will begin to catch up. Next thing you know, you're under siege, in a hopeless situation.

Sooner or later, you will have to deal with every zombie you encounter. It's best to do it at the longest range possible.

Can't be avoided in an urban, or suburban environment, agreed. Head for the sticks, secure an isolated farmhouse, grow your own food, hunt, survive. After a while zom encounters will be rare events.

Dude, 25-yards is a long range when dealing with slow moving zombies. It would take one at least a minute to cover the distance (Romero zoms, of course.)

:D

-stray-

[zombieparanoia]

http://www.brianstoys.com/store/images/products/Star%20Wars/MasterReplica/FXSaber/MR_Obi-Wan-FX.jpg

owns.

[SRP76]

Dude, 25-yards is a long range when dealing with slow moving zombies. It would take one at least a minute to cover the distance (Romero zoms, of course.)

:D

-stray-

If they are close enough for me to see through binoculars, they are too close as far as I'm concerned. :lol:

Especially if they are looking back and see that you're there.

[gottgen]

GRIM!!! Welcome back! I don't get on much anymore, myself, but it's good to see you up and around.

[Shadowofthedead]

base ball bats aluminum or wood... you can find them any where. 22lr pistols and rifles. 12 and 20 gauge scatter guns. nuff said. oh and run like heck

[Redman6565]

Why is everyone going to the sticks? Why would you leave the major cities for? Think about. I go to Cincinnati all the time. I think the best thing you could do is understand that you need strong major structures to survive. Sure there may be fewer zombies in the sticks at first but after a while you will screwed and good luck with that little farm house you're stuck in.

First thing I'd do is find a few truck drivers and do what ever to keep them alive. A truck driver is going to be key to keeping you with the supplies you are going to need. Second I'd find a major parking garage. Once you have the few ways in blocked you're good to go. Not to mention a major parking garage is a very strong structure.

The good thing about the large 18 wheelers is you can run over lots of zombies and keep on trucking (sorry I had to say that). The first thing I'd go get would be gas generators. Then go get one of those wonderful gas trucks. Also, a few snow plow trucks as well. Maybe get them first. You could kill lots of zombies with a few of those suckers. We don't need stinking.

Think about it, you could keep the streets clear around the parking garage with snow plows. Use them to lead the way to go out for more supplies as well. Also, the top of the parking garage would be a landing spot for helicopters. Oh, I'd go get loads of dirt to put on the top level to grow food. Heck, you take care of the truckers you could go get freash meat as well. All the cattle would be geting real fat during all this. While you're getting killed in the sticks I'd be living like a king in a parking garage eating freash steak. :D

Most important I'd go raid the nearest leather store. You can't bite through leather. Hah! Bring'em on bring'em on! :elol:

[Shadowofthedead]

the idea to hit the sticks isnt as bad as you think. people in the country are better prepared for a zombie uprisin. and the seclusion in the country is almost limitless. in the city you have a higher congregation of zombies than in the country. heck i live 5 miles from hueston woods state park i could ride up there with my supplies and group and hole up there. the park is thick with foilage and some places are inaccessable even on foot. the sticks is always the best choice. now some people would stand a better chance of hittin the road in the opposite direction due to racial spats that might occur in the sticks with various ethnicites and country folk... i know this cuz my area isnt the most color friendly not that im racist or anything but everything must be taken into consideration when hittin the road. im sure your idea isnt fubar redman but i would try to stay out of harms way or "teeth" at all costs.

[Redman6565]

the idea to hit the sticks isnt as bad as you think. people in the country are better prepared for a zombie uprisin. and the seclusion in the country is almost limitless. in the city you have a higher congregation of zombies than in the country. heck i live 5 miles from hueston woods state park i could ride up there with my supplies and group and hole up there. the park is thick with foilage and some places are inaccessable even on foot. the sticks is always the best choice. now some people would stand a better chance of hittin the road in the opposite direction due to racial spats that might occur in the sticks with various ethnicites and country folk... i know this cuz my area isnt the most color friendly not that im racist or anything but everything must be taken into consideration when hittin the road. im sure your idea isnt fubar redman but i would try to stay out of harms way or "teeth" at all costs.

You better hope Miami University is out for the summer if it happens or you've got 16,000 + dead college students heading towards Hueston Woods. I live around 15 min from there and you wouldn't last long at all out there. I know Hueston Woods like the back of my hand. Been runing around there all my life, 42 years. No where to hide or hold up in Hueston Woods. I'll take my snow plows and parking garage. Heck, Oxford would give you a better chance for long term survival than Hueston Woods. Not to mention some hot gals to pass the time. :D

[Yojimbo]

Why is everyone going to the sticks? Why would you leave the major cities for? Think about. I go to Cincinnati all the time. I think the best thing you could do is understand that you need strong major structures to survive. Sure there may be fewer zombies in the sticks at first but after a while you will screwed and good luck with that little farm house you're stuck in.

First thing I'd do is find a few truck drivers and do what ever to keep them alive. A truck driver is going to be key to keeping you with the supplies you are going to need. Second I'd find a major parking garage. Once you have the few ways in blocked you're good to go. Not to mention a major parking garage is a very strong structure.

The good thing about the large 18 wheelers is you can run over lots of zombies and keep on trucking (sorry I had to say that). The first thing I'd go get would be gas generators. Then go get one of those wonderful gas trucks. Also, a few snow plow trucks as well. Maybe get them first. You could kill lots of zombies with a few of those suckers. We don't need stinking.

Think about it, you could keep the streets clear around the parking garage with snow plows. Use them to lead the way to go out for more supplies as well. Also, the top of the parking garage would be a landing spot for helicopters. Oh, I'd go get loads of dirt to put on the top level to grow food. Heck, you take care of the truckers you could go get freash meat as well. All the cattle would be geting real fat during all this. While you're getting killed in the sticks I'd be living like a king in a parking garage eating freash steak. :D

Most important I'd go raid the nearest leather store. You can't bite through leather. Hah! Bring'em on bring'em on! :elol:

Redman, you have some interesting ideas but I would not write off getting out of the major metropolitan areas. Zombies are not the only danger you would be facing in this particular sort of crisis, and in fact you would be competing against all the other survivors for resources.

I have seen people getting into fistfights over a parking space at the mall during Christmas. I would imagine that tensions would be a lot higher if survival was at stake, and that no one would be living like a king and eating steak when competition for resources would be as high as it would get during a survival crisis.

[Redman6565]

Redman, you have some interesting ideas but I would not write off getting out of the major metropolitan areas. Zombies are not the only danger you would be facing in this particular sort of crisis, and in fact you would be competing against all the other survivors for resources.

I have seen people getting into fistfights over a parking space at the mall during Christmas. I would imagine that tensions would be a lot higher if survival was at stake, and that no one would be living like a king and eating steak when competition for resources would be as high as it would get during a survival crisis.

hahaha That's for sure but I would not waste a bullet on a zombie. I'd save those for the living. The only way into a, fortified, major parking garage surrounded by zombies would be through the air. There are a few of those right there in Oxford. Like I said, nice looking gals to keep you busy as well. :lol:

[Shadowofthedead]

miami university students.... ha they would be the first to turn to zombies. they are all said pathetic excuses for human existence. all of them... any who... the only people i would worry about in oxford are the nut balls in the trailer park. real nutballs. i know this because i lived there for about 6 months. so yeah.. oh and have you ever noticed that miami university's buildings are actually built very well... even some of their newer buildings beat the shiza out of my farm house. load up and clear out. my whole thing is protecting the farm... do my best to do it. renewable resource of green food a pond and plenty of wild animals to eat. oxford not so much... tough choice... protection or resources???

[SRP76]

tough choice... protection or resources???

That's the easiest choice. You can't eat the food you're growing if you're dead. And you can't grow anything anyway; sit in one place for months on end, and you will be eaten, no matter how "safe" you think you might be.

Anything that keeps the dead off of you is the #1 priority. Because without that one thing, nothing else is ever going to matter.

[dracenstein]

If there's anything I know nothing about, it's agriculture.

Tinned food and bottled drink for me.

Weapons? I have a couple swords that are servicable, but I would like to get a shotgun at some point if the sh!t hit the fan. With no experience with guns (aside from airguns), a shotgun would be best as the pellets spread out, you don't have to be hyperaccurate!

[Redman6565]

Why not a small island between the US and Canida? The ones they sell starting in the low $30,000's. Not real big but I'd imagine pretty safe.

[Skippy911sc]

I think we need to look at a few sources in able to discuss the rural vs erban environment. In the Dawn world a rural area would be prefered in my opinion. The dead did not seem to travel very from from their current location however in the WWZ world I think they just kept traveling across the country and they smelled or heard you and communication by yelling?... One might choose to stay in an urban area for a fortified location. A prison would work well...except for the prisoners... ;) I feel pretty safe at my own home...it was built by a survivalist who had expected the work to end. Bomb shelter 60 acres fenced with barb wire and a look out tower. I feel I would be better suited to a rural environment.

[Shadowofthedead]

well back to oxford.... the city if you wanna call it that isnt very big... surrounded by a lot of trees it has been labeled a tree city, usa... so a lot of natural cover and a lot of brick buildings. alot of allies to. for anyone whose been up town oxford there are alot of places to be barricaded in such as the alleys and back bars. three bars in oxford are connected to one another so they provide a world of fun. plus i could use the miami delivery trucks and buses that shuttle students around to block off the alleys or whatever need be. plus with the surroundin farm land there would always be a place to grow food. and eventually with the absence of human interaction i assume that the animals wild as they be would come into town for their choice of food. that would make huntin them easy from the roof tops. did i forget to mention bomb shelters at two of the three schools in town. oxford is a renewable resource itself which is why it would be on my number one priority list after tshtf. oh oxford doenst have its own special response team or swat as it may be called some places. they rely on the local county sheriffs office for that help. i would go into it more but i think yall have the idea scipio know what im talkin about as well.

my real idea would be to take oxford and grow my food in and outside of town. i would appoint someone i trusted to over see my area that i took and hopefully expansion would commence. oh did i forget to mention the network of underground tunnels that heat the sidewalks for the miami students. oh and the abandoned military base outside of oxford. oxford would have alot of promise. thats why i would sitck around if things went bad.:elol:

[acealive1]

resources, protection, and ass.

three things u need to survive a zed attack

[Shadowofthedead]

ive got all three... miami has alot of very very VERY VERY HOT SEXY FOXY BANGIN.... you pick the word then add women. they would be more then grateful for anyone savin their lives.. hahaha:elol:

[Redman6565]

I think we need to look at a few sources in able to discuss the rural vs erban environment. In the Dawn world a rural area would be prefered in my opinion. The dead did not seem to travel very from from their current location however in the WWZ world I think they just kept traveling across the country and they smelled or heard you and communication by yelling?... One might choose to stay in an urban area for a fortified location. A prison would work well...except for the prisoners... ;) I feel pretty safe at my own home...it was built by a survivalist who had expected the work to end. Bomb shelter 60 acres fenced with barb wire and a look out tower. I feel I would be better suited to a rural environment.

If you base this all on the GAR world then the zombies traveled far away from the urban areas.Take Day, the numbers grew over the course of that movie out in the middle of know where. Their underground base was starting to become over run by them. Sort of strange, it was like the more people died the more zombies came. Kind of wierd.

My only concern would come from your ability not to be able to travel after awhile. I love the prison idea. If they are all in their cells let them turn and who cares they can't chew their way out. A school wouldn't be bad either. I just think that in a rural area would get real small once you have hundreds of thousands of zombies coming at you from all directions. Slow moving or not that would be a major deal. Good luck no matter what you choose. lol


well back to oxford.... the city if you wanna call it that isnt very big... surrounded by a lot of trees it has been labeled a tree city, usa... so a lot of natural cover and a lot of brick buildings. alot of allies to. for anyone whose been up town oxford there are alot of places to be barricaded in such as the alleys and back bars. three bars in oxford are connected to one another so they provide a world of fun. plus i could use the miami delivery trucks and buses that shuttle students around to block off the alleys or whatever need be. plus with the surroundin farm land there would always be a place to grow food. and eventually with the absence of human interaction i assume that the animals wild as they be would come into town for their choice of food. that would make huntin them easy from the roof tops. did i forget to mention bomb shelters at two of the three schools in town. oxford is a renewable resource itself which is why it would be on my number one priority list after tshtf. oh oxford doenst have its own special response team or swat as it may be called some places. they rely on the local county sheriffs office for that help. i would go into it more but i think yall have the idea scipio know what im talkin about as well.

my real idea would be to take oxford and grow my food in and outside of town. i would appoint someone i trusted to over see my area that i took and hopefully expansion would commence. oh did i forget to mention the network of underground tunnels that heat the sidewalks for the miami students. oh and the abandoned military base outside of oxford. oxford would have alot of promise. thats why i would sitck around if things went bad.:elol:

It's cool to see a few local zombie nuts in here. I am with you all the way. Oxford would be a good place to hold up.


resources, protection, and ass.

three things u need to survive a zed attack


I hear yah. haha Good thing my wife doesn't care about this stuff I'd be sleeping on the couch tonight. Oxford has it all. :lol:

[SRP76]

A prison is out of the question.

There are only three possible scenarios for a prison:

1. The place was locked down when all hell broke loose. You aren't getting in.

2. The inmates have taken over. You aren't getting in.

3. The place was not locked down before all hell broke loose. It is therefore now filled with zombies. You aren't getting in.

The only way it could work is if you were an employee of the prison, and #1 is in effect. That way, you'll know all the codes to work the locks and open the way in. Average Joe wouldn't be able to do anything but beat on the door and wish he could get in.

[jim102016]

A prison is out of the question.

There are only three possible scenarios for a prison:

1. The place was locked down when all hell broke loose. You aren't getting in.

2. The inmates have taken over. You aren't getting in.

3. The place was not locked down before all hell broke loose. It is therefore now filled with zombies. You aren't getting in.

The only way it could work is if you were an employee of the prison, and #1 is in effect. That way, you'll know all the codes to work the locks and open the way in. Average Joe wouldn't be able to do anything but beat on the door and wish he could get in.


What if all the prisoners are in their cells and the front door is open?

[SRP76]

What if all the prisoners are in their cells and the front door is open?

That falls under #3. The dead would have infested the place if it had been left open. Going in would be suicidal.

[Mike70]

well back to oxford.... the city if you wanna call it that isnt very big... surrounded by a lot of trees it has been labeled a tree city, usa... so a lot of natural cover and a lot of brick buildings. alot of allies to. for anyone whose been up town oxford there are alot of places to be barricaded in such as the alleys and back bars. three bars in oxford are connected to one another so they provide a world of fun. plus i could use the miami delivery trucks and buses that shuttle students around to block off the alleys or whatever need be. plus with the surroundin farm land there would always be a place to grow food. and eventually with the absence of human interaction i assume that the animals wild as they be would come into town for their choice of food. that would make huntin them easy from the roof tops. did i forget to mention bomb shelters at two of the three schools in town. oxford is a renewable resource itself which is why it would be on my number one priority list after tshtf. oh oxford doenst have its own special response team or swat as it may be called some places. they rely on the local county sheriffs office for that help. i would go into it more but i think yall have the idea scipio know what im talkin about as well.

my real idea would be to take oxford and grow my food in and outside of town. i would appoint someone i trusted to over see my area that i took and hopefully expansion would commence. oh did i forget to mention the network of underground tunnels that heat the sidewalks for the miami students. oh and the abandoned military base outside of oxford. oxford would have alot of promise. thats why i would sitck around if things went bad.:elol:

word. i do indeed understand what you are getting at here. oxford would be an almost ideal place to hole up. out in the middle of nowhere (nearest large town about 12 miles away) with all the other things that shadow mentioned. oh and everyone out here is armed to the teeth. the number of people that don't own guns around here wouldn't fill a flea's codpiece.

as long as it didn't happen when miami univ was in session we'd be as cool as the other side of the pillow. otherwise we'd have large numbers of wealthy, clueless idiots running about getting themselves killed while they tried to get to starbucks for that last latte.


miami university students.... ha they would be the first to turn to zombies. they are all said pathetic excuses for human existence. all of them... any who... the only people i would worry about in oxford are the nut balls in the trailer park. real nutballs. i know this because i lived there for about 6 months. so yeah.. oh and have you ever noticed that miami university's buildings are actually built very well... even some of their newer buildings beat the shiza out of my farm house. load up and clear out. my whole thing is protecting the farm... do my best to do it. renewable resource of green food a pond and plenty of wild animals to eat. oxford not so much... tough choice... protection or resources???

again word on this. since my wife has to play ringmaster to these idiots (she is a professor at miami) she can attest to this better than anyone. although i don't know of anyone in oxford who would have a real problem with shooting a zombified miami student in the head. hell, most of the folks around here would enjoy it.

[MissJacksonCA]

Great suggestion there Grim and really aids the idea of knives being a most formidable weapon against the dead with the whole no-reloading thing but ... in a world where the dead come to life with the urge for fresh flesh wouldn't there also be a bevvy of bullets available for us? It would only make sense!

[Shadowofthedead]

i dont even remember what this thread was about... any who knives would be great but youd have to get mighty close to do some damage. id go with hatchets or light hand axes and machetes for the hips, bowie knives for the rear, 12 gauage moss berg with an 18-20 inch barrel in a back scabbard like in evil dead( they do exist and they can be made... ask me how in a private message), bandoleer(s) with 50-100 shot shells rangin from bird shot to buck t shot dead coyote and slugs, 357 magnum capabale of shootin 357 loads and 38 specials, and of course the fireman's axe. ha ha ha. and i know where to get it all. even the firemans axe!!! maybe in some cases i could do with out one or the other but i wouldnt worry myself for long range situations. i would be close enough to do some damage with any of my weapons and beable to fend off most low level human garbage. if i wanted long range i could goto any house in america or in my general area more or less and grab a 22 rimfire or some other special purpose rifle. you cannot discount guns in something like this but havin more of the melee type weapons requires less care and no ammunition. so yes... dont know what the weight of all these items listed would feel like but i know that one hundred shot shells strapped to your chest really isnt that cumbersome. but then i had the sawed off not the full sized shot gun. oh well guess ill have to experiment one day.

[jim102016]

That falls under #3. The dead would have infested the place if it had been left open. Going in would be suicidal.

What if it was an isolated prison in the middle of no where, say an island. The guards left all the prisoners in their cells with the front door open before they took the last boat to the mainland?

[dracenstein]

How about a women's prison?

[Redman6565]

How about a women's prison?

haha that's what Oxford would be if we took it over during a zombie outbreak. A womans prison. :lol:

While we are stuck on Oxford why not shoot a zombie movie there? :hyper:

[Shadowofthedead]

college students wouldnt know what was going on and then they might wet them selves at the sight of our zombies in make up. i usually act out my stories to get a feel for my characters emotions. obviously none of them are finished.

[jim102016]

How about a women's prison?

Might be risky to try and get laid once your woman's prison is secured from the dead. Some of those chicks might be attractive, but they're just as dangerous (if not more dangerous) than the creatures banging on the doors to get in and eat you!

[Mike70]

While we are stuck on Oxford why not shoot a zombie movie there? :hyper:


better to be stuck on oxford than stuck in oxford like yours truely.


though shooting a zombie film here is a pretty cool idea.

[Redman6565]

better to be stuck on oxford than stuck in oxford like yours truely.


though shooting a zombie film here is a pretty cool idea.

hahaha you poor thing. :lol:

Oxford does serve up a nice back drop for a movie though. I'd use it there are a lot of interesting buildings and it has that small middle America feel to it. Why not?

[dracenstein]

Does your version of Oxford have an Inspector Morse?

[Redman6565]

Does your version of Oxford have an Inspector Morse?

Who? You lost me. I think it would be great to shoot a movie there and make it a non-zombie movie. I'd go with a horror movie just not a zombie one. To much zombie stuff floating around right now.

[dracenstein]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspector_Morse

[Redman6565]

hahaha No wrong Oxford. I would have a detective though. If I had the cash to shoot my idea there would be one.

[Mike70]

Does your version of Oxford have an Inspector Morse?

:lol: no more like the keystone cops.

[Redman6565]

:lol: no more like the keystone cops.

Not to mention a pathetic judge as well.

[Trin]

I have a question. I figured that this topic is the best place for it given the topic name.

We've been told by countless zombie movies that there are more zombies than bullets. That is, you could never hope to destroy all the zombies with guns because you'd run out of bullets. I want to know whether that's true.

The population of the US is roughly 300 Million.

I don't know how many bullets your average gunshop has, nor do I know how many gunshops there are spread around a typical city. I also don't know how much ammo the local police, national guard, and/or military keeps on hand. Maybe some of you gun enthusiasts could shed some light on this aspect.

Then you look at the movies and they don't seem to uphold the argument. Land, in particular, is the one that seems to laugh in the face of this argument. They were far into the outbreak, had achieved an equilibrium where they seemed capable of long-term survival, they'd somehow cleared the areas around the city, and yet ammo seemed to be in strong supply. They shot full auto at everything under the sun, even the zombie on the electric fence that wasn't a threat. Dead Reckoning was the ultimate waste of ammo, literally cutting zombies in half rather than placing headshots. The scavenging run talked about getting food, water, medicine, and even liquor - but not ammo. By that point in the outbreak shouldn't they have run out? I mean, if everything we've been led to believe is true about zombie numbers vs. bullet numbers.

[Bub666]

Then you look at the movies and they don't seem to uphold the argument. Land, in particular, is the one that seems to laugh in the face of this argument. They were far into the outbreak, had achieved an equilibrium where they seemed capable of long-term survival, they'd somehow cleared the areas around the city, and yet ammo seemed to be in strong supply. They shot full auto at everything under the sun, even the zombie on the electric fence that wasn't a threat. Dead Reckoning was the ultimate waste of ammo, literally cutting zombies in half rather than placing headshots. The scavenging run talked about getting food, water, medicine, and even liquor - but not ammo. By that point in the outbreak shouldn't they have run out? I mean, if everything we've been led to believe is true about zombie numbers vs. bullet numbers.


Maybe they learned how to make their own ammo.

[EvilNed]

I really do believe that there are more shells in the world than there are people. But, I also believe that there would probably go 10 shells per zombie, on average, during an outbreak. In the initial panic, perhaps even as high as 30 shells per zombie.

[Yojimbo]

I agree with Evil Ned.

When the LAPD fire at a suspect, it is not uncommon that over 30 rounds are expended. They tend to empty their clips, and that would be two officers firing 15 shots. More officers on scene with their guns drawn only increases the count.

Many police officers are trained to fire three rounds, then pause to assess, the fire another three rounds, then pause, etc, until the threat is neutralized.

Not too long ago the LAPD had an incident where there were over 150 rounds fired at one suspect. Many of these rounds ended up going through the walls of houses, hitting parked cars. I think the guy got hit 10 times, so that kind of tells you what a cluster F that situation became.

These are trained cops. Imagine how an untrained civilian would fire at a ghoul in a time of extreme stress!

Maybe there not enough bullets in your hideout to take them all out, but the concept that there are not enough bullets in the world to take out all of the zombies is pure nonsense.

[Trin]

Okay, so we know that in the early stages people would likely expend the bulk of their ammo on hand frivolously. Either not expecting the crisis to last beyond the problem at hand, or by taking excessive shots, or shooting at each other instead of zombies. I think that makes sense.

But not too long into things you'd realize that you're quickly becoming the last human around. You'd know about the whole headshot thing, start looking at your ammo reserves, realize that you are not at risk from the zombies from range, start taking more deliberate single shots, etc.

If I'm reading you right Yojimbo, at that point you could reasonably expect to find enough ammo in storehouses to destroy all the zombies. Assuming you could get to those storehouses.

I'd love to have some numbers to back that up, but I figure I'll end up on the FBI watch list if I call my local National Guard and ask how many bullets they have on hand. :eek:

Obviously running vs. walking zombies makes a HUGE difference in this conversation since runners would certainly cause wasting of ammo. But for my question I'm thinking your standard shambling Romero zombie that could be dealt with patiently (and who doesn't carry his own M16 - thank you for making me specify that Big Daddy :rolleyes:).

[bassman]

(and who doesn't carry his own M16 - thank you for making me specify that Big Daddy :rolleyes:).

Techinically, you should specify that the rifle zombie in Dawn carried a gun and that Bub was the first to shoot a gun. That is all.:D

[SRP76]

It doesn't matter. Have all the ammo you want; unless you have a massive army helping you, you cannot kill them all.

For one person:

Kill one zombie per second, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

6 billion zombies. Guess how long it takes you at that rate?

200 YEARS. In other words, physical impossibility.

[Yojimbo]

If I'm reading you right Yojimbo, at that point you could reasonably expect to find enough ammo in storehouses to destroy all the zombies. Assuming you could get to those storehouses.

I'd love to have some numbers to back that up, but I figure I'll end up on the FBI watch list if I call my local National Guard and ask how many bullets they have on hand. :eek:



Exactly, Trin. Yeah, I wouldn't make the inquiries either since I would hate to explain why I wanted to know.


It doesn't matter. Have all the ammo you want; unless you have a massive army helping you, you cannot kill them all.

For one person:

Kill one zombie per second, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

6 billion zombies. Guess how long it takes you at that rate?

200 YEARS. In other words, physical impossibility.

Yeah, if you were all alone and charged with the responsiblity to rid the whole world of every zombie everywhere (including places like Tibet and Greenland) then this would indeed be impossible. Haven't run the numbers, but I am sure it would be pretty difficult to shoot each and every zombie just in North America (including those south and north of the national borders)

But as to whether or not there are 6 billion bullets in the world I am guessing that there are more than that around.

[Trin]

Techinically, you should specify that the rifle zombie in Dawn carried a gun and that Bub was the first to shoot a gun. That is all.:DLol - Good call.

@SRP - I'm not at all concerned with ridding the world of zombies. I'm just questioning whether I'd really run out of bullets before I ran out of zombies to shoot. If I get to the point where zombies aren't coming shambling into my protected area and I still have bullets then the question is answered - I had enough.

We all know the classic line - "Where will you go, captain? You can destroy my specimens, but what about the millions more that are waiting to greet you outside? Do you really think you can 'blow the piss' out of them? All of them? They have you in a hopeless situation, strategically."

My question is simple - is it a hopeless situation as Dr. Logan describes? Or would you have enough bullets all said and done and you could 'blow the piss' out of all of them?

Well, if you watch Day there weren't millions of them outside. There were maybe 30 at the gate. Maybe 100 all said and done when they finally invade from the top and the pen. I think it's fairly obvious that they had enough bullets to clear out the immediate area. Sure, if you went far enough you'd find millions. No argument. But you'd also find more ammo too. Especially if you knew where to look, like those guys would.

Land was clearly not the realization of that hopeless situation. There was no shortage of ammo and very few zombies left in the area to shoot. I mean, there were guys outside the protected area at night shooting target practice for bets.

And in the real world how does this play out? If everyone in my city were a zombie would I be able to find enough ammo to destroy them?

It's just something I've always been troubled by with the movies.

[Publius]

And in the real world how does this play out? If everyone in my city were a zombie would I be able to find enough ammo to destroy them?

It's a good question. I'm sure the global supply of ammunition is adequate, the problem would be distribution. Lots of shooters keep thousands of rounds (and often reloading supplies), so they'd probably be fine. At the moment I only have about 150 rounds on hand, which is less than I'd like. Even if that's enough to get me to my local Walmart (the closest store that I know carries ammunition), it's hard to be confident that someone else won't have cleared out the calibers I need first.

[Dillinger]

You wouldn't have to shoot and kill EVERY zombie in the world. Just kill the zombies that are an immediate threat. The best way to deal with large hordes of the undead is to avoid them. If you live in the city, get out. Head for the hills, and stay in the sticks. You'll be OK.

To survive a zombie holocaust, you'll probably have to kill more human foes than zombies anyway. Save your bullets for the REAL adversaries.

[Bub666]

You wouldn't have to shoot and kill EVERY zombie in the world. Only the few that pose an immediate threat. If you're smart, and stay in the sticks, you'll be OK.


I agree,you don't have to kill every zombie in the world.

[horrormad]

I agree,you don't have to kill every zombie in the world.

In the end you would have to kill them all.

[bassman]

In the end you would have to kill them all.

How do you "kill" something that's already dead? eh? ehhh?

:p

[Bub666]

In the end you would have to kill them all.

But why would you go to Australia and kill all the zombies their.That would be a waste of time and ammo.It's not like a zombie from Australia is going to come here to get me.You really only have to kill the zombies that come into your area.

[Skippy911sc]

If you read WWZ you might reconsider this notion of Z's traveling from other country's. They walked underwater, similar to Land, and would grab people from beneath the water. Scary $hit!

[Bub666]

If you read WWZ you might reconsider this notion of Z's traveling from other country's. They walked underwater, similar to Land, and would grab people from beneath the water. Scary $hit!

I have WWZ,and I've read it many times.It even says in the book the chances of a zombie traveling to another country under water is very small.

[Yojimbo]

I think that if they attempted to walk on the sea floor from Australia that they wouldn't get very far, with all the hungry fish that are out there, plus the gnarly currents.

While I know that GAR had them walking across what was supposed to be one of the locks of the Allegheny or one of those other rivers in Pittsburgh, that distance was not too far, and the currents not that strong. So even if the fish started pecking at them, they would not have been in the water long enough for the fish to work on them to any significant level.

Yeah, though Skip, having hungry ghouls lurking in the dark water, grasping at your feet is really the thing of terrifying nightmares!

[Trin]

I wouldn't think they'd have to kill them all either. Heck, look at Land - they didn't bother to kill them and they eventually just wandered off. Zombies within an evening's drive were not interested. So at least in the GAR world that's not an issue.

After years of SCUBA diving I question whether any creature with human sensory limitations could navigate underwater in river-cloudy water for any distance. It's just not possible. Throw in some current and game-over. Not to mention that zombies must be seriously negatively-bouyant in order to "walk" underwater at all.

What troubles me about Land and the underwater part is not that it happened (though I still consider it ridiculous). The troubling part is that it had never happened before. Consider the early stages of the outbreak, soon after they secured the Green and surrounding areas. 100,000 zombies pressed against one another trying to get across the river. The first line of them would invariably be pushed into the river. Do they just stand there? No, they continue attempting to move forward. That's what they do. It's silly to think that they deemed the river impassible without ever seeing a zombie get swept away by it. It wasn't their intelligence keeping them from getting across. If anything their lack of intelligence would've caused them to end up in the river.

[Ov3rlord]

For my answer to the several topics of conversation that spawned from the original topic of hand to hand combat, I'd go for a crowbar as my melee weapon, it's durable, sturdy, able to be used as a tool (obviously), and I've seen, for lack of a better word, holsters to carry them around, as for location I'd go for the far north (i.e. Canada or Alaska), weapon caliber I'm a fan of the 5.56mm for a rifle round and .38 or .45 for a pistol as those seem the most readily available, but beyond that the most useful strategy that I can see is distance or one I like is the Ghillie suit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghillie_suit) for travel through the woods and some kind of scent masker, if they work on animals with better scent scenting abilities (forgot the word I'm looking for) than a decaying, stinking corpse shouldn't be able to smell you and finally on the topic of getting rid of the zombie population it's not just you alone, there are hundreds of military units out there that have bombs or heavy artillery, don't count the National Guard out just yet they aren't a bunch of gun toting morons they are a trained, coherent unit of thousands of men and women and that's just one country's branch. Personally I'd like to believe, though I know it's not completely possible, that most people would turn to one another instead of back stabbing each other. That's just my say on all of this.

[Ov3rlord]

I don't know about anyone else but it seems like the movies just kind of ignore the military. I mean there is more than just the National Guard who are well trained, coherent, and have the firepower needed to hold their own. I understand that they would be on the front line and probably take heavy losses but then that is just one country's one military branch, what about the other ones? I'm guessing that if the zombie virus popped up and it hit the world most wars would be ignored to handle the problems in their own countries. I just think that all the movies make them useless just to make the characters worse off and more desperate having to survive on their own. Where in reality I don't think it would be that bad. Think about all the helicopters that could fly through the city for recon and then have the army and marines rolling down the streets in Abrams and Strykers, I've seen strykers hit by IEDs, flip over and then be towed back on its side to drive away with minimal damage to the occupants. Then you got all the special forces stealthing through the city with suppressed weaponry taking out the zeds to reclaim an area. In my opinion if some civilians that got a hold of some weaponry can do it why not professionally trained soldiers? I'm probably being to analytical but that's just how it is for me. Also does anyone know how that scent masking stuff hunters use works? It's a part of an idea I've been working on.

[Yojimbo]

I don't know about anyone else but it seems like the movies just kind of ignore the military. I mean there is more than just the National Guard who are well trained, coherent, and have the firepower needed to hold their own. I understand that they would be on the front line and probably take heavy losses but then that is just one country's one military branch, what about the other ones? I'm guessing that if the zombie virus popped up and it hit the world most wars would be ignored to handle the problems in their own countries. I just think that all the movies make them useless just to make the characters worse off and more desperate having to survive on their own. Where in reality I don't think it would be that bad. Think about all the helicopters that could fly through the city for recon and then have the army and marines rolling down the streets in Abrams and Strykers, I've seen strykers hit by IEDs, flip over and then be towed back on its side to drive away with minimal damage to the occupants. Then you got all the special forces stealthing through the city with suppressed weaponry taking out the zeds to reclaim an area. In my opinion if some civilians that got a hold of some weaponry can do it why not professionally trained soldiers? I'm probably being to analytical but that's just how it is for me. Also does anyone know how that scent masking stuff hunters use works? It's a part of an idea I've been working on.


I have nothing but great respect for those who serve our county by playing a role in the millitary, but for some reason your post brings to mind the film "southern comfort"


Yes, professional soldiers are very well trained, and our millitary troops are well equipped. But if the slow response to the Los Angeles Riots in 1992 is any example, the large machine that is the millitary can often be ham-stringed by red tape, bureaucracy and inefficiency at the higher levels, and in a real-world crisis situation this can be fatal to the well trained troops and those around them.


And we must always remember that professional soldiers are, at the core, human beings with all the foilbles and weaknesses of other humans. Should there be a breakdown in the chain of command, a loss in faith by the soliders of their officers, or if at some point soldiers decide to leave and be with their families, then the efficiency of the millitary is going to suffer. Depictions of people going AWOL in DOTD 1978, the tired millitary group in the bunker of DAY of the DEAD, and the raiders of DIARY, I fear, might be fairly accurate depictions of soldiers in a zombie crisis.

Dude, I would hope that a zombie crisis, or invasion from outer space, or massive outbreak of a deathly virus or some other worldwide crisis would cause nations forget about our petty international disputes and come together to present a unified and coordinated solution, but sadly I fear that this would not be the case. In fact, I think some nations/factions would take advantage of a crisis and launch attacks and missions in order to gain a strategic advantage over those they perceive to be their enemies.

[SRP76]

The military can't do anything about something they don't know about. By the time anyone realizes what's really happening, it's too late. Zombies are beating on your door before you know they exist. So, it's "every man for himself" and mass panic right from the start.

[Publius]

The military can't do anything about something they don't know about. By the time anyone realizes what's really happening, it's too late. Zombies are beating on your door before you know they exist. So, it's "every man for himself" and mass panic right from the start.

I actually think it'd take longer to get going than is typically assumed. There are only about 7,000 deaths per day in the United States. With Romero-type zombies (as opposed to Return of the Living Dead type), only the recently dead reanimate. Anyone who is autopsied (around 10-15% of deaths) won't reanimate because the brain is removed. I'd bet embalming has a negative effect on reanimation too. Some other corpses will have massive head trauma as a cause of death which will prevent reanimation, and others will be otherwise damaged or so old and decrepit (people in their 80s and 90s) as to not post much of a threat to the able-bodied. And excluding those limiting factors, most other corpses will be buried, cremated, frozen, or otherwise incapacitated within a few days of death.

I'd say you'd start off with no more than 20,000 zombies in the U.S., being reinforced at a natural rate of between 250 and 300 per hour. That's one per 15,000 population. Here in California, that means the 10 least populated counties would start off with an average of 1 zombie each, and most of them would have an average of none.

Plus, most military bases are (1) located in areas with low population densities and (2) have few old people, and therefore low death rates. I think people would figure things out in plenty of time for most of the military to organize before swarms of zombies start showing up at the base gates.

[Debbieangel]

But, you are forgetting something SRP, the military also have families that would be in contact with the military and they could respond at a moments notice. I can call my daughter at her work at any time, she knows if I call at her work it's important and that she needs to answer her phone or call me back immediately. I am not in the habit of calling her when I know she is working. In this day and age I can't see where it would take a long time for the higher up's to get the orders out to get things done in a crisis such as a zombie outbreak.
First off, those that are on orders that are on base would be the first responders and then all soldiers would recalled from their leaves. I am talking about at the beginning of the whole thing. So, my point is unless it were a very sudden overnight event that a lot of people were infected at one time, in my opinion, a zombie outbreak could easily taken under control.
Not only the military have guns there a lot of people out there that own them and well, lol a lot of illegal ones too.
But, as I said this is imho.:)

[Publius]

So, my point is unless it were a very sudden overnight event that a lot of people were infected at one time, in my opinion, a zombie outbreak could easily taken under control.

That, IMHO, is the key to making the S really HTF. If a virus is the mechanism, the virus would have to spread through the whole population before the dead start reanimating, and would have to cause some significant mortality in addition to its reanimating effect, or be paired with some simultaneous epidemic with high mortality. For example, the Spanish Flu epidemic of 1918 killed 200,000 in the US in one month alone. That's the only year in history when the US population actually declined (World War I also helped). A similar mortality rate with today's population would kill 600,000 in a month, or 20,000 per day. That increases your starting zombie population by a factor of 3 to 4. Pick a more deadly virus and you give the Zeds an even better head start. They're gonna need it in the US. Europe would be worse off, with 1) higher population densities, 2) fewer natural barriers, 3) smaller militaries stationed in less isolated locations, and 4) far fewer privately owned firearms.

[SRP76]

There are two things:

1. Finding out anything happens in the first place. It takes a certain amount of time for news stations to get information (on anything, not just this), and relay it. And then, in turn, you have to be watching the news to get the news. An example of this is when Princess Diana got killed: I actually was watching the 24-hours news network, so I was damned lucky in my timing (though I was searching for scores of football games, not high-profile deaths), and the incident happened in the thick of reporters, photographers, the whole nine yards. And the info still didn't get to me until well over an hour after it happened. Now something that happens without the press already standing in the middle of it will take longer. And if I hadn't happened to be looking for football scores, I wouldn't have known anything until at least the next day.

2. Figuring out what is really happening. The first yokel with a camera that sees a zombie isn't going to just know that this is a corpse, they're returning to life and attacking the living, a headshot kills them, etc. There will be a lengthy process of attempted capture/study before they figure out what the real deal is. This is going to take hours. Hours that we don't have.

Even if you're extremely lucky, you're looking at at least Hour 6 before you have a clue what's happening. Up to that point, all you've got (if you're lucky) is isolated reports of random people being attacked by unknown assailants. Unless you're extremely paranoid, these early reports aren't going to have you grabbing the phone and loading the shotgun, and making your way to the bomb shelter.

And by Hour 6, we're really, really screwed. Zombies will double their number in 1 hour. After 6 of them, there's been a population explosion of these things, and they are everywhere. They won't be starting at one point; they'll be starting in morgues, funeral homes, and hospitals in every city, town, and village on Earth. That's another thing going against us; the smaller the community, the smaller the initial outbreak, which means the less chance the first attacks have of making an emergency news broadcast. Which means MORE likely we get caught helpless and eaten, feeding their numbers.

By Hour 14, we've been totally overrun. Hour 15 looks like Day of the Dead.

That's not much time.

[Debbieangel]

Ok, your points taken!
here is another thought on this:
If say I was to call my daughter and tell her about the zombies and not only her but others calling their families on base about the zombies and they in return report to their superiors that something is going on? That kind of thing would spread like wildfire on a base.What about sateilite imaging,they could pinpoint the area's reported and see the zombies shambling along. They would be able to send out what weapons and soldiers to take care of the situation.

[SRP76]

Ok, your points taken!
here is another thought on this:
If say I was to call my daughter and tell her about the zombies and not only her but others calling their families on base about the zombies and they in return report to their superiors that something is going on? That kind of thing would spread like wildfire on a base.What about sateilite imaging,they could pinpoint the area's reported and see the zombies shambling along. They would be able to send out what weapons and soldiers to take care of the situation.

You're back to the initial problem: how did you find out what's happening so fast, to be able to call anyone about it?

There is a slim chance: if you happen to be at the hospital or whatever where the first zombies start taking bites out of people, and you witness an attack (you'd have to see it to know for sure what's going on), and somehow manage to escape. If you happen to be "an eyewitness" to the very first wave of the dead, you've got a chance.

You can then spread the word, and hope someone believes you. That's another major hurdle. Start yelling "the zombies are coming", and people are more likely to get an uncomfortable look on their face and shuffle away from you, than try to help you.

[Yojimbo]

Remember, though, that it will not just be reanimated corpses killing folks, but that every death, natural or otherwise, that occurs during a zombie crisis will, if not immediately dealt with, will become the walking dead.

Statistics from 2003 for the county of Los Angeles show that in a year there were 61,072, which works out to approx 167 deaths per day.

That is 167 potential ghouls which may get up and kill, making more ghouls!

(please forgive me if I make an error in my math - not my strongest suit)
But assuming that each ghoul only kills one person, and that reanimated person does not kill anyone else on that same day, this will make our daily death count to 334 in one day.

Therefore, in the space of 3 days, approximately the time it took for the National Guard to deploy into the streets during the Los Angeles Riots of 1992, the total death toll of the three day period, given the above parameters, would be 1,002, assuming that only the original set of ghouls are doing the killing on the day they reanimate, and not on any of the following days.


These figures, of course, do not include any increases in death rate due to the crisis at hand other than the one time figures of ghouls killing people. Therfore the figures do not include death caused by folks running around, looting and accidently shooting people, fires, and the increase in death due to emergency services, such as paramedics and fire being stretched thin.

Maybe someone would care to factor how many ghouls would be around if they grew exponentially, that is, if each ghoul that got up killed one person every day for three days, and that the people they kill get up and kill (and so on) for the remainder of the three day period.

[Debbieangel]

I would say it depends on how many has been infected at one time in one area like in 'Night' it was localized in one area of Pennsylvania then was spreading out. In the first few hours as it spread as more and more would get infected local law enforcement would know then the military would be called in. They would be able to get it under control in no time. Like I said with 'satellite imaging' it would be a lot easier to spot where the zombies were at so easier for military to blast them down.
They would know where the most concentration is and would be able to go in and blast them down and then local law enforcement,people with guns,and military could take care of the stragglers.
If not then I would say we would be screwed basically!

[SRP76]

Well, figure a group of 5 zombies. Attack some Shmoe, and rip his throat out. 10 minutes later, you've got another ghoul. By that time, they've got another poor sap mauled. 10 minutes later, you've got another ghoul...and so on. In 1 hour, those 5 ghouls have become 11. For the sake of simplicity, assume someone gets a lucky flail in, and manages to bust a head. So you've got 10. They've doubled in 1 hour.

And that only counts the total mauling victims; there will be dozens more per hour that the original group inflicts assorted bites on. But those people get away, only to die a couple days later. We don't count them.

So, just in L.A., you've got 167 at midnight.
1:00 A = 334
2:00 A = 668
3:00 A = 1,336
4:00 A = 2,672
5:00 A = 5,334

So before the sun rises, youve gone from 167 ghouls to over 5,000. And that's just from ghoul-on-living violence. We're not counting the typical 7 deaths per hour (and resulting reproduction of ghouls from those new ghouls) that happen normally.

6:00 A = 10,668 ghouls arrive with the morning paper
7:00 A = 21,336 ghouls add to morning rush hour
8:00 A = 42,672 ghouls arrive at work with you
9:00 A = 85,344 ghouls before the banks open
10:00 A = 170,688 ghouls on coffee break
11:00 A = 341,376 ghouls before "Good Morning America" goes off the air
noon = 682,752 ghouls having lunch
1:00 P = 1,365,504 ghouls arrive watching soap operas
2:00 P = 2,731,008 ghouls on afternoon break
3:00 P = 5,462,016 ghouls get out of school (dead outnumber the living)
4:00 P = 10,924,032 ghouls (more ghouls than the starting population)

That means, simply put, that by 4:00 P the entire population is dead and shambling. 16 hours after "Moment Zero". The situation would have gone well past monkey-f*cking-a-football level long, long before this point. And any point after 15 hours is total deathtrap-time.

[Bub666]

Well, figure a group of 5 zombies. Attack some Shmoe, and rip his throat out. 10 minutes later, you've got another ghoul. By that time, they've got another poor sap mauled. 10 minutes later, you've got another ghoul...and so on. In 1 hour, those 5 ghouls have become 11. For the sake of simplicity, assume someone gets a lucky flail in, and manages to bust a head. So you've got 10. They've doubled in 1 hour.

And that only counts the total mauling victims; there will be dozens more per hour that the original group inflicts assorted bites on. But those people get away, only to die a couple days later. We don't count them.

So, just in L.A., you've got 167 at midnight.
1:00 A = 334
2:00 A = 668
3:00 A = 1,336
4:00 A = 2,672
5:00 A = 5,334

So before the sun rises, youve gone from 167 ghouls to over 5,000. And that's just from ghoul-on-living violence. We're not counting the typical 7 deaths per hour (and resulting reproduction of ghouls from those new ghouls) that happen normally.

6:00 A = 10,668 ghouls arrive with the morning paper
7:00 A = 21,336 ghouls add to morning rush hour
8:00 A = 42,672 ghouls arrive at work with you
9:00 A = 85,344 ghouls before the banks open
10:00 A = 170,688 ghouls on coffee break
11:00 A = 341,376 ghouls before "Good Morning America" goes off the air
noon = 682,752 ghouls having lunch
1:00 P = 1,365,504 ghouls arrive watching soap operas
2:00 P = 2,731,008 ghouls on afternoon break
3:00 P = 5,462,016 ghouls get out of school (dead outnumber the living)
4:00 P = 10,924,032 ghouls (more ghouls than the starting population)

That means, simply put, that by 4:00 P the entire population is dead and shambling. 16 hours after "Moment Zero". The situation would have gone well past monkey-f*cking-a-football level long, long before this point. And any point after 15 hours is total deathtrap-time.


:confused:
Yeah,what he said.

[Yojimbo]

Well, figure a group of 5 zombies. Attack some Shmoe, and rip his throat out. 10 minutes later, you've got another ghoul. By that time, they've got another poor sap mauled. 10 minutes later, you've got another ghoul...and so on. In 1 hour, those 5 ghouls have become 11. For the sake of simplicity, assume someone gets a lucky flail in, and manages to bust a head. So you've got 10. They've doubled in 1 hour.

And that only counts the total mauling victims; there will be dozens more per hour that the original group inflicts assorted bites on. But those people get away, only to die a couple days later. We don't count them.

So, just in L.A., you've got 167 at midnight.
1:00 A = 334
2:00 A = 668
3:00 A = 1,336
4:00 A = 2,672
5:00 A = 5,334

So before the sun rises, youve gone from 167 ghouls to over 5,000. And that's just from ghoul-on-living violence. We're not counting the typical 7 deaths per hour (and resulting reproduction of ghouls from those new ghouls) that happen normally.

6:00 A = 10,668 ghouls arrive with the morning paper
7:00 A = 21,336 ghouls add to morning rush hour
8:00 A = 42,672 ghouls arrive at work with you
9:00 A = 85,344 ghouls before the banks open
10:00 A = 170,688 ghouls on coffee break
11:00 A = 341,376 ghouls before "Good Morning America" goes off the air
noon = 682,752 ghouls having lunch
1:00 P = 1,365,504 ghouls arrive watching soap operas
2:00 P = 2,731,008 ghouls on afternoon break
3:00 P = 5,462,016 ghouls get out of school (dead outnumber the living)
4:00 P = 10,924,032 ghouls (more ghouls than the starting population)

That means, simply put, that by 4:00 P the entire population is dead and shambling. 16 hours after "Moment Zero". The situation would have gone well past monkey-f*cking-a-football level long, long before this point. And any point after 15 hours is total deathtrap-time.

Hound-doggy! That's some fine ciphering there, SRP. And those figures would just be for Los Angeles County.

Imagine that it is happening everywhere at the same time.

A big machine like the National Guard would have a difficult time mobilizing within a 24 hour period.

And even if the National Guard could mobilize troops within the first 15 hours, in a situation where there are over 10 million zombies (even if they are the shamblers that some folks here think are benign) they would have one hell of a time taking out all the ghouls just in Los Angeles proper. They would litterally have to saturation bomb the city, just to save it.

[Ov3rlord]

First off Yojimbo I completely agree with you that that is probably be exactly what would happen, I guess I just hadn't thought of it like that. As for the zed rising schedule that's only going off the zeds getting one person a day, if you follow a zombie in almost any movie there hopping around from person to person they would exponentially explode faster than we could imagine and at four p.m. the roughly 11 million that rise is only one state. If anyone felt like it imagine going on each state with a major city off the top off my head I'm thinking Miami, New York, D.C., Chicago, and Philadelphia. Those are just five big spots I thought of. On top of that you have tourists going in and out of the country unrealizing of the virus they may carry. Those three days will be hell compared to anything we've seen. So while I wish the military would be able to act with in moments then you better hope you're either in space, on a boat that hasn't been in port for a while, or your private island.

[Publius]

There are two things:

1. Finding out anything happens in the first place. It takes a certain amount of time for news stations to get information (on anything, not just this), and relay it. And then, in turn, you have to be watching the news to get the news. An example of this is when Princess Diana got killed: I actually was watching the 24-hours news network, so I was damned lucky in my timing (though I was searching for scores of football games, not high-profile deaths), and the incident happened in the thick of reporters, photographers, the whole nine yards. And the info still didn't get to me until well over an hour after it happened. Now something that happens without the press already standing in the middle of it will take longer. And if I hadn't happened to be looking for football scores, I wouldn't have known anything until at least the next day.

2. Figuring out what is really happening. The first yokel with a camera that sees a zombie isn't going to just know that this is a corpse, they're returning to life and attacking the living, a headshot kills them, etc. There will be a lengthy process of attempted capture/study before they figure out what the real deal is. This is going to take hours. Hours that we don't have.

Even if you're extremely lucky, you're looking at at least Hour 6 before you have a clue what's happening. Up to that point, all you've got (if you're lucky) is isolated reports of random people being attacked by unknown assailants. Unless you're extremely paranoid, these early reports aren't going to have you grabbing the phone and loading the shotgun, and making your way to the bomb shelter.

And by Hour 6, we're really, really screwed. Zombies will double their number in 1 hour. After 6 of them, there's been a population explosion of these things, and they are everywhere. They won't be starting at one point; they'll be starting in morgues, funeral homes, and hospitals in every city, town, and village on Earth. That's another thing going against us; the smaller the community, the smaller the initial outbreak, which means the less chance the first attacks have of making an emergency news broadcast. Which means MORE likely we get caught helpless and eaten, feeding their numbers.

By Hour 14, we've been totally overrun. Hour 15 looks like Day of the Dead.

That's not much time.

First of all, I don't buy that the zombie population will double every hour, on average. In some places (like parts of big cities) it will grow that fast or even faster. In other places it will be much slower.

Second, it won't take hours and hours for the news to get to the people calling the shots that something is seriously wrong. It doesn't matter too much if they don't have the details 100% right at first, the general gist of it is sufficient to get preparations started. Maybe the initial conclusion is that there's some disease that causes the metabolic rate to slow down resembling death, then causes a complete loss of reason, homicidal rage, and unusual resistance to pain. When police and military are told to "aim for the head," it's not going to sound as strange as it might have a few decades ago, before cops started getting trained to deal with perps wearing body armor or so high on PCP or whatever that they seem unable to feel bullets. When I joined the Air Force, the basic pistol course of fire involved all center-mass targets. Then a year or two later they switched to teaching "failure drills": two rounds to the chest followed by one to the head. I'm sure the Army and Marines were well ahead of the Air Force on that. It's well-known that the standard 5.56mm (rifle) and 9mm (pistol) cartridges are less powerful than the cartridges used in previous service weapons, and don't put the bad guys down with torso hits as reliably as a lot of the operators would like. It's also well-known that shooting someone in the head is the best way to immediately stop them physiologically regardless of what drug they may be on, how much adrenaline may be coursing through their system, how crazy they may be, or whether they may be wearing a vest.

Why would news spread so fast? Because most of the outbreaks would start in hospitals, and hospitals are 1) on alert 24/7, 2) staffed with exactly the right people to best determine the nature of the problem (or close enough), and 3) well-connected communicationswise with first responders and other government agencies. Two-thirds of people die in a hospital or nursing home. That's where most of the reanimating bodies will be. Consider that most of these bodies will be old and decrepit (28% over 85 years old, another 28% over 75 years old), most will be put into a drawer in the morgue refrigerator fairly soon after death, and hospital personnel are trained to restrain people who are acting crazy without getting hurt. Sure some (a lot) will get hurt anyways, but I'll bet there will be a lot of hospitals where they manage to restrain the initial zeds without anyone being killed outright. The nurses, orderlies, etc. who got bitten will be doomed eventually, but that will buy some breathing room while the hospital staff notices that all of these "homicidally crazy people" were declared dead by physicians, and that someone is pounding away on the inside of every occupied morgue drawer.

So the basic idea will be determined very quickly. Even if the doctors don't believe at first that the zeds are "really" dead, it makes little practical difference. I would bet on the CDC getting the first word within an hour, and the military, homeland defense, and intelligence communities will start getting notified within an hour or so after that. One of the first suspicions, after all, will likely be that this completely unprecedented and widespread outbreak is the result of some kind of biological terrorist attack.

[Yojimbo]

First of all, I don't buy that the zombie population will double every hour, on average. In some places (like parts of big cities) it will grow that fast or even faster. In other places it will be much slower.



This is a good point, Publius. It is true that there will be places that are better off than others. Certainly in a metropolitan area where there is a high population density and where, on any given day things are already teetering on the edge of chaos, where it only takes a change in the weather, or having the lakers win a game to push the $hit to hit the fan, a zombie crisis would be a virtual hell on earth within a short time. And then you have smaller communities outside of the major cities - small towns, millitary bases, rural communities -- that would not immediately feel a thing, and are tight knit and small enough to coordinate it's response efforts to respond to the crisis in a reasonable way. Given my choice, I would rather my family start off the zombie crisis in a small town or on a nice secluded ranch off in the mountains somewhere than living less than a mile from the civic center of Los Angeles, where we are right now. (And I would feel the same about that whether it's the dead reanimating, or an earthquake, or a lakers game)



When I joined the Air Force, the basic pistol course of fire involved all center-mass targets. Then a year or two later they switched to teaching "failure drills": two rounds to the chest followed by one to the head... It's also well-known that shooting someone in the head is the best way to immediately stop them physiologically regardless of what drug they may be on, how much adrenaline may be coursing through their system, how crazy they may be, or whether they may be wearing a vest.

I salute you for serving your country, and have nothing but great respect for all veterans. I have no doubt that citizens like you who have received millitary training would instinctively put one in the head of a target that is not going down after taking 2 rounds center of mass, and that your proficiency with firearms is sufficent to the level that you would actually be able to hit a ghoul in the head at reasonable combat distances. Cannot say the same, however, for your run of the mill gun owner, and since gangbangers usually hit everything except what they are actually aiming at, I am pretty sure that they will have a difficult time of it to. But veterans like you will have no problems in that regard.



So the basic idea will be determined very quickly. Even if the doctors don't believe at first that the zeds are "really" dead, it makes little practical difference. I would bet on the CDC getting the first word within an hour, and the military, homeland defense, and intelligence communities will start getting notified within an hour or so after that. One of the first suspicions, after all, will likely be that this completely unprecedented and widespread outbreak is the result of some kind of biological terrorist attack.

Publius, I know you trust in the ability of the machine to respond quickly. Having not served in the millitary, I cannot attest first hand to how efficient or inefficent their inner workings are. However, judging by the slow response that I have noticed during the Los Angeles Riots, coupled with the tepid reponse to Hurricane Katrina, I can only say that I do not trust that the machine can work quickly enough to respond within a few hours to anything that happens. I am speculating, of course, but I don't believe that the commanders would make up their minds to deploy troops within the 24 hours of Zero Hour, and even if they were to order deployment within that time frame I don't forsee that boots would actually hit the ground within 48 hours of the order.

[SRP76]

The military can't do dick anyway. There's only 1.5 million people in the military. There are outbreaks in hundreds of thousands of hospitals and funeral homes and nursing homes. What are you going to do, send 10 soldiers to occupy and sweep an entire city? That's going to work like chopping firewood with a spork.

[Yojimbo]

That's going to work like chopping firewood with a spork.

That's gotta be the funniest comment I have ever heard involving a spork!:lol:


That's going to work like chopping firewood with a spork.

That's gotta be the funniest comment I have ever heard involving a spork!:lol:

[DubiousComforts]

That's gotta be the funniest comment I have ever heard involving a spork!:lol:
What's a spork? Is that like real tableware?

[SRP76]

What's a spork? Is that like real tableware?

Yes. It is a combination of a fork and a spoon:

http://jodifabulous.blogware.com/spork.jpg

Those are sporks.

[Yojimbo]

What's a spork? Is that like real tableware?

A "spork" is one of those combination fork and spoon deals (hence the name) which you sometimes get with a takeout packet or at a elementary school cafeteria.

131

edit: SRP beat me to it. I saw that image too on google!

[Bub666]

Yes. It is a combination of a fork and a spoon:

http://jodifabulous.blogware.com/spork.jpg

Those are sporks.

I didn't know there were that many kinds of sporks.

[Yojimbo]

I didn't know there were that many kinds of sporks.

Truth be told, I thought there was only one standard type too, until I did a google image search and found that you can order a spork customized to your heart's content. Who knew that you could get metal sporks, designer sporks with a fork on one end and a spoon on the other, one that has tines that make it look like a devils head, etc.

[DubiousComforts]

A "spork" is one of those combination fork and spoon deals (hence the name) which you sometimes get with a takeout packet or at a elementary school cafeteria.
Oh, you mean a foon!

[Trin]

This thread seems to have a hard time staying... on........ uh, what was I about to say?

[Bub666]

Oh, you mean a foon!

What is a foon?

[DubiousComforts]

What is a foon?
A fork with an identity crisis?

[Bub666]

A fork with an identity crisis?

:lol:

[Wyldwraith]

Hmm,

I agree that if the uprising of the dead is a national or worldwide phenomena then we're probably screwed, but it beggars the imagination to come up with a source for the outbreak that would lead to such a widespread simultaneous outbreak. If instead the dead rising occurred locally or regionally then while metropolitan areas could easily become necropolii in a scant few hours I think that geographical barriers would slow such an epidemic more than anything mankind does.

Say the outbreak occurs in LA as one of the previous posters have said. Ok, in 12-15 hours Los Angeles is gone and the horde(s) are spreading out chasing fleeing human beings into the suburbs and outlying small towns. Assume that within 3 days the entire West Coast is gone.

Then what? You've got the Rocky Mountains, the Mojave Desert, the Grand Canyon, the Salt Flats of Utah. No, none of these are perfect barriers, but I think all of them would serve as a slowdown-filter for the plague's eastward spread. The exception would be infected human beings who have been bitten escaping the area by plane/helicopter/car/whatever. Yes, each of these would create small new epicenters for contagion, but beginning from 1 zombie is a far slower process than beginning from a few hundred, all concentrated in a specific Ground Zero.

So yeah, I think the key determinant is unquestionably the scope of the initial rising. If it's everywhere simultaneously we're screwed, just as we'd be screwed if there was an everywhere/simultaneous outbreak of any Level 4 contagion.

Apologies for the rough nature of the layout of my thoughts, but I feel it's an interesting point worth making.

[Publius]

Publius, I know you trust in the ability of the machine to respond quickly. Having not served in the millitary, I cannot attest first hand to how efficient or inefficent their inner workings are. However, judging by the slow response that I have noticed during the Los Angeles Riots, coupled with the tepid reponse to Hurricane Katrina, I can only say that I do not trust that the machine can work quickly enough to respond within a few hours to anything that happens. I am speculating, of course, but I don't believe that the commanders would make up their minds to deploy troops within the 24 hours of Zero Hour, and even if they were to order deployment within that time frame I don't forsee that boots would actually hit the ground within 48 hours of the order.

I wasn't meaning to tout my own abilities. I was just a REMF. :) I just wanted to suggest that the military is likely to be able to get a handle on things in the long run. There is a good chance that most of the major cities will be screwed, yes. Most likely, millions will die. But eventually the living would rally and put a stop to the spread of the dead. You're probably right, based on the LA Riots (which I remember well) that the military won't mobilize quickly enough to secure Los Angeles. The first reaction of the base commanders at Edwards, 29 Palms, etc. will probably be to raise the installation threat condition and increase security at the gates and perimeter. Since the bases will probably be starting with no zeds inside, that'll help preserve their manpower and resources until the leadership figures out what's going on.


The military can't do dick anyway. There's only 1.5 million people in the military. There are outbreaks in hundreds of thousands of hospitals and funeral homes and nursing homes. What are you going to do, send 10 soldiers to occupy and sweep an entire city? That's going to work like chopping firewood with a spork.

Closer to 1.4 million active. Plus another 1.4+ million reservists. And around 700,000 law enforcement officers. Some law enforcement officers are also reservists, but that's still well over 3 million total. And you won't have hundreds of thousands of outbreaks, you'll have several thousand (I previously estimated the starting number of zombies at around 20,000, many of whom will be incapacitated in morgue drawers etc.). Most outbreaks will start out with a single weak zombie, some with two or three or four. Only very rarely more than that.


Then what? You've got the Rocky Mountains, the Mojave Desert, the Grand Canyon, the Salt Flats of Utah. No, none of these are perfect barriers, but I think all of them would serve as a slowdown-filter for the plague's eastward spread.

Exactly. That's why I said Europe would be worse off. But there is an awful lot of empty space filled with natural barriers in America. Lots of small towns would be zombie-free for days without the military or law enforcement lifting a finger, just because it'd take that long for zombies to manage to wander that far in the right direction on foot.

[Wyldwraith]

::agrees with Publius::

That was my point exactly. Every other plague has had a Patient Zero, or at least an initial epicenter. While I can imagine causes for reanimation that would be rather widespread, I have a really hard time envisioning a source that actually has worldwide "wellsprings" for the contagion all over the place.

Add to your active military, reservists and law enforcement all the veterans still young/healthy enough to pitch in and (to a less effective extent) the huge mass of armed civilians. Yes, the majority may quickly succumb if on their own in an infested area, but most would break the model of simply increasing the ranks of the undead with their death. If your average armed redneck comprises even 10% of the population in a small town and manages to destroy ten ghouls before being infected then it's conceivable that the redneck population might dramatically slow or even (possibly) stamp out a small-scale infestation.

[Trin]

Maybe this is because I live in the midwest and population density isn't that high here... but I think that if literally everyone in the world died and came back as a GAR-style zombie I'd be okay. I mean, they're slow. They're stupid. They follow you. I figure I can drive slowly around the city and gather them all up behind me then drive out into the middle of a field in Kansas and set fire to the whole lot of them. I'd be like the zombie pied piper.

And when it was all over I'd look at that pile of burning bodies and have a good cry... because some of these folks worked at Taco John's and Taco John's would never be open again. :(

[DubiousComforts]

They're stupid. They follow you. I figure I can drive slowly around the city and gather them all up behind me then drive out into the middle of a field in Kansas and set fire to the whole lot of them.
But don't forget that while you're utilizing intelligence to solve the problem, your plan is doomed to failure because it's inevitable that some dumbass gun-toting freak will attempt to stop the car and kill you just to steal the hubcaps. Just like all the "accidents" that take place during deer hunting season, he'll fail miserably and only succeed in blowing up the vehicle, killing you both and leaving the living dead horde to feed on the leftovers.

It sounds great on paper, though.

[Trin]

...some dumbass gun-toting freak...This might have been better stated as "some other dumbass gun-toting freak..." :lol::lol:

Yeah, Dubious, it's a valid point. In my example everyone in the world except me becomes a zombie. That might be a more survivable situation than if only half the world becomes a zombie. And I suppose that's the point GAR has been beating into us movie after movie.

[Wyldwraith]

Yeah, Dubious, it's a valid point. In my example everyone in the world except me becomes a zombie. That might be a more survivable situation than if only half the world becomes a zombie. And I suppose that's the point GAR has been beating into us movie after movie.

I disagree,
With GAR I mean. His whole message seems to be: "When push comes to shove man can't unite, even when faced with a common enemy threatening him with imminent extinction."

Do you all truly buy into that? I think history has shown us the opposite in fact, that Man can ONLY be united by a common enemy, at which point our power becomes magnificent and terrible in our communal wrath...until we've knocked off that common enemy with that power and splinter back into a bunch of weak weeds, each trying to strangle the nearest weed to it for just a bit more sun and nutrients.

IMO GAR isn't wrong to be cynical about the human condition. It's just that he's so busy overestimating our potential for self-destruction that he forgets the Common Enemy Unification behavior. Yes, Achilles may go sulk in his tent because things didn't go his way, but the Greeks don't give up the war over it, and Achilles goes back to work when he gets a reminder about that common enemy via Hector. Likewise the Trojan people may feel Paris is an idiot for stealing Helen, but the pro and anti-Paris factions don't start a civil war with the Greeks at the gates.

I think it's just barely possible that an enemy so inarguably relentless, so utterly without ability/desire to discriminate between one man and the next, and so obviously bent on destroying us all in an incredibly overt/direct fashion just might lead to the greatest unification of Humanity in history. Until such time as we defeat the living dead, at which point the built up stress from the unification will express itself exponentially as the worst social fallout in history, probably leading to a World War.

[Debbieangel]

woww we have a lot of cynics around here! Don't you have any kind of hope for mankind? I would hope atleast where I live we would come together and make up some kind of plan to survive! I don't mean to sound confrontational but I am an optimist to the end. I always like to have hope...hope keeps you going!
Besides, I know a lot of people with guns, bows and arrows where I live. That would give me a lot of hope to survive.Plus, I live in a rural area.
I know some have said they would go out on the open road, not me atleast for awhile I would stay put and take my chances.
Somehow if I was gonna die anyway dying in familiar surroundings would be comforting if and I mean IF there were no other safe place to go.
But, I would have hope for us to survive!

[Trin]

I disagree,
With GAR I mean. His whole message seems to be: "When push comes to shove man can't unite, even when faced with a common enemy threatening him with imminent extinction."

Do you all truly buy into that?I hear ya. I think everything you're saying makes sense. I will agree that I get sick of GAR beating it into me that everyone is a self-serving a-hole in a crisis. Especially the military. Would they really look for the first chance to wave their guns around and threaten the very civilians they chose to protect when they entered the service?

I hated that with 28 Days too, btw. Who resorts to raping the women less than a month into the crisis? But I digress...

There's another aspect to this that I think bears mention. In the zombie apocalyse the masses are individually directly threatened. The entire world is under siege at the same time. This isn't a matter of coming together and sending the boys overseas to battle a common threat. It's a matter of everyone battling the threat individually in their own backyards. Or at least it starts that way. I think pulling together is harder when each individual is on the heels from the start.

Look at 9/11. When the twin towers fell the nation united in providing support to NYC, giving of their extra resources. But what if a tower fell in every city? What if a tower fell on every block of every city? I think the unified response is delayed in that circumstance. If everyone everywhere is in need people would be forced to take care of themselves first and think about uniting second. Add in the notion that the government is gone and laws are no longer relevant and you may just have the catalyst for the self-destruction that GAR is talking about.

Not saying that people wouldn't unite. I don't know. Like Debbie I'm an optimist and I'd like to think they would. Just pointing out that the situation is a bit different than history has contended with.

[Wyldwraith]

I completely get what you're saying Trin,

If the dead were rising everywhere then yea, people are going to be busy covering their own asses at first. I don't agree though that just because they're busy doing so that this fact alone keeps them from uniting.

I'll go back for an example to Hurricane Katrina again. DURING the flooding of the 9th Ward becoming more intense you had dozens of healthy uninjured people paddling AIR MATTRESSES up to collapsing houses and rescuing the old, infirm and injured, at great personal risk. Weren't those people in direct need/back on their heels themselves?

Your point is taken, but at the same time I just can't buy into GAR's vision of EVERYONE being either a Rhodes, a Cooper or a Barbara waiting to happen. The way that he shows the reasonable people who are willing to work with others are always being hopelessly outnumbered/helpless to improve things because they're surrounded by idiots or self-destructive psychopaths just doesn't wash with my own experience of humanity in a crisis.

Yes, the living dead rising to attack the living is pretty extreme. I DO expect a TON of people will go all Khardis-sociopath on us, or Wooley "Get off my land in 10 seconds or get shot"...but there will also be a couple guys passing in a truck who see eight zombies converging on a disabled car that has a woman and children inside, who will stop to blast the zombies and give the woman and her kids a fighting chance at least.

I don't expect a marching parade of saints during the zombie apocalypse, but I refuse to believe all of humanity will stupidly march off a cliff/down the throats of zombies, or turn into devils either.

[SRP76]

Don't you have any kind of hope for mankind?

No. Absolutely not.

As far as "pulling together" goes: it may not be a matter of people wanting to work together; more a matter of being able to.

You wind up with 5 people in a basement scared to death. In the next town, you've got another 5 people huddled in a shed. 17 miles of zombie-infested wasteland lies between them.

Now, just how the hell are they supposed to "pull together"?! How are they even going to know each other exists? There is no "get on the internet and look someone up", or grabbing the cell phone. No communication, and the only thing you see when you peek out between the slats of the boarded-up window of your shed is ghouls....ghouls....ghouls.

You could decide to just blindly break for it, and hope you run into another small group of people. But of course, that's exactly what people cry and complain about when they talk about Dawn '04, isn't it?

[Yojimbo]

-but there will also be a couple guys passing in a truck who see eight zombies converging on a disabled car that has a woman and children inside, who will stop to blast the zombies and give the woman and her kids a fighting chance at least.


I agree that there will be heroes and people looking out for the other guy in the apocalypse, just as there were in Katrina and the Los Angeles Riots, however, people of this stock are few and far between. The majority of people are going to look out for number one.


So while I have faith that pockets of survivors will hold out for as long as they can, I think that it will take a lot more than just a few survivors who, as SRP pointed out, are unable to coordinate their efforts, to restore society to it's full glory.

In the Romero dead universe, there will be no end to the crisis, unlike Katrina and the Los Angeles Riots which, as destructive they both were at the time the flood waters eventually receded or the unrest finally abated. Society will never return to normal, per se. So, yes, there will be those folks who will shoot survivors on sight, or pillage the supplies of other groups, but in the world of the dead there will also be folks who are looking out for each other, as long as they are capable of doing so. In this sense, I have faith in humanity.

[Wyldwraith]

Well,
SRP's point assumes that the crisis has already reached maximum ghoul-density before people try to band together. In large cities the infection may burn through fast enough to make that a probable/possible scenario, but I don't believe it can be equally applied across the board.

I live in a residential area with about 100 houses spread over 3-4 miles, then nothing for 4-5 miles, until one gets to the main road leading to town. In my neighborhood I have two strong healthy male friends who work at home, who, like myself, actually have disaster preparedness kits. All of which include a moderately substantial amount of ammunition for a firearm of our choice(s). Now, barring being taken out by surprise in the opening moments of the crisis it's likely that my friends and I will manage to get together when CNN starts showing images of NYC in flames, with zombies dragging down riot police.

Where's the wave of zombies that's supposed to keep us from getting together with our neighbors going to come from? If even a dozen of us can get our act together before the zombies from town randomly stagger our way there's hope we could link up with those lucky enough to end up in our area. Who knows how well we could do from there?

I think it's unreasonably pessimistic to assume that everyone reacts the same way to potential danger. Every time one of the possible tracks for a hurricane to take points our way me and my stepfather clean all the guns/make sure they're in good working order. Then we lay out ammunition closer to hand than the usual storage. When the towers came down over 3,000 miles away we had the shotguns loaded within five minutes of the first report we caught on the TV.

Is this an unusually sensitive reaction to potential or distant danger? You betcha. Is it still possible for catastrophe to catch us with our pants down? Again, yes. Our "paranoid" behavior pattern raises our odds of survival if everything comes apart though. Believe me, we aren't worried about zombies, but if one day it happens to be zombies, well, I guess that'll work too ;)

[Publius]

I live in a residential area with about 100 houses spread over 3-4 miles, then nothing for 4-5 miles, until one gets to the main road leading to town. In my neighborhood I have two strong healthy male friends who work at home, who, like myself, actually have disaster preparedness kits. All of which include a moderately substantial amount of ammunition for a firearm of our choice(s). Now, barring being taken out by surprise in the opening moments of the crisis it's likely that my friends and I will manage to get together when CNN starts showing images of NYC in flames, with zombies dragging down riot police.

Where's the wave of zombies that's supposed to keep us from getting together with our neighbors going to come from? If even a dozen of us can get our act together before the zombies from town randomly stagger our way there's hope we could link up with those lucky enough to end up in our area. Who knows how well we could do from there?


Right on. The inner cities will turn into hellholes quickly. But across America there are tons of communities where neighbors are still neighborly, and where people will have time to start pulling together *before* they have direct contact with the undead.

[Wyldwraith]

Right on. The inner cities will turn into hellholes quickly. But across America there are tons of communities where neighbors are still neighborly, and where people will have time to start pulling together *before* they have direct contact with the undead.

::agrees again with Publius::

That's my point. If you let it get to the point that there are a hundred ghouls per 100 feet before you act then yea, of course you're screwed. If instead you get even 7-8 neighbors with shotguns and hunting rifles, and maybe 4-5 more armed with bats and crowbars to handle anything that gets past the shooters then it seems to me that if the zombies stagger into the neighborhood 8-10 at a time that we could knock em down without terrible difficulty.

I'm NOT one of those that want to play it off as being EASY, but I think you can get most men's heads in the right place with a "pep talk" about it being "them" or their families, or most women's heads right by putting it as "them or your kids"

A mother grizzly has nothing on a 35yr old soccer mom from a redneck family with a 30/30 and a direct threat to her 9 and 6 year olds apparent.

I've been thinking about all this a lot lately. Sort of using it as an escapist exercise to help me cope with a rough patch in my life atm. The more I've thought about it, the more I find myself believing that maybe we've gotten way too cynical about what we're capable of. I mean after all, we survived for thousands of years on little more than the strength of the tribe, fire and pointy sticks. We killed mammoths with STICKS....and teamwork. I refuse to believe that ability to unite for common cause has disappeared.

Nope, I can't say I know how the zombie apocalypse would go down. One thing I can say for certain though. The situation(s) will be radically different all over.

Put another way: Being stalked by a tiger while lost in the trackless wilderness is a heckuva lot grimmer a situation than having a tiger rush you in the middle of Times Square.

Publius, glad to see not everyone's a complete cynic. Great minds think alike ;)

[Yojimbo]

I do agree with Publis and Wyld that there are areas of North America that will fare much better than anyone living in the Greater Los Angeles basin, or on Manhattan Island, or Mexico City. It has been very correctly pointed out that certain areas are isolated enough and small enough to be able to band together before the armies of the undead make their way to invade the homestead.

So, living in LA, I am basically screwed unless I bug out with my family before everyone else hits the road. I am saving up so that one of these days my wife and I can buy property - maybe a cabin or maybe one of those homesteads designed by a wacko survivalist back in the 70's or 80's - out in the sticks. Even without that, I would certainly rather start the era of the living dead in an isolated, small community than here in the city. Hell, I'd rather be living there even without the threat of ghouls!

But, with all respect to the millitary and the fine job they do to protect us from being invaded by a hostile foreign army, and with all the respect that our fine law enforcement officers are due, I still do not feel that it is logical to rely on a governmental response in order to deal with a zombie crisis, or any other sort of crisis other for that matter. Sorry, but I don't have much faith in the machine, and in the end I fear that they will have their hands so full and their resources spread too thin to ensure my family's survival.

I heard an NPR segment the other night ago in which a woman who had weathered through Katrina was interviewed about the current hurricane menacing the city, and she pointed out that she had enough supplies to carry her family through for several weeks. When asked why she had been procatively supplied herself and her family, she made a point about saying that so many people died in Katrina waiting for the government to come and help them. She did not intend to die this time in the same way as those poor folks, and instead was prepared to take care of her family without the govenment's help. "Be Prepared" she intoned.

A small, tightly knit community far away from the cities, I do agree, would stand a fighting chance. Waiting for the government to hold you hand and soothe you, however, is an excercise in futility, and will likely end in a very painful death.

[sandrock74]

Teamwork and cooperation would be key to successfully battling (and hopefully defeating) them damn ghouls. People always seem too keen on fighting and bickering amongst each other BUT humanity has a looooooooooong history of banding together under an "us versus them" mentality. I don't feel like listing a bunch of examples, just look at WWII.

Nowadays people are divided by a great many thing, this is true. However, I've always felt that if the earth were invaded by aliens (ala "V" or "Independence Day") or was being overrun with ghouls, that humanity would pull together in the ultimate showing of "us versus them". The opponets wouldn't even be human! I'm sure we could all unite against an inhuman menace to ourselves and our loved ones. Would there be casualties? Of course. Would some people do stupid things? Yes. Would accidents happen leading to potentially disasterous consequences? Probably.

I still feel that when faced with such an inhuman foe that people will band together regardless of race, religous beliefs or sexual orientation. If for absolutely no other reason, at least we are humans combating an inhuman menace who is trying to eradicate us all. Personally, I can care less who is on "my side" because we would be fighting for our survival and helping each other out whenever things get rough.

I guess this is where I differ in my opinion of things as far as Romero's vision of events. I can see pressure leading to bad situations like in DAY due to the small amount of people involved and their lack of communication with anyone else. But I look at that as a specific situation, while I am thinking in terms of the overall general situation. I would be more than willing to work with my neighbors/family/friends/strangers to keep us safe from such a menace. I wouldn't be looking to lead or take over anything...my main concern would be with everyones security. If my neighbor is secure, odds are, I will be too.

Maybe I'm just hopelessly optimistic, but I don't think the overall situation would be as grim as in the movies. Obviously, the movies have to show the bad situations, otherwise what fun would they be? Who would want to watch a zombie movie of people making neighborhood watch patrols and gunning down and disposing of the occassional zombie? Not too much fun there.

What do you all think?

[Wyldwraith]

::agrees with Yojimbo and Sandrock::

We're basically saying the same thing Sand, and I'm with you on your reasoning. Zombies in particular because of their close ties to death and the way they just scream of the unnatural merely by existing to any human being on a deep instinctive level. I think that as strong as our fear would be of the living dead, that in many cases our hatred and revulsion for the walking dead would be the stronger.

Combine that with the natural human ability to cooperate for mutual interest, and our primary advantage of intelligence, and that leads me to believe that humanity might fare better than we think against the dead. Even in areas that are totally overrun a few determine people with a plan could destroy huge numbers of ghouls. (Just off-hand, imagine transporting several fifty gallon barrels of 3/4ths gasoline 1/4th certain liquid soaps/petroleum jelly to a rooftop overlooking a main through-way in an infested city via helicopter. Make a lot of noise to bait the dead out, and then as they swarm towards the building roll the barrels of crude napalm off the side and detonate them in the midst of the horde. One crew with a helicopter, fuel, and access to these relatively basic resources could burn out countless zombies.)

I'm not saying that this wouldn't be by far the worst catastrophe ever to befall humanity, it would. The movies however take it as a given that as a species we'd be all but helpless to fight back in any meaningful way. They emphasize things like for every one you shoot, there are ten to take its place. Plus, like Sandrock said, if the movies displayed a battered-but-resolved humanity, determined to exterminate the living dead by any means necessary, and enjoying some success at doing so then it wouldn't be a survival horror movie, it'd be Saving Private Ryan From the Undead.

As for the military: While I don't really hold out much faith that the armed forces could do anything to save the population from the walking dead, I do believe that the Air Force and Navy in particular have the means to avenge us, IF the politicians can accept the necessity of flattening the cities. Low altitude fuel-air bomb detonations in large numbers over all the major cities and their suburbs, saturation bombing slow-moving hordes migrating outwards from the population centers, incendiary bombardment of coastal cities...Basically it comes down to whether or not the world governments are willing to burn down civilization to win.

To me that's an easy choice. If we're driven into extinction or as good as, what use are skyscrapers and grocery stores? It doesn't take a great many air assets to do incalculable damage if the airspace is completely uncontested and the munitions are available for re-arming. In fact, once they got started the secondary fires burning out of control would do a lot of the cleanup work for us.

There's no question in my mind that a zombie apocalypse would inescapably destroy our modern way of life. I think it's a mistake to write off the potential our military possesses to affect the outcome of the struggle for the species to survive. Of COURSE unsupported infantry actions would be a slaughter, especially given how thin our military is currently spread. The movies never focus on *intelligent* applications of air and sea assets, for the reason that Sandrock mentioned, that it wouldn't make a good horror movie to watch 20+ million zombies fry in a single afternoon as NYC was burnt to the ground.

At least that's the conventional thinking on the subject. No scriptwriter with any talent has yet been inspired to write a script that depicts a straightforward linear depiction of humanity locked in a struggle for survival with the walking dead, that begins with the initial outbreak(s), carries us through the apex of the horror, and demonstrates humanity effectively fighting back. Don't know why either, since movies like Independence Day were so lucrative. World War Z will be the closest thing to what I just described if it's ever filmed/released, but due to the Oral History Snapshot format it's an open question whether or not they'll go with the snapshots or try to string it all together into a conventional narrative.

It's kind of amusing to me that discussing an impossible apocalypse has increased my faith in some positive aspects of human nature.

[SRP76]

Oh, come on! A helicopter, fuel, drums, etc...good luck getting all those now, much less in the middle of doomsday.

Almost everyone will have access to what's in their own house at the time, and that's it. And if you're in some town in the middle of nowhere, you'll have a tough time no matter how "together" everyone is. You have a town that's 5 miles in diameter, with 1,000 people in it. One small grocery store, one convenience store, two gas stations. One livestock feed store. One hardware store and a Napa autoparts.

Now, what are you going to do with that? Ghouls are coming from all directions (we can't assume everyone always lives on an island, or the tip of a peninsula). How are you going to keep them off you? Build a fence (15 miles of it)? With what? You don't have 15 miles of materials to build a barricade. Even if you did, good luck building that much barrier in the time you have (assuming everyone is Borg, all cooperating perfectly and instantly). With that many people, it will take at least a week (probably more, as it's real slow going in the woods that surround your whole town). You don't have a week; you have one day, if you're lucky.

And if they get in, what? There's maybe 1000 bullets in the entire town. More and more ghouls roaming your streets every day. And it's not like you'd have the run of the place once they're in town; everyone will have to be locked in their own homes. And even if you did manage to keep them out, you've got enough food in town to last maybe a month, if you're lucky. There will be NO trucks coming in to restock your shops. So what are you going to do at the end of the month? Starve, that's what.

[Yojimbo]

Oh, come on! A helicopter, fuel, drums, etc...good luck getting all those now, much less in the middle of doomsday.

Almost everyone will have access to what's in their own house at the time, and that's it. And if you're in some town in the middle of nowhere, you'll have a tough time no matter how "together" everyone is. You have a town that's 5 miles in diameter, with 1,000 people in it. One small grocery store, one convenience store, two gas stations. One livestock feed store. One hardware store and a Napa autoparts.

Now, what are you going to do with that? Ghouls are coming from all directions (we can't assume everyone always lives on an island, or the tip of a peninsula). How are you going to keep them off you? Build a fence (15 miles of it)? With what? You don't have 15 miles of materials to build a barricade. Even if you did, good luck building that much barrier in the time you have (assuming everyone is Borg, all cooperating perfectly and instantly). With that many people, it will take at least a week (probably more, as it's real slow going in the woods that surround your whole town). You don't have a week; you have one day, if you're lucky.

And if they get in, what? There's maybe 1000 bullets in the entire town. More and more ghouls roaming your streets every day. And it's not like you'd have the run of the place once they're in town; everyone will have to be locked in their own homes. And even if you did manage to keep them out, you've got enough food in town to last maybe a month, if you're lucky. There will be NO trucks coming in to restock your shops. So what are you going to do at the end of the month? Starve, that's what.

I do see your point, SRP. Obviously, it would be very difficult to survive with no resupply and not all communities, even those that are far away from an urban center, would be able to survive for an extended period of time.

Perhaps if there was a farm nearby this town with a large stock of grain and animals (chickens, goats, etc) and it's own well, and was isolated enough, and the farmer was a NRA dude who also stockpiled large amounts of ammo because he was also a survivalist and also was an avid reloader, and maybe his brother Darryl who lives nearby used to be an army triage surgeon who became a country doctor and he is also a survivalist/hunting freak, and they live next to a lumber stockyard owned by his other brother darryl, and they all have the same geo-political views and religious beliefs, and would never hit on their sisters-in-law... ok, point being, it would have to be a "perfect storm" of a community to survive.

I don't really know that it would ever be feasable to band with other like minded communities on a scale large enough with sufficient supplies and equipment necessary to take back the world from the dead. But for the short term, if properly stocked and with the proper attitude, I do believe that a small isolated group could probably survive for quite a while. Certainly, if they are out of high population areas they would at least have a better chance at organizing and pooling their efforts than if they were living in an apartment on the corner of Hollywood and Vine when the dead start to walk.

[sandrock74]

It would be easy enough to come by a civilian helicopter and ALL sorts of supplies where I live. Now, finding someone who knows how to fly it? Maybe more difficult to come by. I live around several small civilain airports.

Things would be dangerous, certainly. Casualties would be suffered for sure. I still think that with proper planning and good timing, that humanity could come out victorious against zombies. We have the speed and the intelligence on our side.

That's just my belief.

[Ivarr]

Explosives, long nails/ball bearings/marbles and luck you can thin the heard a bit... but you better have a tank ... because no matter what... your gonna get tired.

There has to be some movable bararier between you and them or its just a matter of time.

But in the end ... what applies to the dead applies to the living... Both are stronger in numbers.

A group has a better chance of getting anywhere than a single person...

[sandrock74]

OK, I was thinking of all this as I went on my daily constitutional. Since most of my military knowledge comes from G.I. Joe, the A-Team and Predator, I won't say what the military should or shouldn't do against an earth being overrun with zombies. What I do know is this:

The time to act is right away. There is no time to waste in observing the enemy, trying to make plans that won't hurt anyone, etc. The longer time to a response means MORE zombies to deal with. That's bad folks!

Zombies control the ground. It will be contested by plucky civilians, but essentially, it's not illogical to "give" the zombies the land.

Humanity controls the skies and the water, uncontested. This is a real no-brainer. Evacuations, troop movement, reconaissance, etc. can all be done via sea and air without even the need to conceal what is being done. Who would not take advantage of such a thing??

Scorched earth policy. It's harsh but these would be brutal times like none other in history. All major cities would have to be burned down to the ground. This could be done using non-nuclear missles or probably some other engineering way. Keep helicopters on hand to spray napalm on migrating hordes of zombies who may be smart enough to try to get away from the fire from the city behind them. Such a policy would reduce the numbers of zombies by MILLIONS at a time.

Don't rely on Infantry. The ground troops should only be called into action after the city is ash and roveing hordes of zombies have been burned into a non-working state. Infantry would be responsible for picking off straggler zombies and announcing the area "secure". The other thing Infantry troops would be good for is taking targets too valuable to destroy, such as Hoover Dam. Otherwise, these guys should be at the rear of the offensive, NOT at the front!

I would think that these would be effective (but brutal) ways of combating the zombies. It would also send a message to the surviving populace that help is coming. It should be easy enough to evac people from the cities by rooftops prior to the fire bombing. If survivors are unable to make it to an evac sight or are unwilling to leave...them's the breaks. (again, I know it's a brutal way of doing things, but it's desperate times)
This would be the worst event in human history, no doubt BUT we have the technological means, weapons, intelligence and speed to accomplish it. Teamwork is the linchpin.

Once complete, things would indeed be different. The world would have a MUCH smaller population. Probably go from 6 billion to around 1 billion. Cities would need to be rebuilt, smaller than before obviously (to accomodate the smaller population. Get those architects and construction guys to work! Even with cities destroyed, the rural areas and farmland should be reasonably untouched...which is good. Get those farmers to work!
Funeral homes would be a thing of the past, as well as how people view death I'm sure. Someone dies: bullet in the head and burn the body. An enterprising person could even create a business around this need. A zombie extermination type business. "You can't kill your zombified loved one? We can! Call us." More work!

Again, this is too logical and optimistic (Maybe on Vulcan this is how they would deal with zombies). While this would all be effective, it would make for a reasonably dull movie.

You agree or disagree? Think it out and let's hear it. :)

[Wyldwraith]

::applauds Sandrock::

I wrote this huge post this morning in reply to SRP's points, only to discover that my internet had gone down while I was typing. Then I come on here and find you've said many of the things I was thinking Sand, bravo.

To add to your points:

The technology you're looking for is the Fuel Air Bomb. There is a ton of complex science at work with them, but the simple version is: Bomb detonates at low altitude, all oxygen in a substantial radius is sucked upwards, then a torrent of flame slams downwards like the finger of God. No fallout, plenty of zombies (and everything else) reduced to either ash or melted slag, depending on how tough the material was to begin with. Also reference implosion devices, nasty little conventional explosive system.

I'm totally with you on the air assets being the key to breaking the back of the hordes, but I disagree with you about the role of the infantry. If you lose the airstrips and munitions dumps they're re-arming from, then your planes and choppers are SOL. Midair refueling is viable, but you need land-based airstrips for the flying refuelers themselves. You're going to need every rifleman that can be mustered, plus whatever voluntary and involuntary militiamen you can drum up just to hold a few military bases if the country is already overrun.

Sadly, I'm forced to agree with the others who say the military can't save the population. They just can't move fast enough. 75% of the world's population will be dead or undead before the remnants of the world militaries have workable/viable plans ready to go. The VERY best-case-scenario we can hope for is that enough of the very first people to reach "safety" survive, and that enough of the military remains to burn the cities and wandering hordes to ash.

I do agree that we'd lose 80-90% of the world's populace. Part of that die-off will continue, even once humanity is "victorious". Famine, lack of medical care, you name it. Also agree (and said in a previous post) that how mankind relates to death will have to completely change.

There are things that worry me, about what would become of humanity as we rebuilt. For example, women of child-bearing age that are healthy enough to get pregnant/carry a child to term will be scarce. Are we going to try and force them to become little more than brood mares against their will? What kind of society could rise again that had its roots in barbaric acts like that?

Oh, I wouldn't expect the majority of people would support rape, but I could easily see an unbearable level of social pressure being brought to bear against any woman who refuses to be an incubator. Using such pretexts as: "It being unpatriotic not to give your all in aiding the repopulation effort"

Or what about power in this new world? By then the "military class" will have made tremendous overt sacrifices in achieving victory. How easy would it be to use as a justification to retain power? Since the undead will never vanish entirely, it wouldn't be hard for some initially well-intentioned agency created to deal with/ensure they never threaten humanity with extinction again to abuse the broad-reaching powers they'd need to do such a job and seize control, creating a police state.

And people thing zombies are scary.

[SRP76]

I wrote this huge post this morning in reply to SRP's points, only to discover that my internet had gone down while I was typing.

That's because my warning has come true! They reached your neighborhood already! Get out of there!:D

[sandrock74]

::applauds Sandrock::

I wrote this huge post this morning in reply to SRP's points, only to discover that my internet had gone down while I was typing. Then I come on here and find you've said many of the things I was thinking Sand, bravo.

To add to your points:

The technology you're looking for is the Fuel Air Bomb. There is a ton of complex science at work with them, but the simple version is: Bomb detonates at low altitude, all oxygen in a substantial radius is sucked upwards, then a torrent of flame slams downwards like the finger of God. No fallout, plenty of zombies (and everything else) reduced to either ash or melted slag, depending on how tough the material was to begin with. Also reference implosion devices, nasty little conventional explosive system.

I'm totally with you on the air assets being the key to breaking the back of the hordes, but I disagree with you about the role of the infantry. If you lose the airstrips and munitions dumps they're re-arming from, then your planes and choppers are SOL. Midair refueling is viable, but you need land-based airstrips for the flying refuelers themselves. You're going to need every rifleman that can be mustered, plus whatever voluntary and involuntary militiamen you can drum up just to hold a few military bases if the country is already overrun.

Sadly, I'm forced to agree with the others who say the military can't save the population. They just can't move fast enough. 75% of the world's population will be dead or undead before the remnants of the world militaries have workable/viable plans ready to go. The VERY best-case-scenario we can hope for is that enough of the very first people to reach "safety" survive, and that enough of the military remains to burn the cities and wandering hordes to ash.

I do agree that we'd lose 80-90% of the world's populace. Part of that die-off will continue, even once humanity is "victorious". Famine, lack of medical care, you name it. Also agree (and said in a previous post) that how mankind relates to death will have to completely change.

There are things that worry me, about what would become of humanity as we rebuilt. For example, women of child-bearing age that are healthy enough to get pregnant/carry a child to term will be scarce. Are we going to try and force them to become little more than brood mares against their will? What kind of society could rise again that had its roots in barbaric acts like that?

Oh, I wouldn't expect the majority of people would support rape, but I could easily see an unbearable level of social pressure being brought to bear against any woman who refuses to be an incubator. Using such pretexts as: "It being unpatriotic not to give your all in aiding the repopulation effort"

Or what about power in this new world? By then the "military class" will have made tremendous overt sacrifices in achieving victory. How easy would it be to use as a justification to retain power? Since the undead will never vanish entirely, it wouldn't be hard for some initially well-intentioned agency created to deal with/ensure they never threaten humanity with extinction again to abuse the broad-reaching powers they'd need to do such a job and seize control, creating a police state.

And people thing zombies are scary.

Well, let me just say as far as the Infantry goes, I was working under the assumption that they would be working as security at required installations. Also, as I said, the time to act is right away! Waiting is a death sentence for the entirety of the human race.

Here's something else that I always find confusing...why does everyone assume that "women of child bearing age" will be rendered extinct? Women outnumber men as of now overall. Why do all young women disappear? Only our grandmothers will be left? I think there will be women left, just like those who survived the Black Plauge. The Plague killed off HALF of the population of europe and 30% of the population of Asia. This was the deadliest disease to ravage mankind. Men AND women survived in reasonably equal numbers. Women would still be around. Always have been, always will be.

As far as what kind of "ruling class" would be around afterwards? Who knows. I'll leave that to philosophers and smarter people than I. I just get the feeling thou that people won't stand idle and allow the military to assume command. Besides, I think a lot of people in the military would be ready to go back to living as normal a life as possible, like the vets coming home from any war! Ot even World War Z!

Again, these are my opinions and not yours. :)

[jim102016]

GI Joe, Predator, and the A-Team...****ing hilarious. I wouldn't rely on those three for any accurate knowledge of the military.

I think the effectiveness of using air power to bomb the more heavily congested areas would be greatly affected by who's sitting in a nation's highest office. If acting quickly is the answer to solving the problem before it escalates, then we're screwed. No president or prime minister in his right mind would firebomb his own cities (in a western nation at least), not while it’s still possible to harm large numbers of living citizens. Would a president readily agree to send B-52s or naval aircraft to bomb large portions of NYC or Philadelphia after initially being told the dead are coming back to life? Hell no. Would such a mission even be effective? Instead, the situation would be closely monitored for a while as it spiraled out of control, taking with it scores of local law enforcement officials, national guardsmen and maybe some active-duty units.

There is no way to eradicate such a problem if it becomes an epidemic in a large, metropolitan area. In the time it takes to get a grip on what's really happening, those areas will be lost to the dead. Sure, those locations could be nuked or hammered into the ground with conventional munitions, but would it be worthwhile at that point, a waste of valuable resources? The only effective response would be a quick, coordinated campaign against the dead before all hell could break lose. Unfortunately, it's not going to happen.

[sandrock74]

It all is kind of moot anyway. Once enough people die (swelling the ranks of the zombies even further), any conventional thinking would tell you that cities are all dead zones. It would be totally irrelevant what whats left of the public would think. The cities NEED to be burned down to the ground. No half @$$ing it, complete and utter destruction.

There would be no time to observe and take notes. There is nothing to argue with other surviving people in authority. Red tape is the zombies best friend!

Like the Autobot Cliffjumper said, "Strike first, strike fast, strike hard!"

[SRP76]

OK, so here's something I used to put numbers and distance in perspective when it comes to writing and thinking about the living dead. It's a silly exercise, but an eye opener.

While on a short drive at dusk on a weekend...not a week day when there's lot of traffic, but go a few miles in the suburbs and count the headlights that you meet oncoming. One pair of headlights equals one walker...I figure that this is a good indication of interval and numbers for scattered living dead through the same area, if you're moving rapidly on foot...

Big bump, because I just did this!

I live 20 miles from Gainesville (the closest city). I'm a little more than 5 miles from the nearest thing that can be called a town.

I just set off to Bronson - a little, tiny, one-stoplight redneck village. A little over 5 miles away. I WALKED there and back (over 10 miles in less than 3 hours - you think it's easy? Try it). Set out at 12:45 AM, got back at 3:35 AM. It doesn't GET any more "dead of night" than that, people. And remember, I'm in the middle of fucking nowhere.

I stopped counting headlights on the way there - at 100. Didn't even bother on the way back. I couldn't get 30 seconds of walking without having to hike down into the ditch to avoid traffic.

So, guess what? Even in the sticks, you will encounter a shitload of zombies. Even in the middle of the night. There is no "oh, there won't be many out here". Thinking like that will get you eaten.

[FoodFight]

[QUOTE][And remember, I'm in the middle of fucking nowhere/QUOTE]

No, you're only 20 miles from a population of over 114,000, many of whom would be zombie chow in short order.

Even if Grim's assertion held true, i.e. headlights equating walkers, you would be better served by gathering data over a longer time period, and not the eve of a major holiday and its' attendent travel. The traffic patterns you experienced seem skewed toward the heavy side.

Regarding the distance from Gainesville. If the walkers are travelling at half the speed that you managed and assuming that they travel the roads and are otherwise unimpeded, they would be at your doorstep in less than 12 hours. I wouldn't call your location "the middle of nowhere". More like 'a stone's throw from hell on earth'.

[Crappingbear]

You guys better practice your stealth instead of making noise banging off rifle fire or going Zatoichi with your expertly wieldly Katana. Stealth means you avoid most zoms and humans won't zone in on you. For all of you heading to the sticks, consider something....... These folks are used to living off the land and using firearms so what makes you think they will be dead when you arrive? Or that they will welcome you in to their world where your skills as a dept store checkout clerk are useless compared to them knowing how to butcher a pig and grow tomatos? Nobody will be more prepared or able to withstand a siege than country folk and if you ain't from these parts, you ain't getting in as they might say. I'd rather go up against 20 gang bangers than a teen in the sticks with a .22 rifle protecting her family farm.

[Slain]

If General Sherman could crush the south with only 62,000 men, I doubt the bubbas of the north or south would live long enough to whomp much city slicker ass after the first wave of zombies got through with them.

[Crappingbear]

If General Sherman could crush the south with only 62,000 men, I doubt the bubbas of the north or south would live long enough to whomp much city slicker ass after the first wave of zombies got through with them.

In a dead world, a boy scouts skills will be invaluable while a corporate middle managers are useless. Bubba the redneck lives and Ethan the junior college american poetry professor dies. Thats how it will go.

[SRP76]

In a dead world, a boy scouts skills will be invaluable while a corporate middle managers are useless. Bubba the redneck lives and Ethan the junior college american poetry professor dies. Thats how it will go.

Highly unlikely. Everyone has an equal chance (that being 100%, eventually) of becoming lunchmeat. All it takes is getting blindsided one time, ONE small nibble, and it's all over. Nobody has a thousand eyes, and that's what you need. The people who will survive the longest are the ones that just plain get lucky. And luck doesn't care where you were born. Your office manager may find himself in a relatively "safe" location when all hell breaks loose, while your redneck is stuck at the hospital visiting a sick relative. Guess who lives through the day? The lucky one, not the "better suited" one.

[iluvc2h5oh]

He can grow tomatoes.

[Rancid Carcass]

In a dead world, a boy scouts skills will be invaluable while a corporate middle managers are useless. Bubba the redneck lives and Ethan the junior college american poetry professor dies. Thats how it will go.

You know, I'm not entirely sure that Rednecks would necessarily fair any better than the humble college professor. I get the feeling from reading this thread that there seems to be an opinion that guns = survival. Surely from a laws of average point of view the Rednecks with their guns would be more inclined to take a stand against the shambling hordes, just like they did in DAWN. Therefore they are going to take more casualties than the academic types who I'm sure would be staying as far away as possible from any undead confrontations.

...Somewhere down in the valley as the massed ranks of them there 'undead varmints' tear down the last of the barricades on Pops Homestead and the last few gun shots become blood curdling screams of terror, up in the hills professor Corduroy and his no good yeller belly classical poetry class console themselves in knowledge that while hiding in a cave reciting Wordsworth may not have any real practical value in combating the undead menace – at least it kept them alive longer than firing guns!

:lol:

[Mike70]

., up in the hills professor Corduroy and his no good yeller belly classical poetry class console themselves in knowledge that while hiding in a cave ... at least it kept them alive longer than firing guns!

:lol:

Vivamus mea Lesbia, atque amemus,
rumoresque senum severiorum
omnes unius aestimemus assis!

"let us live, my lesbia and let us love,
let us estimate the rumors of all harsh old men
at exactly one penny!"

ah well, i went with catullus instead of wordsworth but hell, i can't think of anyone better to cheer you up when fighting an undead rorke's drift.

[Crappingbear]

Vivamus mea Lesbia, atque amemus,
rumoresque senum severiorum
omnes unius aestimemus assis!

"let us live, my lesbia and let us love,
let us estimate the rumors of all harsh old men
at exactly one penny!"

ah well, i went with catullus instead of wordsworth but hell, i can't think of anyone better to cheer you up when fighting an undead rorke's drift.

Now thats a hell of story for sure.


Highly unlikely. Everyone has an equal chance (that being 100%, eventually) of becoming lunchmeat. All it takes is getting blindsided one time, ONE small nibble, and it's all over. Nobody has a thousand eyes, and that's what you need. The people who will survive the longest are the ones that just plain get lucky. And luck doesn't care where you were born. Your office manager may find himself in a relatively "safe" location when all hell breaks loose, while your redneck is stuck at the hospital visiting a sick relative. Guess who lives through the day? The lucky one, not the "better suited" one.

I see your point and can agree to an extent but I also assert that we make our own luck. Maybe not always, but at times for sure. Surviving in a dead world isn't just about evading zombies although that is threat no 1, its about evading humans who will go feral/criminal about 5 seconds after the minimart closes and then its about the ability to move unseen, find/build shelter from the elements and last but certainly not least create safe drinking water and gather food. You don't have to be a redneck but a modicum of outdoor skills would be pretty darn important. And while I'd rather have a gun than not, due to attracting unwanted attention I would use it sparingly and only as a last resort.

[Wyldwraith]

Well,
I live rather close to SRP. On the far side of Ocala, that population of 114,000 you were mentioning. Something that's difficult to understand when you simply look at the population numbers and a map is that Central Florida is riddled with 20-50 mile gaps of relative nothingness. Just roads running through undeveloped areas, a few horse and cattle ranches, and a smattering of small homes/double-wide trailers sitting on 10-20 fenced acres.

I live like 30 miles from the edge of Ocala and the I-75 on ramp. That SOUNDS close to a large population. Until you consider that there's NOTHING to lead the zombies from town out in the direction of the daisy-chain of subdivisions near my home. Not when going in the opposite direction leads you to ever denser series of apartment buildings, huge upper-middle/lower-upper class gated communities and the massively overpopulated Projects. (The pre-fabricated low-cost housing section of town).

The point I'm driving at is that you don't need to live in a town with a population under 1,000 that's next closest contact with civilization is another equally tiny town 40-50 miles away and separated by large tracts of farmland. Plenty of smaller, but still relatively populous cities (the ones you could more accurately call extremely large towns) have geographical oddities, and quirks in the population density that could conspire to give a fraction of the inhabitants a fighting chance.

No one is suggesting you can fortify a series of subdivisions ala Fiddler's Green. Or that a large population of survivors could stay in their homes and remain supplied for any length of time.

No, what I'm suggesting is that the factors necessary to prevent the people who have a fighting chance based on the good fortune of where they live/spend their time from being overwhelmed before they have a chance to get past their disbelief, denial and horror at what's occurring, and have a chance to get together and come up with some sort of plan aren't as uncommon as one might think.

For zombies to be in your neighborhood at the same time that the television reports are starting to deliver something along the lines of the famous TV report from Dawn ("The bodies of the recently dead are rising to attack the living, etc") one of three things had to happen in an area like mine.

1) One of the senior citizens die of completely natural causes and then reanimates. This potential entry by the undead is one of the more optimistic, because in the 20yrs I've lived in this neighborhood EVERY TIME a senior with a surviving spouse, housemate, live-in nurse or other family in residence has suffered some sort of life-threatening health event, that still-healthy and panicky (we'll call them Pseudo Family for ease of description) member INVARIABLY runs next door or across the street for help while waiting for the ambulance to arrive. By the time Mr. Senior Doe has been in cardiac arrest/stroking out/seizing etc for 5-6 minutes, there are 3-5 healthy and reasonably calm non-related neighbors inside, and half the neighborhood is in their front yard waiting to see what happens while they're waiting for the ambulance to arrive.

Under these sorts of conditions it isn't impossible for a senior who lives alone to pass away at 4am, reanimate, and then go in search of flesh, but it's certainly going to be an isolated incident. Otherwise the hue and cry that SOMETHING is seriously wrong will be up and down the neighborhood in a hurry.

2) Someone infected in town drives out here and then expires. This is the most problematic possibility early on, but then again, why would someone who is seriously injured and was "bitten by crazy drugged out lunatics" driving 30 miles out into a neighborhood they don't live in instead of to the hospital, or the police station AT THE VERY WORST? Still, we can't count out the possibility. There again though, how long will it take for word to spread that there are crazy strangers who crashed their car, got out, are paying no attention to their obvious injuries, and attacking anyone that they can get near?

3) The undead walk here from town. There again though, what caused them to wander the thirty empty miles this way when there are tons of tasty humans in ever-increasing numbers in the opposite direction. Sure, they'll get here eventually. In the meantime however, there's time to get our acts together.

Multiply this phenomena all over Middle America, and the picture looks a lot less grim. The notion of the zombie uprising being some flashover that'll happen so fast that no more than the tiniest fraction of the luckiest people will have a chance to react before being overwhelmed so fast they hardly knew what hit them just doesn't bear up under close consideration.

Just some random excerpts from my thoughts on a zombie apocalypse.

[Crappingbear]

Well,
I live rather close to SRP. On the far side of Ocala, that population of 114,000 you were mentioning. Something that's difficult to understand when you simply look at the population numbers and a map is that Central Florida is riddled with 20-50 mile gaps of relative nothingness. Just roads running through undeveloped areas, a few horse and cattle ranches, and a smattering of small homes/double-wide trailers sitting on 10-20 fenced acres.

I live like 30 miles from the edge of Ocala and the I-75 on ramp. That SOUNDS close to a large population. Until you consider that there's NOTHING to lead the zombies from town out in the direction of the daisy-chain of subdivisions near my home. Not when going in the opposite direction leads you to ever denser series of apartment buildings, huge upper-middle/lower-upper class gated communities and the massively overpopulated Projects. (The pre-fabricated low-cost housing section of town).

The point I'm driving at is that you don't need to live in a town with a population under 1,000 that's next closest contact with civilization is another equally tiny town 40-50 miles away and separated by large tracts of farmland. Plenty of smaller, but still relatively populous cities (the ones you could more accurately call extremely large towns) have geographical oddities, and quirks in the population density that could conspire to give a fraction of the inhabitants a fighting chance.

No one is suggesting you can fortify a series of subdivisions ala Fiddler's Green. Or that a large population of survivors could stay in their homes and remain supplied for any length of time.

No, what I'm suggesting is that the factors necessary to prevent the people who have a fighting chance based on the good fortune of where they live/spend their time from being overwhelmed before they have a chance to get past their disbelief, denial and horror at what's occurring, and have a chance to get together and come up with some sort of plan aren't as uncommon as one might think.

For zombies to be in your neighborhood at the same time that the television reports are starting to deliver something along the lines of the famous TV report from Dawn ("The bodies of the recently dead are rising to attack the living, etc") one of three things had to happen in an area like mine.

1) One of the senior citizens die of completely natural causes and then reanimates. This potential entry by the undead is one of the more optimistic, because in the 20yrs I've lived in this neighborhood EVERY TIME a senior with a surviving spouse, housemate, live-in nurse or other family in residence has suffered some sort of life-threatening health event, that still-healthy and panicky (we'll call them Pseudo Family for ease of description) member INVARIABLY runs next door or across the street for help while waiting for the ambulance to arrive. By the time Mr. Senior Doe has been in cardiac arrest/stroking out/seizing etc for 5-6 minutes, there are 3-5 healthy and reasonably calm non-related neighbors inside, and half the neighborhood is in their front yard waiting to see what happens while they're waiting for the ambulance to arrive.

Under these sorts of conditions it isn't impossible for a senior who lives alone to pass away at 4am, reanimate, and then go in search of flesh, but it's certainly going to be an isolated incident. Otherwise the hue and cry that SOMETHING is seriously wrong will be up and down the neighborhood in a hurry.

2) Someone infected in town drives out here and then expires. This is the most problematic possibility early on, but then again, why would someone who is seriously injured and was "bitten by crazy drugged out lunatics" driving 30 miles out into a neighborhood they don't live in instead of to the hospital, or the police station AT THE VERY WORST? Still, we can't count out the possibility. There again though, how long will it take for word to spread that there are crazy strangers who crashed their car, got out, are paying no attention to their obvious injuries, and attacking anyone that they can get near?

3) The undead walk here from town. There again though, what caused them to wander the thirty empty miles this way when there are tons of tasty humans in ever-increasing numbers in the opposite direction. Sure, they'll get here eventually. In the meantime however, there's time to get our acts together.

Multiply this phenomena all over Middle America, and the picture looks a lot less grim. The notion of the zombie uprising being some flashover that'll happen so fast that no more than the tiniest fraction of the luckiest people will have a chance to react before being overwhelmed so fast they hardly knew what hit them just doesn't bear up under close consideration.

Just some random excerpts from my thoughts on a zombie apocalypse.

Not to mention that with the tiniest bit of creativity you can let the gators take out any rotten zoms. A stilt house in the glades might be the perfect fortifide outpost.

[Eyebiter]

Beware the ZOMBIE ALLIGATORS!

[Mike70]

Now thats a hell of story for sure.


it sure is. one of my favorite military stories ever. i always picture a desperate battle against the undead in terms of that battle - without the red coats of course.

[Publius]

it sure is. one of my favorite military stories ever. i always picture a desperate battle against the undead in terms of that battle - without the red coats of course.

Indeed. On the Boer War theme, The Defence of Duffer's Drift is a must-read for anyone interested in small-unit tactics, and can be found online here (http://www.angelfire.com/oh5/duffersdrift/).

[FoodFight]

Well,
I live rather close to SRP. On the far side of Ocala, that population of 114,000 you were mentioning. Something that's difficult to understand when you simply look at the population numbers and a map is that Central Florida is riddled with 20-50 mile gaps of relative nothingness. Just roads running through undeveloped areas, a few horse and cattle ranches, and a smattering of small homes/double-wide trailers sitting on 10-20 fenced acres.


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'


I live like 30 miles from the edge of Ocala and the I-75 on ramp. That SOUNDS close to a large population. Until you consider that there's NOTHING to lead the zombies from town out in the direction of the daisy-chain of subdivisions near my home.

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.


The point I'm driving at is that you don't need to live in a town with a population under 1,000 that's next closest contact with civilization is another equally tiny town 40-50 miles away and separated by large tracts of farmland. Plenty of smaller, but still relatively populous cities (the ones you could more accurately call extremely large towns) have geographical oddities, and quirks in the population density that could conspire to give a fraction of the inhabitants a fighting chance.

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.

[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.

[Wyldwraith]

A problem with the bioengineered virus source,
Custom bio-weapons (not talking about stocks of anthrax, smallpox etc. I mean truly weaponized pathogens) are the province of those with access to a great deal of funding, the right personnel, and the necessary equipment and facilities to both create the pathogen, and maintain control of it so they don't end up infecting/killing themselves before they can utilize it elsewhere.

One thing that almost all true bio-weapons have in common is that whoever is pulling the strings insists upon an antidote/counter-agent for the pathogen. Yes, there ARE people insane enough to dispense with this precaution, but not many who possess the prerequisites to develop the bio-weapon in the first place.

Not saying it couldn't happen. Logistically difficult doesn't mean impossible, as those involved with the Manhattan Project proved. The scenario just doesn't strike me as any more likely than any other scenario.

How's this for a natural disaster large enough to get the unsecured body count up. What about a relatively clean miss by a Gamma Ray burst? Say something that missed us by a huge margin, but just enough to cause a few weeks of electronic havoc, tumble a few satellites out of the sky and increase global unrest via the cumulative result of these and several more minor but significant events?

Too improbable? How about unusually intense solar flare activity that builds up a sufficient electrostatic charge in the atmosphere. You'd end up with large geographical areas subjected to electrical discharges sufficient to cause havoc with unshielded electronics, with the next discharge as difficult to predict as a lightning strike. A zombie epidemic set against such a backdrop would stand a strong chance of getting extremely serious in a hurry.

Going back to my original theory for a moment though. I think you're underestimating the sheer number of people being moved around all over the place in the wake of something as localized as a severe hurricane. Katrina hits Louisiana and the next thing you know the surrounding states are inundated with refugees. That huge mass of homeless individuals that ended up encamped at that stadium would've been ripe for the infection to spread through their ranks like wildfire.

Overall though, I do believe you need a global-scope source for the zombie epidemic if it's going to become a global issue. The bioterrorism gone wrong angle does have certain benefits in that area.

It could be as simple as the next SARS being a pathogen that creates zombies out of the infected when they die, has a high rate of contagion/easily infectious, and the world has the misfortune of having a few infected individuals who aren't seriously symptomatic yet getting on international flights. Infect thirty people who are getting on thirty planes headed to twenty different countries and you have the makings of a zombie epidemic.

Why not? Mother Nature seems to enjoy designing viruses to kill us horribly of late. Don't really blame the planet either, all things considered. Why NOT a virus or bacterial infection that uses the host's body to actively spread itself?

[Trin]

What about a relatively clean miss by a Gamma Ray burst?
That would be fine except for all the Incredible Hulks it would create.

The first round of zombies wouldn't have a chance against all those Incredible Hulks. It would only take a few Incredible Hulks to wipe out hordes of zombies given their strength, endurance, and tolerance to pain/injury.

Of course, the first round of zombies would get quite a few bites in, which means that the second round of zombies would be Incredible Hulk zombies.

Which, by itself is not a problem. Zombies don't tend to get mad so the Incredible Hulk zombies would, by and large, never be worse than regular zombies.

With the noteworthy exception of the Big Daddy Incredible Hulk zombies. Now THOSE would be some badassed zombies indeed. They'd get mad, howl into the air, and turn into zombie Incredible Hulks and go on a serious rampage. No barricades or defenses would withstand the Big Daddy zombie Incredible Hulks once angered.

And for that reason, I agree that Gamma Rays could form the basis of a serious zombie outbreak.

[AcesandEights]

Of course, the first round of zombies would get quite a few bites in, which means that the second round of zombies would be Incredible Hulk zombies.


Shhhhh!

Zack Snyder might hear you.

[Publius]

And for that reason, I agree that Gamma Rays could form the basis of a serious zombie outbreak.

LOL
:p

[sandrock74]

That would be fine except for all the Incredible Hulks it would create.

The first round of zombies wouldn't have a chance against all those Incredible Hulks. It would only take a few Incredible Hulks to wipe out hordes of zombies given their strength, endurance, and tolerance to pain/injury.

Of course, the first round of zombies would get quite a few bites in, which means that the second round of zombies would be Incredible Hulk zombies.

Which, by itself is not a problem. Zombies don't tend to get mad so the Incredible Hulk zombies would, by and large, never be worse than regular zombies.

With the noteworthy exception of the Big Daddy Incredible Hulk zombies. Now THOSE would be some badassed zombies indeed. They'd get mad, howl into the air, and turn into zombie Incredible Hulks and go on a serious rampage. No barricades or defenses would withstand the Big Daddy zombie Incredible Hulks once angered.

And for that reason, I agree that Gamma Rays could form the basis of a serious zombie outbreak.

I would HATE to meet the zombie who can bite thru the Hulks skin!

[Trin]

Too improbable? How about unusually intense solar flare activity that builds up a sufficient electrostatic charge in the atmosphere. You'd end up with large geographical areas subjected to electrical discharges sufficient to cause havoc with unshielded electronics, with the next discharge as difficult to predict as a lightning strike.That is the same effect as the EMP I described, except from solar flares the effect is much smaller. However, even with solar flares it's still not small. The most severe of these occurred on March 13, 1989, and took out areas of North America and the UK. The US and Canada lost the power grid in many places along the North Eastern seaboard. To the tune of 6 million people out of power. An EMP would do the same thing to the entire US.


Shhhhh!

Zack Snyder might hear you.Dang man, you're right!! How irresponsible of me!!

What about zombies with frickin laser beams on their heads? Do you think Zack has throught of that?


I would HATE to meet the zombie who can bite thru the Hulks skin!The Hulks would only get bitten when they're not Hulked-out.

[SRP76]

Hulk couldn't remain Hulk. Once bitten and dead, the shambling "Banners" would no longer possess emotion, so they couldn't trigger the transformation. Any that were Hulk when they croak would have the same problem: they'd calm, then revert.

[Trin]

Hulk couldn't remain Hulk. Once bitten and dead, the shambling "Banners" would no longer possess emotion, so they couldn't trigger the transformation. Any that were Hulk when they croak would have the same problem: they'd calm, then revert.Yes, I mentioned that, but you need to go back and read about the Big Daddy Incredible Hulks. They get plenty mad.

[AcesandEights]

the Big Daddy Incredible Hulks. They get plenty mad.

Hrm...point, counterpoint.

Well played, Mr. Trin. Well played, indeed.

[MoonSylver]

You guys better tone down your comic-book-geek-thread-derailer...someone may come along & lock you out.:lol:

[sandrock74]

You know...only Iron Man would be safe from zombies. He could sleep in the middle of the street and not have to worry about zombies! That's where I would be during a zombie apocalypse...in the Iron Man armor!

[Crappingbear]

You guys need to read the Marvel Zombies graphic novel series. Hulk is the baddest zombie of all and Iron Man gets nails pretty easily. Even Galactus goes down to them.

[Trin]

You guys better tone down your comic-book-geek-thread-derailer...someone may come along & lock you out.:lol:

Yeah, we wouldn't want the thread locked before its run its course. :p:lol:

But, in all seriousness, Wyldwraith made some good points before I derailed it. Everyone should go back and read his posts...

I think it's worth mentioning that a slightly different kind of infection works well to add plausibility to a global scenario. Look at I Am Legend (book more than movie). The populace became infected - self-infected actually since it was a drug they voluntarily took. The length of time between the populace becoming infected and the effects being seen justifies how the infection spread to the world and became global prior to anyone realizing the nature of the problem.

[Wyldwraith]

Thanks Trin,
I am Legend was actually something I thought about when trying to come up with viable means for a zombie-uprising cause that could go global. Everything I follow through to a foreseeable conclusion says it would HAVE to be one of two general sources.

1) The various and previously discussed pathogen theories. A virus, bacteria, microbial parasite, fungus, mold etc. The key to this theory is either a 1-2 environmental + pathogen punch. Like say if the mold-based illnesses that developed in the wake of the tsunami in Asia, or Katrina zombified the victims the mold killed. Viable, because what does science really know about the various microorganisms which normally make their home at the bottom of millenia-old swamps/bayous and on the ocean floor below a few hundred feet?

2) Something from space. The tail of a close-passing comet disseminating some chemical, alien pathogen, radioactive dust into a large portion of the upper atmosphere. A significant-sized meteorite impact that accomplishes the same atmospheric saturation by different means etc.

Everything else I come up with just doesn't seem to have the endurance, ability to widely proliferate, or cause enough deaths in enough places to get a sufficient number of zombies up and killing/infecting others to cause a major undead pandemic. Bio-terrorism was the runner up, but most terrorist organizations love taking credit for their work, so that's a built in warning to the authorities to get on the ball. Even without it, it's still a somewhat localized event unless very well planned. In which case it would amount to the same thing as a natural epidemic.

The reason the disaster + zombie-causing pathogen scenario is a favorite of mine is that any significant natural disaster would already be stretching national resources pretty harshly to respond in a timely manner. An additional threat on the heels of such a population-displacing/mass-casualty situation has all the right earmarkings to spell big trouble even in a developed nation. In the Third World the results could be exponentially worse.

End of the day: Zombies are all about the numbers. Fans of survival horror tend to be fascinated with the endgame scenario. Something about 98.5% of the world population shambling around eating the few remaining humans tickles our love-affair with potential extinction. Which is really just a play on large-scale applications of the Man vs Wild principle.

Of course that's just my theory. Whatever the reason, we fans don't tend to give nearly as much thought as to how those massive undead hordes get spawned. We just blithely assume that the police, military and every other type of agency fails, then the world descends into an anarchy-buffet for the undead.

I think that might by why even people who don't particularly like (or even hate) Dawn '04 tend to say things like "The first fifteen minutes were cool..." Because we don't get those glimpses of how it all kicks off very often. It was novel.

I think the OTHER reason we don't tend to dwell on the beginning and middle of such a scenario is that the thousand of personally horrifying moments that would make up the beginning of the end of the world aren't entertaining in the way that the more abstractly horrifying endgame is. It's one thing to look at a deserted city populated by thousands of zombies like the scene at the beginning of Day. It's quite another to watch neighborhood after neighborhood be slaughtered, reanimate and join the cresting wave breaking over what's left of the population centers. Which is weird, because in limited doses we enjoy that too. World War Z proved that.

You know, in writing this I've become to wonder what's more macabre. The idea of reanimated human beings hunting down and eating humans, or our fascination with the possibility. Must be that fascination with the unnatural and the breaking of taboos. Another theory anyways.

Just my meandering thoughts.

[Crappingbear]

Just to remind everyone that a survivor attitude is critical. You think you are bait and you are. You think you are the top of the food chain and you at least have a chance. Remember the Alamo! It they want it, they have to come and take it; no rolling over and giving up. I'd rather face a horde with 3 people armed with 2x4 boards who will never give up than a battalion with shotguns who are already convinced they will die.

[Publius]

Everything else I come up with just doesn't seem to have the endurance, ability to widely proliferate, or cause enough deaths in enough places to get a sufficient number of zombies up and killing/infecting others to cause a major undead pandemic.

True, bottom line is it's darn HARD to make zombies into a real global threat. Especially without putting together multiple catastrophes that are not logically related in a 1-2 punch, which requires a huge coincidence.


Just to remind everyone that a survivor attitude is critical.

Hear, hear. I think Winston Churchill woulda put it something like this:

"Even though large parts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the undead and all the odious anarchy of zombie rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight in the cities and hamlets, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength from the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and shuffling, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the Old."

The Spartans at Thermoplyae mighta said "molon phage" to Persian zombies. ;)

[SRP76]

Remember the Alamo!

Yeah. They all croaked.

[Trin]

I agree the 1-2 punch of national disaster along with some kind of zombie outbreak is too coincidental.

Another possible scenario. Let's say some future incarnation of the flu (bird, swine, lemur, vegga-pigmy) runs loose. Assume it is highly contagious and has a high mortality rate (for the flu at least).

Then let's assume that the government attempts to hurry through a vaccine for it in hopes of protecting the world's population. The virus mutates and some interaction between virus and vaccine causes anyone who dies to be reanimated as a flesh-hungry zombie.

The initial outbreak of flu would tax health and government resources. The high mortality rate would lead to an increase in the number of unburied corpses. A vaccine would be given to large groups of the population. The zombies themselves would blend in to a certain extent because terminally ill flu patients already look deathly and act oddly due to high fever. It's more realistic how this kind of zombie might not immediately become apparent as threatening or as a dead creature.

This is still a 1-2 punch, but the infection (1) would lead to the out of control government biological agent (2). The scenario has merit.

[Wyldwraith]

Agreed,
Anytime you have human beings messing with microorganisms the chance for complete disaster rises by a huge margin. Just look at how many people whiny patients and lazy doctors have doomed by the unnecessary prescription and ingestion of antibiotics.

I could buy the botched vaccine + viral interaction. Still might not go global, but it would certainly make a slaughterhouse of the continent it began on.

As to the theory that the zombies might appear less threatening due to their flu-based origins, I think that might go out the window when the cannibalistic behavior made itself evident. No variation of the influenza virus has ever consistently caused psychotic breaks or violence-prone dementia.

It might very well get some more medical health professionals killed though.

About the natural disaster + zombie epidemic 1-2 punch theory. I wasn't advocating it as extremely likely, or ignoring the huge coincidence required to make the theory work. I was just illustrating the theory I thought had the best chance of going global.

Question: In the vaccine + flu interaction = zombie theory, do the zombies then become directly infectious even to non-vaccinated individuals?

[AJ]

Rabies. A new variety created by the vacines they're playing with now.

I have enough ammo. - AJ