the practicallity of a zombie apocalypse

[TheCalliton]

first, read this thread http://forums.nexusmods.com/index.php?/topic/688789-top-ten-reasons-a-zombie-apocalypse-would-fail/page__pid__5472177__st__10#entry5472177

 

Now, letgs have an intelligent discussion as to why a zombie apocalypse would fail/succeed

 

 

int his post im going to focus on the practicality of the virus itself and how certain weapons would be innaporpriate for zombie slaying (my facorite past time)

 

 

first off, the virus itself would have to be transmitted through all bodily fluids to have any chance of a high success rate, just biting wouldnt work well, the zombie would have to get close, and we arent that stupid.

now, different zombie viruses would behave in certain ways

 

first off, the way of taking control of the brain

the virus would have to work in one of two basic ways (they would probably have differences in how specificly, these are the basics)

direct control: this would be where the virus shuts down the more "civilized" areas of the brain, reducing us to animals, usually destroying the frontal lobe along with a couple other areas of the brain. This would be a pretty quick control depending on if the virus could be fought against by the body, or if it was sneaky/powerful enough to bypass the immune system

 

the second would be to actually kill the host temporarily and reeanimating (very quickly i might add) the dead body. This would involve the same proccess with the brain, but more extreme and faster (see the walking dead for a good example) this would bypass the immune system almost entirely due to the body being dead.

 

second, intelligence

now, depending on how much fo the brain is disabled/destroyed by the virus, it could become quite intelligent (see 28 days later for a good example, those zombies can climb) where as with the walking dead, the zombie virus seems to have a poor grasp on the coordination. It could be theorized that some viruses could even gain enough control and leave enough of the brain intact to communicate with the uninfected (theory only) though the virus's affects on the body might be too detrimental and kill the host before that point (see the black guy chained up in 28 days later, he pukes a lot of blood) the less coordinated zombies would probably have a much more aggressive virus and would most likely be killed by the virus itself. It could be reasoned that the virus itself doesnt take over, but simply screws over the brain to the point of zombification. To adress the idea of zombies recognizing each other, the virus would have to take controll of the brain and or release a scent through the pores of the body, this scent could be copied or harvested (harvesting would risk infection though) to save yourself from zombies

 

 

third: killing

Forget shotguns, those pellets wouldnt get through to the skull to destroy the brain unless you were point blank, at which point blood would get on you and infect you. To kill a zombie you would have to basically paralyze, or decapitate them (or destory the brain) thats if they have inhuman endurance, if they dont, just kill them like a normal human, but from as far as possible. Use a higher callibur gun, a 9mm probably wouldnt be enough, you wanna get a round into the skull to destroy the brain. Grab a .45 (1911 would be an excellent choice since you couldnt go to a gunshop to get it fixed) or an AK type weapon (the 47 was higher callibur, and the 74 has a high enough round velocity to penetrate the skull) slug rounds from a shotgun could be usefull, but pellets would be almost entirely uselss. explosive would be effective, but risky, the chance of blood and body parts getting to you could outwieght the effectiveness of a grenade, avoid using explosives when close to a zombie, traps would be best

 

 

now, DISSAGREE WITH ME!

[Vagrant0]

Movie style zombies are about as likely as that penis enlargement cream that you get from e-mail ads doing anything but making your groin smell funny and your pocket be less full.

 

But.

 

Explaining to a zombie that they're physically impractical and using a fictitious model of how you think they function won't change how they actually function.

 

If you go off the thematic elements of a zombie movie... Endless hordes of mindless people who mill about oblivious to their own damned existence and only interested in the pursuit of one thing, which usually results in their own destruction... We've had zombies for quite a long time now, they live and work among us, and we do our best to just ignore them.

[saadus]

http://zombie.wikia.com/wiki/Zombies_%28Max_Brooks%29

 

Read it and weep. While you are weeping, barricade your doors. :ohdear:

[etang3]

Oh good lord, the things I would do to fight in a zombie apoc :3

[etang3]

Also, partial destruction of the Cerebellum and the parts of the frontal and temporal lobe would be enough to trigger a total degradation in social conventions and therefore, initiate inhumane behavior, it would work in the same way as Meth-amphetamines, debilitating areas of the brain, resulting in both slowed physical abilities but total lose of sense of pain and comprehensive loss of social control

[Nadimos]

What if we are already zombies in the making without knowing it by consuming industrial produced food and that is the end plan of somebody? Edited June 6, 2012 by Nadimos

[Tidus44]

The thread brought up a number of questions/thoughts - all generally stupid and in jest.

 

Movie style zombies are about as likely as that penis enlargement cream that you get from e-mail ads doing anything but making your groin smell funny and your pocket be less full.

 

I... umm..... ahem.... how do..... err... what does.... on second thought, I think I'm not particularly interested in finding out how someone knows that this particular body part enhancing cream has a smell let alone what it smells like.

 

Oh good lord, the things I would do to fight in a zombie apoc :3

 

On which side? Are you an urban or rural dweller? Would you do it for a Klondike Bar?

Given the spread of virus as the cause, all (or the vast majority) of urban dwellers will be overcome before they realize the virus is out and survival as a human will be based on some weird and improbable situation that has minimal numbers of citified humans avoiding the virus, but unlikely to escape the city to safer areas or avoid the shuffling hoards hunting them.

Meanwhile, us rural folk will be free and clear of the rapid and massive outbreak and the most likely to avoid the virus and its consequences to survive as humans. Should the outbreak occur, I guess I'l be seeing you city folk eventually, but most likely it'll be through the sights on my weapon.

 

third: killing

Experience tells me that the average person given a handgun and told to shoot it at the ground will miss in the attempt. As for a .45cal (1911 or otherwise) most will probably break a wrist or knock themself unconscious when the weapon hits them in the forehead the first time they fire it. So much for survival.

As for the 9mm verses .45cal debate (which has gone on forever and is pointless), all I will say is that both will penetrate approximately the same distance and expand to about the same size with the difference being one does it at ~800fps and the other at ~1200fps. However, there are a number of good reasons why the 9mm is selected by police and NATO and its generally because the weapon isn't intended to be used exclusively at a nice safe shooting range during the day while firing single shots at a static target as one is securely braced in a shooting stance. Go figure.

 

Given the detailed overview at the link provided by saadus, I would prefer a nice Remington or Mossberg combat shotgun with a 30 round mag filled with 3-8 slug or 20 fleshette ammunition. I don't need to kill a zombie (time will do that), I just got to avoid and/or outrun them and the time it would take to become an expert marksman to use a handgun effectively to obtain a headshot just isn't available once the apocalypse starts.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Tidus44

[Maharg67]

I have doubts that a 'virus' spread from blood to blood would spread as quickly as zombie movies show them to, even if shambling zombies carry the plague.

 

I also consider that there will be found ways of containment, of knocking down zombies and then dealing with them, and that often guns will not be the best answer.

 

Training people to work together using shields and stabbing implements made in many ways, would probably kill as many zombies.

 

Go all medieval on the zombies, direct them, trick them, contain them, knock them down and then kill them. Strongly weighted nets could drop many zombies to be killed at will later as could trap door pits filled with stakes. Showers of arrows, all dropping to smash into exposed zombie heads, might do the trick and most of the arrows could more easily be reused and repaired; showers of arrows, falling from the sky, have devastated many armies over the years; while else would the Roman Legionaries develop the 'tortoise' formation in which many shields protected them from arrows falling down on them. Many of the Roman Legionary tricks used on wild charges of tribal warriors would work just as well on shambling hordes of zombies.

 

How about some nice anti-triffid guns?

 

Another doubt I have is about immunity. It is extremely rare that there would be no immunities to the virus. Even the infamous Black Death of Europe, and the European viruses that killed so many in the Third World, did not kill everybody and survivors often gained a stronger resistance. The Europeans suffered far less from the viruses that they took to South and Central America than did the poor people there. The question would be about survivors being able to pass on their immunity and if they would be carriers or not.

Edited June 7, 2012 by Maharg67

[Vagrant0]

I... umm..... ahem.... how do..... err... what does.... on second thought,

Do you know of any better way to convey the true meaning of:

 

"Yeah, it probably won't work at all like you are led to believe no matter how convincing that the information might be or who it is coming from, and rather than be this thing that you think it will be, it will be something completely different and potentially much much worse than you had planned in addition to making you feel like an utter jackass for even entertaining the thought that it might actually work that way, but you still have to deal with the end result somehow. And even if it did work, you probably wouldn't like the results as it could include additional daily discomfort, health issues, and neither actually accomplishing what you were hoping to achieve, nor address those many other glaring problems which might be present."

 

I mean... really. About the only reason why people might WANT a zombie apocalypse is so that they can show off in their elite zombie killing skills and benefit from increased popularity from a smaller gene-pool with scores of people who could use a big, strong, man (or woman) around to "take care of business". I mean, the analogy can't be any more obvious.

[saadus]

What a lot of people don't take into account is how the zombies attack us psychologically.

 

Who can really smash in a child's skull? A grandmother's face? How can you kill your undead spouse, with her blue eyes staring right at you?

 

It is supremely easy to kill zombies, but only a ruthless killer with no conscious can kill zombies with impunity and not be affected.

 

How many here can easily say "I will kill my family if they are zombies?" honestly. I couldn't. I don't have that kind of ruthlessness in me to do so.