Jump to content


Photo

US military vs Zombies


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
122 replies to this topic

#61 force_echo

force_echo

    Pretentious, Obnoxious, Annoying...humanity's last hope

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Interests:Anything Interesting

Posted 16 April 2011 - 08:10 AM

Day 5 is where it ends on your example. What, do you think humans mentally retarded? Oh, she got bit, and turned into a mindless decomposing corpse who bites other people. And surprise, surprise! The people she bit also turned into the same thing. It must just be a random coincidence though. Oh here comes a decomposing corpse! Let me walk over to it and give it a big hug!

#62 the atom

the atom

    SPOOOON!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 221 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Your mom's bedroom

Posted 16 April 2011 - 12:54 PM

That all hinges on everyone in the world being unable to figure out that the infection travels through bites and taking no precautions to warn people "If you have been bitten seek medical attention" or similar. It also requires the first police actions to not end in people being shot immediately when they rush police officers in a threatening manner.

I'm also wondering why zombies can only be killed if shot in the head. They are still humans, trauma and blood loss are still things that affect them.


Not if their body is almost completely shut down its not. However we may be talking about different zombies. Are you talking more about the 28 days later variety? And how would people be able to know its a disease at first? How do they know that their friends and loved ones couldn't be cured? It would take some time for the solid facts to emerge, and it would take some time for governments to admit to such a thing. Not to mention that we are an extremely cynical lot. Would you really believe it if some tabloid was screeching about an undead epidemic?

#63 the atom

the atom

    SPOOOON!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 221 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Your mom's bedroom

Posted 16 April 2011 - 01:07 PM

Day 5 is where it ends on your example. What, do you think humans mentally retarded? Oh, she got bit, and turned into a mindless decomposing corpse who bites other people. And surprise, surprise! The people she bit also turned into the same thing. It must just be a random coincidence though. Oh here comes a decomposing corpse! Let me walk over to it and give it a big hug!


When they're scared and confused humans are pretty damn retarded. Considering that it takes a couple days for any decomposition to show, people's first assumptions are not going to be "Oh no! zombies!". Zombies aren't supposed to exist remember? When someone gets bitten their first move isn't going to be, "Oh jeez i'm infected. I should kill myself". Humans don't work like that.

#64 the atom

the atom

    SPOOOON!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 221 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Your mom's bedroom

Posted 16 April 2011 - 01:24 PM

A is true, but B and C are things you can apply to zombies too. Most of the time zombies don't attack each other for no real explained reason, there's no reason to assume this is always the case and they'll be a mod of mindless beings who only attack non-zombies. And C is also an assumption put into several zombie movies for no reason other than "just cuz". Why can't there be a cure or innoculation for this zombie virus?



When did I say it was impossible? I've been saying that zombies would fail.

I'm talking about actual zombies though, mindless rotting reanimated dead corpses who somehow came back, or mindless people infected with a virus that, for some reason, makes them fall apart faster. It'd really help this debate if people specified what zombies we are talking about.


Yes, If we all narrow down what kind of zombies we are all talking about this could be easier. For the record, I'm going by the solanum zombie as seen in word war z and the zombie survival guide, as it's the most detailed and effective version I've seen yet.

#65 Guest_Falcon_*

Guest_Falcon_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 April 2011 - 02:54 PM

For the record once a disease that can turn people into zombies occurs its too late. You will NEVER kill them all. There will always be someone hiding after getting bit so others wont kill him. Then he would turn and it would start all over again.

Now, when you look at a pandemic what do you see first? Answer, the hospitals and medical experts try to find out what is wrong and just work out of a hospital while having some patients stay at the hospital and others go home. This is where it starts. Secondly, things escalate and the police would be called in to control the "rioters" that are actually zombies. This would go on for several days. Next you would have the military called in for security support. They would come in with guns and Hummers. They wouldnt have heavy weapons. Also in every instance the police and military are taught to aim at center mass because vital organs are held there. When they finally decide to fire at the "rioters" they would be stunned to realize that there bullets arent doing a whole lot other than knocking some off there feet but then they just get up. Fear would even set in among the military personnel because it would be a shocking development. The first rational thought wouldnt be to shoot the assailants in the head because since zombies arent real, no one would put two and two together right away. Those initial defenses would be overrun. Within this 2 to 4 week time span and entire city like New York could possibly be overtaken with zombies. Now you have roughly anywhere from 5 to 10 million zombies. We dont even have that many military personnel. Once they realize that shooting the zombies in the head is the only way to kill them, then comes the difficulty of actually doing it. (Im talking Dawn of the Dead or 28 Days/Weeks Later style zombies that sprint) A sprinting target would not be a simple shot to hit a about 1 foot by 1 foot area. From up close it would be but then its too late. It would take awhile before heavy machinery like tanks and such would be called in. Even then though the tank would want to do as little damage to the surronding buildings as possible. Also a tank is good but when the zombies surrond it, it will be in trouble. Yes it can grind through them but the human remains will begin to get lodged inside and gum up the tracks, making it immobile. They best way to stop a zombie infection is to recognize it right away and nip it in the bud. Otherwise the pure numbers could overwhelm even the best.

#66 Ruinus

Ruinus

    Plebiscite Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SupaFreedomland AKA USA
  • Interests:Star Wars, Guilty Gear, Guns N' Roses, astronomy, school, English, reading, science fiction, drawing, video games and playing guitar.

Posted 16 April 2011 - 04:21 PM

Not if their body is almost completely shut down its not. However we may be talking about different zombies. Are you talking more about the 28 days later variety? And how would people be able to know its a disease at first? How do they know that their friends and loved ones couldn't be cured? It would take some time for the solid facts to emerge, and it would take some time for governments to admit to such a thing. Not to mention that we are an extremely cynical lot. Would you really believe it if some tabloid was screeching about an undead epidemic?


No, blood loss, organ trauma and the like still affect zombies, either the Day of the Dead or 28 Days Later, their bodies don't suddenly become magical machines that are only stopped via brain damage. Bullets can still damage hearts and stop blood from being pumped throughout the body, hemothorax can occur, clogging up the body with blood in areas that don't belong, oxygen is still necessary and lungs can be damaged.

People would know its a disease easily because this is the real world where reality doesn't run on Zombie Movie conventions. The moment a batch of "rioters" is caught, someone will notice (probably as they are kept in jail) that they are obviously messed up. When the police officers who apprehended them fail to show up the next day (or are showing illness and strange behavior at work the next day) and then flip out and attack people, it does not take a medical genius to relaize something other than a simple mob riot is at hand.

Sure, the actual details may take some time to show up, for instance the chemical composition of the virus, how it attacks the CNS, its evolutionary path or whatever, but simple things like "The infected virus seems to travel through close contact," is easy stuff. And why, beyond a cynical worldview, would it take some time for the government to "admit to such a thing" rather than the realistic version of the government saying "Oh hey guys, there's this freaky virus going around that turns people into rabid murderers, report illnesses or ocntact with such people".

#67 Ruinus

Ruinus

    Plebiscite Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SupaFreedomland AKA USA
  • Interests:Star Wars, Guilty Gear, Guns N' Roses, astronomy, school, English, reading, science fiction, drawing, video games and playing guitar.

Posted 16 April 2011 - 04:28 PM

BTW, people like to point out that a zombie virus would spread faster than a damn Rick Roll video because of how easy transportation is in the modern age, except that pandemis have occured in real life, SARS, Swine Flu, etc. And yet... the world didn't come crashing down through a spread of a virus. In fact, the spread of SARS and Swine Flu have symptoms a little bit more subtle than "FLIPPING OUT AND KILLING EVERYONE ZOMBIE RARGH!"

#68 Redemption X

Redemption X

    Released the Kraken

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:DC Comics

    Marvel Comics

    science fiction

    fantasy

    classic/gothic horror

    classic videogames

    anime and manga

    giantesses

    fun movies

    That Guy With the Glasses

Posted 16 April 2011 - 05:09 PM

This site is rated PG-13. Whatever equivalent of the MPAA runs this site is not gonna let the zombies do anything to the military.

#69 DamagingRob

DamagingRob

    The Light In The Darkness

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,740 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Land of Lincoln
  • Interests:See About Me page.

Posted 16 April 2011 - 07:25 PM

This site is rated PG-13. Whatever equivalent of the MPAA runs this site is not gonna let the zombies do anything to the military.

Umm...have you watched TV lately? Zombie movies are practically unedited in terms of violence, they just take out certain cursewords and, if any, nude scenes. The rating of these TV-14.

#70 the atom

the atom

    SPOOOON!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 221 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Your mom's bedroom

Posted 16 April 2011 - 09:11 PM

No, blood loss, organ trauma and the like still affect zombies, either the Day of the Dead or 28 Days Later, their bodies don't suddenly become magical machines that are only stopped via brain damage. Bullets can still damage hearts and stop blood from being pumped throughout the body, hemothorax can occur, clogging up the body with blood in areas that don't belong, oxygen is still necessary and lungs can be damaged.

People would know its a disease easily because this is the real world where reality doesn't run on Zombie Movie conventions. The moment a batch of "rioters" is caught, someone will notice (probably as they are kept in jail) that they are obviously messed up. When the police officers who apprehended them fail to show up the next day (or are showing illness and strange behavior at work the next day) and then flip out and attack people, it does not take a medical genius to relaize something other than a simple mob riot is at hand.

Sure, the actual details may take some time to show up, for instance the chemical composition of the virus, how it attacks the CNS, its evolutionary path or whatever, but simple things like "The infected virus seems to travel through close contact," is easy stuff. And why, beyond a cynical worldview, would it take some time for the government to "admit to such a thing" rather than the realistic version of the government saying "Oh hey guys, there's this freaky virus going around that turns people into rabid murderers, report illnesses or ocntact with such people".


You know what would make this debate much easier? IF WE KNEW WHAT KIND OF FKING ZOMBIE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT!!!!! Are you referring to the rage virus? Or something similar? I am specifically referring to the walking dead. Not sure what your talking about.

Where is the pandemic originating? If it is spreading overseas, then yeah the government is more likely to tell more of the truth. If it's starting in the U.S. itself, then the government will likely try to deal with it quietly. Panic would cause the plague to spread 100% faster.

The other thing is that you act like trying to destroy every single zombie once the outbreak has been discovered would be an easy thing. Zombies are stupid, and would become distracted and wander away from the settlement in question. Even one zombie could potentially start an entire new outbreak.

#71 Guest_Falcon_*

Guest_Falcon_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 April 2011 - 11:12 PM

No, blood loss, organ trauma and the like still affect zombies, either the Day of the Dead or 28 Days Later, their bodies don't suddenly become magical machines that are only stopped via brain damage. Bullets can still damage hearts and stop blood from being pumped throughout the body, hemothorax can occur, clogging up the body with blood in areas that don't belong, oxygen is still necessary and lungs can be damaged.

Um not exactly. The Dawn of the Dead, Night of the Living Dead, etc. the zombies can only be killed by head shots. Body shots have no effect other than slowing them down. In 28 days/weeks later body shots worked because it was a rage virus and they were not real zombies.

#72 the atom

the atom

    SPOOOON!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 221 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Your mom's bedroom

Posted 16 April 2011 - 11:49 PM

BTW, people like to point out that a zombie virus would spread faster than a damn Rick Roll video because of how easy transportation is in the modern age, except that pandemis have occured in real life, SARS, Swine Flu, etc. And yet... the world didn't come crashing down through a spread of a virus. In fact, the spread of SARS and Swine Flu have symptoms a little bit more subtle than "FLIPPING OUT AND KILLING EVERYONE ZOMBIE RARGH!"

Theres a serious difference though. Swine flu didn't kill that many people considering how far it spread. It didn't even kill more people then the average flu. As a matter of fact it was only SLIGHTLY shittier then the average flu only considering how long it lasted. As far as SARS went they were aware of it pretty much the moment it started, as SARS patients aren't actively trying to spread their virus at every chance they could get.

#73 Ruinus

Ruinus

    Plebiscite Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SupaFreedomland AKA USA
  • Interests:Star Wars, Guilty Gear, Guns N' Roses, astronomy, school, English, reading, science fiction, drawing, video games and playing guitar.

Posted 17 April 2011 - 03:20 AM

You know what would make this debate much easier? IF WE KNEW WHAT KIND OF FKING ZOMBIE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT!!!!! Are you referring to the rage virus? Or something similar? I am specifically referring to the walking dead. Not sure what your talking about.


I've mentioned before:
"I'm talking about actual zombies though, mindless rotting reanimated dead corpses who somehow came back, or mindless people infected with a virus that, for some reason, makes them fall apart faster"

Where is the pandemic originating? If it is spreading overseas, then yeah the government is more likely to tell more of the truth. If it's starting in the U.S. itself, then the government will likely try to deal with it quietly. Panic would cause the plague to spread 100% faster.


No, you know what spreads the plague 100% faster? An ignorant population. What any smart government would do is tell people about the danger as soon as it occurs.

The other thing is that you act like trying to destroy every single zombie once the outbreak has been discovered would be an easy thing. Zombies are stupid, and would become distracted and wander away from the settlement in question. Even one zombie could potentially start an entire new outbreak.


And again to the Cracked article. A zombie that wanders out of a town, village, city, etc is in danger from wild animals and natural obstacles. If their virus cannot be passed on to creatures, then they go out into the wild and are killed by some animal, fall off a cliff, drown, fall down a pit, etc.

#74 Ruinus

Ruinus

    Plebiscite Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SupaFreedomland AKA USA
  • Interests:Star Wars, Guilty Gear, Guns N' Roses, astronomy, school, English, reading, science fiction, drawing, video games and playing guitar.

Posted 17 April 2011 - 03:23 AM

Theres a serious difference though. Swine flu didn't kill that many people considering how far it spread. It didn't even kill more people then the average flu. As a matter of fact it was only SLIGHTLY shittier then the average flu only considering how long it lasted.


Doesn't matter, as I wasn't talking about how many people it killed or not. I was pointing out that the idea of "omg a zombie plague would spread to all corners of the Earth in a few days tops!" is stupid, as several real world pandemics in modern times in modern nations (with airplane travel, train, cars, etc) failed to spread all around the world, or even to entire cities in single nations.

As far as SARS went they were aware of it pretty much the moment it started, as SARS patients aren't actively trying to spread their virus at every chance they could get.


Which was my point. SARS patients weren't running around attacking everything in sight, and yet people were aware of it almost immediately. Zombie plagues have infected people with symptoms a bit less subtle than SARS, so why would it be hard to spot? It wouldn't, hence, it wouldn't spread far.

#75 Guest_Falcon_*

Guest_Falcon_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 April 2011 - 06:53 AM

No, you know what spreads the plague 100% faster? An ignorant population. What any smart government would do is tell people about the danger as soon as it occurs.



As much stuff as our government covers up, you should know that they would downplay anything that would happen. Normally anything they tell you, its about 5 times worse than they will admit. Add in the fact that its the living dead and they definetly would not say it to everyone. They would sound crazy. The first thing the government would do is try to capturee some and look for a cure. Some retard in the pentagon would also want to learn how to weaponize it, just like they try with other diseases. In the process many more would become infected. You act as if the government was an all trusting service. Did you know that now in Mexico, the drug cartel has begun to board buses and search cars for Americans. Anyone with an American ID that they find they kill on the spot. If a zombie epidemic was happenning to some other country it would be all over the news. If it was in the US, you wouldnt here about it until it was at your front door.

#76 the atom

the atom

    SPOOOON!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 221 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Your mom's bedroom

Posted 17 April 2011 - 01:37 PM

Doesn't matter, as I wasn't talking about how many people it killed or not. I was pointing out that the idea of "omg a zombie plague would spread to all corners of the Earth in a few days tops!" is stupid, as several real world pandemics in modern times in modern nations (with airplane travel, train, cars, etc) failed to spread all around the world, or even to entire cities in single nations.



Which was my point. SARS patients weren't running around attacking everything in sight, and yet people were aware of it almost immediately. Zombie plagues have infected people with symptoms a bit less subtle than SARS, so why would it be hard to spot? It wouldn't, hence, it wouldn't spread far.


I agree that the speed at which the disease would spread is often overrated. It would take years to proliferate, and take possibly decades to become a problem.

Thing with SARS is is that, SARS patients complied with pretty much every single medical procedure necessary. A zombie wouldn't exactly be cooperative, and hunting down every single zombie would take some time. Add that to the fact that infected people aren't going to exactly be lining up to disease control once it is established that the virus is incurable, and that the only treatment is a bullet through the brain. Some might commit suicide, but others would not be so noble.

#77 the atom

the atom

    SPOOOON!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 221 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Your mom's bedroom

Posted 17 April 2011 - 01:46 PM

I've mentioned before:
"I'm talking about actual zombies though, mindless rotting reanimated dead corpses who somehow came back, or mindless people infected with a virus that, for some reason, makes them fall apart faster"



No, you know what spreads the plague 100% faster? An ignorant population. What any smart government would do is tell people about the danger as soon as it occurs.



And again to the Cracked article. A zombie that wanders out of a town, village, city, etc is in danger from wild animals and natural obstacles. If their virus cannot be passed on to creatures, then they go out into the wild and are killed by some animal, fall off a cliff, drown, fall down a pit, etc.


Any pathogen that would take over it's host to such a degree would likely have some defenses to microscopic organisms and possibly other carrion feeders.

Falcon has a point. While the government would probably give citizens some idea at first, they wouldn't want to disclose all the facts immediately. Any outbreak in the states would have to be dealt with smoothly and quietly. Keeping the population 100% ignorant would be a bad idea, but alerting them to the full extent of the outbreak would be a bad idea, at least at certain stages

Even a rouge zombie inside a city would be tough to track. All it takes is for a couple of homeless guys, or some drunk people staggering home from a party to bitten, and it starts all over.

#78 force_echo

force_echo

    Pretentious, Obnoxious, Annoying...humanity's last hope

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Interests:Anything Interesting

Posted 17 April 2011 - 02:06 PM

When they're scared and confused humans are pretty damn retarded. Considering that it takes a couple days for any decomposition to show, people's first assumptions are not going to be "Oh no! zombies!". Zombies aren't supposed to exist remember? When someone gets bitten their first move isn't going to be, "Oh jeez i'm infected. I should kill myself". Humans don't work like that.

No, but it would dawn by the second "round" of infections, that "oh hey, maybe people biting other people IS NOT NORMAL BEHAVIOR." People don't have to assume zombeism, they could just assume some mutated version of rabies. Oh btw, this brings me back to an earlier point. Even though we have treatments for rabies NOW, even back then when there was no treatments, no population has ever been recorded as being significantly infected with the disease.

#79 the atom

the atom

    SPOOOON!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 221 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Your mom's bedroom

Posted 17 April 2011 - 02:14 PM

No, but it would dawn by the second "round" of infections, that "oh hey, maybe people biting other people IS NOT NORMAL BEHAVIOR." People don't have to assume zombeism, they could just assume some mutated version of rabies. Oh btw, this brings me back to an earlier point. Even though we have treatments for rabies NOW, even back then when there was no treatments, no population has ever been recorded as being significantly infected with the disease.


That's because rabies does not have that effect on humans! There is no bacteria or virus that turns people into bloodthirsty monsters. People with rabies get sick and go to the hospital. And besides, once it is clear that people with an incurable disease are being shot in the head or thrown into permanent incarceration, there isn't going to be tons of cooperation from the infected.

#80 force_echo

force_echo

    Pretentious, Obnoxious, Annoying...humanity's last hope

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Interests:Anything Interesting

Posted 17 April 2011 - 04:41 PM

That's because rabies does not have that effect on humans! There is no bacteria or virus that turns people into bloodthirsty monsters. People with rabies get sick and go to the hospital. And besides, once it is clear that people with an incurable disease are being shot in the head or thrown into permanent incarceration, there isn't going to be tons of cooperation from the infected.

No, but without treatment, the disease is lethal, so yes, the two can be compared. Actually, they don't have to be shot in the head, only permanantly detained. And seeing as how the afflicted are mindless anyway, thats not gonna be a problem anyway.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users