News Zombies to take over ze world!!

[leviathane]

It's offical zombies could take over the world if they existed

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Science ponders 'zombie attack'

 

[kiliarien]

Zombies rock. I want this T-shirt:



Can get it from ThinkGeek :: Zombie Protest but it being stateside I wait until there's a number of shirts I want/need to save on shipping.

 

[Ezteq]

yeah but if there was a zombie attack we would need to buy apocolypse clothing wouldn't we...nerd t-shirts are not the done thing.


[apocolypse clothing i.e. knee high boots, leather stuff (but not shirts...while they would not be gay they would be highly unsuitable, potentially having the same effect as a red shirt in star trek), bandanas, those really long coats that come with shot guns inside them etc, think Mad Max, Res. Evil etc]

 

[Ezteq]

lol further to my original post...

Why vampires would have a population problem - Short Sharp Science - New Scientist

check out the "more plausable explanation..." hehe

 

[TdC]

If zombies actually existed, an attack by them would lead to the collapse of civilisation unless dealt with quickly and aggressively.

well duh. you know, articles like this make me despair for the current scientific community.

 

[soze]

If its the slow moving ones i think we would be fine the British Army are trained well I'm sure they could average 20 head shots from 30 bullets And forget about it if they let the SAS lose they love a double tap to the head anyway

 

[Lucius]

If its the slow moving ones i think we would be fine the British Army are trained well I'm sure they could average 20 head shots from 30 bullets And forget about it if they let the SAS lose they love a double tap to the head anyway

As much as I'd like it to be so - fighting in wars isn't the same as playing Call of Duty - many other factors come into it, it is by no means easy. These games glamourise war and I don't think it's fair.

 

[soze]

As much as I'd like it to be so - fighting in wars isn't the same as playing Call of Duty - many other factors come into it, it is by no means easy. These games glamourise war and I don't think it's fair.

Killing slow moving zombies is not what i would call a war, more target practice.

 

[Lethul]

Killing slow moving zombies is not what i would call a war, more target practice.

How do you know real zombies would be slow!? What if its I Am Legend kinda zombies?!

 

[TdC]

How do you know real zombies would be slow!? What if its I Am Legend kinda zombies?!

then soze gets it and we live just that little bit longer

 

[swords]

well duh. you know, articles like this make me despair for the current scientific community.

Yeah cos this is the standard by which all scientific endeavour is judged
Some postgrad has done a bit of modelling and they've just done this zombie thing as media bait. It's articles like this that make me despair for the current media community more like

 

[TdC]

Yeah cos this is the standard by which all scientific endeavour is judged
Some postgrad has done a bit of modelling and they've just done this zombie thing as media bait. It's articles like this that make me despair for the current media community more like

your way of putting it is indeed better however bashing the media is about just as worthwhile as bashing some grad who modelled how long it would take a zombie horde to kill/infect the rest of us imo.

you see, for some strange reason I find sensationalist screeching that (example) CERN is going to kill us all when they run the LHC to be good for the science community in general, but the equally sensationalist doom prophecies of death at the hands of a zombie horde to be rather detrimental.

 

[soze]

How do you know real zombies would be slow!? What if its I Am Legend kinda zombies?!

Well i don't but that's why i said slow moving zombies not just zombies

But i have got a neg rep for not showing our troops support by suggesting they could handle a zombie infestation im not sure how being confident in there ability is not showing support but there you go

 

[Lethul]

Well i don't but that's why i said slow moving zombies not just zombies

But i have got a neg rep for not showing our troops support by suggesting they could handle a zombie infestation im not sure how being confident in there ability is not showing support but there you go

Aww, i'll give you some to make it up for the lost points

nope, i must spread some more rep around first

 

[swords]

Like the academics with links to well known academic societies making a forumla for x where x is a product produced by company y who sponsor the research...

Formulas for:
Most depressing day of the year
How to brew the perfect cup of tea
When Kerry Katona will outbreed the human race...

Despair squid!

 

[Raven]

Its no different from those that study the environment, they are paid vast sums of money by governments to study climate change because its highly taxable. Rather than investigating properly they are asked to prove that its all our fault. More bullshit data, more money.

They will do pretty much anything for a grant.

 

[old.Tohtori]

They could have just lifted up a copy of world war Z and say "This guy is pretty much correct"

It's the mass that counts.

 

[TheBinarySurfer]

They could have just lifted up a copy of world war Z and say "This guy is pretty much correct"

It's the mass that counts.

Good book.

The guy also illustrates the key problem with zombies - barring the unit DM's most soldiers are not going to be hitting the head at anything over a hundred feet or so (and then usually not on the first shot).

To give you an idea - a trained soldier can reliably hit a man-sized target in the chest at 100-200 metres depending on gear and level of training. A sniper can tag a man in the chest all the way out to 1000 metres commonly, and 2000 metres under ideal conditions. Headshots beyond 600 metres for a sniper would be incredibly difficult, especially if the target is moving (because the bullet takes time to travel the distance). Also a rifle capable of hitting a human head beyond 500 metres would almost certainly be a single-shot affair.

Explosives fired from artillery / missiles etc are generally the accepted way to kill large numbers quickly rather small arms, and unfortunately they kill by a heat (burning the lungs alevoli shut for example as well as exterior burns), overpressure (the fluids in your body behave much like a water balloon struck by a falling breeze block when hit by a powerful shockwave) and fragments.

Because (theoretically) zombies only have a 2-3 inch radius circle (called "the peach" by marksmen because if you put a peach on your nose, that's roughly the size of the "instant kill" zone on a human head). which would completely destroy the brain, and are largely immune to fire (until burned to the bone at any rate), and totally immune to pain and bodily injury artillery would be grossly ineffective against them except for those within extremely close proximity to the shell.

To give you an idea a typical 105mm (your generic basic artillery shell) round only has a kill radius of 30m on an unarmoured human that is not in cover. That kill is largely dependant on pain, fragments, heat and overpressure (all of which are largely ineffective in this theoretical situation).
Edit: Tests on dummies have shown that most bodies remain intact beyond 15m.

The only thing that might be effective is one of the thermobaric bombs - and i'd imagine that's only within the vapourisation radius (which isn't that big compared to the blast/shock radius).

Wow. Nerd-essay. I've given this far, far too much thought!

 

[fettoken]

Get medieval with those zombies imo. They wouldn't stand a chance in the ~1400-1600, or in japan, in the 1800´s. But now, they would have a field day with us.

 

[Lethul]

Wall of text

Sure sure. I'm a "trained soldier" in Sweden (so not very professional!). And seeing how the stereotypic zombies move I wouldn't really have to start shooting at several hundreds of meters. I can wait until they are between 5-10 meters from me and I _WILL_ headshot from there

 

[swords]

Its no different from those that study the environment, they are paid vast sums of money by governments to study climate change because its highly taxable. Rather than investigating properly they are asked to prove that its all our fault. More bullshit data, more money.

They will do pretty much anything for a grant.

.... No it is very different from that actually.

 

[Lucius]

.... No it is very different from that actually.

I think Raven was pretty much correct .

 

[swords]

No, I suspect that instead of thinking you've watched "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and treated it as gospel.

 

[Marc]

Id just get a shit load of food and put it in my bedroom. Then id destroy the stairs in my house and wait it out until all the soldiers who were deployed overseas make it home to waste the zombies. Problem solved.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Sure sure. I'm a "trained soldier" in Sweden (so not very professional!). And seeing how the stereotypic zombies move I wouldn't really have to start shooting at several hundreds of meters. I can wait until they are between 5-10 meters from me and I _WILL_ headshot from there

You really should read world war z to really get what he was saying though.

At 5-10 meters, with about 300 zombies coming(low amount considering), how many you think you can drop before you're overpowered?

The problem with zombies isn't killing one, or two. Any kid with a bicycle pump can do that. The problem comes with the sheer amount of people in the world and the amount even a small village would produce.

Imagine new york, 5 million or so people, with even a 50% turn rate you'd have 2.5million zombies roaming the streets.

 

[soze]

Soldiers are not on there own if you have 30 soldiers that could head shot from 25 meters 300 zombies would be toast Not to mention vehicle mounted guns

 

[old.Tohtori]

On open ground, 30 soldiers could take out 300 zombies.

Now take into consideration all the towns, all the cities, all the people around etc.

Suddenly it becomes; 30 soldiers vs a town of 9000 when the military gets spread around.

Nukes, missiles, heavy artillery. This works on zombie groups, but would the nations of the world(even in their chaotic situation) allow nuking of major cities because there might be 10% survivors there?

Adding to that, we would be thinspread on humans anyway, so if we go gun-ho on killing zmobies without any regard to civilians, re-population would be our next obstacle.

Then let's think about the eradication of a world spread zombie contamination.

All it takes is one zombie or infected person to survive and it could all start over. First time would take all our assets to be repelled, second time we would be annihilated for sure.

If a zombie apocalypse does come into play, the only option is to think of your own hide(group), try to survive and find a nice place to spend the rest of your life

Military won't help you.

 

[soze]

Zombies come for living things the army could just bait them to open ground

 

[Raven]

No, I suspect that instead of thinking you've watched "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and treated it as gospel.

Never seen it.

My point is they are asked "to prove man has an impact on X" not "what is having an impact on X"

I don't doubt we have an impact but i greatly disagree its the impact its made out to be.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Zombies come for living things the army could just bait them to open ground

This would mean human bait.

Fair enough, a couple of soldiers hang out at a grassy plane, waiting to be eaten.

Where did you plan on putting the ambush group?

How did you plan on setting this ambush up, while holding all the directions of the compass clear of zombies?

How did you plan to do this in london?

Countryside is no problem, plenty of open space, retreat etc, no walls to get stuck on, but when the war goes to the city, you're shit out of luck