By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - I don't see how humans can lose to zombies.

In every zombie apocalypse scenario (assuming a human population continues to exist), I just can't see how humans can lose to zombies.

1. Zombies are stupid/mindless/crazed creatures that are incapable of higher thought. In 99% of situations, brain beats brawn. This is why throughout human history, the country with the better technology beats the country that relies on savage barbarians to do their fighting.

2. Humans have weapons that can wipe out mass populations with the touch of a button. Even if we leave out nuclear weapons (which are probably not recommended because they would destroy everything), there are other weapons of mass destruction that humans can use to wipe out every zombie in any given place without a pair of boots even touching the ground.

3. Zombies can't fly. Basically, they can't defend against air strikes or even simple helicopter rundowns. Only stupid pilots who fly too low to the ground would get jumped on. Even then, how can a zombie jump on a supersonic jet?

4. Zombies are still subject to human physical limitations. This means that their skin and organs are just as fragile as regular humans, and therefore they can be destroyed just as easily by fire, bullets, heavy impact, sharp objects, etc. This also means they can't tear through the armor of an Abrams tank because human fingers aren't strong enough to do so, even with amplified zombie strength. The bones would break and there's nothing that can be done about that. This means one tank can theoretically destroy all zombies by itself.

I'd compare a zombie army to a horde of uncivilized savages. They could've won a long time ago, but not now, even with the numbers advantage. Technology has made the zombie apocalpyse not really an apocalypse anymore.

Sorry, I just wanted to type a lot today..



Around the Network

East and West Coast USA would be fucked. The rest of America might survive.



Depends on your definition of "zombie" and how the entire thing kicks off.

What are the ground rules here?



                            

I have also never understood how it could even be suggested that unaffected humans would be on the losing side in a zombie apocalypse. Especially when dealing with old school zombies that couldn't run. Even with the new ones now that can run, I think any kinda concerted effort by humans with guns would make short work of them.

And has anyone ever wondered why in zombie movies no one seems to have grenades/explosives?



Carl2291 said:
Depends on your definition of "zombie" and how the entire thing kicks off.

What are the ground rules here?


Any definition from any movie/book/story. Based on the facts of human technology, we just can't lose, assuming we don't ALL turn into zombies.



Around the Network
Intrinsic said:

I have also never understood how it could even be suggested that unaffected humans would be on the losing side in a zombie apocalypse. Especially when dealing with old school zombies that couldn't run. Even with the new ones now that can run, I think any kinda concerted effort by humans with guns would make short work of them.

And has anyone ever wondered why in zombie movies no one seems to have grenades/explosives?

Guns are more readily available to the public while explosives are mostly controlled by the military. 

 

Imagine Europe trying to survive this thing with no guns. They would be dead a lot faster.



Well, at least the United States would be fine because of the Second Amendment.



"On my business card I am a corporate president. In my mind I am a game developer. But in my heart I am a gamer." - Satoru Iwata

chocoloco said:
Intrinsic said:

I have also never understood how it could even be suggested that unaffected humans would be on the losing side in a zombie apocalypse. Especially when dealing with old school zombies that couldn't run. Even with the new ones now that can run, I think any kinda concerted effort by humans with guns would make short work of them.

And has anyone ever wondered why in zombie movies no one seems to have grenades/explosives?

Guns are more readily available to the public while explosives are mostly controlled by the military. 

 

Imagine Europe trying to survive this thing with no guns. They would be dead a lot faster.

Well fine, but doesn't anyone have trucks? Tractors? You know, those heavy duty vehicles we all avoid. Those should make for some really good mow them down machinery. Like literally just drive right through thousands ofthem. Then reverse over them for good measure.



Intrinsic said:
chocoloco said:
Intrinsic said:

I have also never understood how it could even be suggested that unaffected humans would be on the losing side in a zombie apocalypse. Especially when dealing with old school zombies that couldn't run. Even with the new ones now that can run, I think any kinda concerted effort by humans with guns would make short work of them.

And has anyone ever wondered why in zombie movies no one seems to have grenades/explosives?

Well fine, but doesn't anyone have trucks? Tractors? You know, those heavy duty vehicles we all avoid. Those should make for some really good mow them down machinery. Like literally just drive right through thousands ofthem. Then reverse over them for good measure.

Yes... I like your thinking. The ability to drive heavy machinary could make you an alpha male. An ultimate killer. 



Ka-pi96 said:
1. Brain beating brawn is no where near 99% of the time. Oh, and lets not forget there are a LOT of really stupid humans out there as well (the ones that would run into a zombie infested building after a dog come to mind). And of course the numbers advantage. That's a really huge one, the zombie numbers would keep going up, they are easily replaceable. A human dies and it would take years for another one to be born and grow old enough to fight zombies.

2. This really depends how fast it spreads. If it isn't that fast then yeah it could be contained and eradicated. If it spreads fast though, especially internationally then it's a pretty big problem. Besides even if weapons like that were used it would still wipe out a lot of things, so you could still say a zombie apocalypse happened and destroyed a large part of the world.

3/4. Sure vehicles would be a big advantage to start with. But fuel and ammo are finite resources. Once they go then that advantage goes with them. If the zombie outbreak spreads fast enough then it could seriously affect the supply lines and mean those reserves don't last that long. Then all of a sudden the priority becomes saving the fuel rather than using it all in all out war against the zombies.

There are also other factors to consider. Firstly there is the element of surprise. You compared zombies to a horde of savages, but if a horde of savages were to attack it would be known about beforehand and preperations would be made. Zombies would be a complete surprise, no one would be ready. Most cities don't have tanks or jets just sitting around and would most likely be unable to cope with just the police force.

1. Not 99%, then 95%? Can you give me a historical example of a technologically lesser civilization beating a more advanced one in a war?

2. I'm not really talking abot containment. I'm talking about the ability to just destroy huge zombie populations at a touch of a button without the need for fighting men at all. Think about drones armed with huge bombs and missiles.

3/4. There's more fuel and ammo available on the earth now to eradicate every human on the face of the earth 10 times over. Why would these resources all of a sudden disappear? On one battleship alone, there are hundreds of thousands of high impact shells that could mow down an entire city full of zombies already.

I understand that people aren't prepared, but I'm assuming in this instance that the zombies have come out already, and the remaining humans are prepared to fight. In an engagement like that, there's simply no way the humans can lose.