I don't see how humans can lose to zombies.

[bugrimmar]

Ka-pi96 said:

bugrimmar said:

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.

1. Let's see... Huns, Mongols, Italo-Ethiopian War and the Vietnamese war to name just a few. Although the country that wins a war is often also the larger of the two countries. So it isn't just technology.

2. If it isn't contained those kind of weapons wouldn't really work though. How would wiping out an area and all the zombies in it be useful if there was also zombies everywhere else. If you are just going to bomb everywhere on the planet then yeah... that could arguably be called a loss for humanity.

3/4 it's not that they would disappear, more that you would need a way to actually get them to the places you need them, which could be difficult depending on how big the zombie outbreak is.

It wouldn't just be one big battle at the end though. The remaining humans would have to slowly and carefully take back parts of the world. Some countries really wouldn't stand a chance so you could have large swathes of land with nothing but zombies. Even when taking land back you'd have to be very careful about it, any mistakes could end up with a lot more deaths.

1. Huns and Mongols had superior military technology and tactics. If you study both civilizations (I did, part of my thesis in history), they weren't mindless savages. On the contrary, they had very sophisticated strategies they used that the other countries couldn't counter and both are being studied in various military academies around the world.

For instance, the Hunnic or Mongol bow had far greater range than any other bows around that time. The strength was produced by the double recurve design as well as the materials used. Also, their superior horsemanship allowed them to outmaneuver their clumsy opponents (i.e., European Knights who only knew how to charge forward).

In the (first) Italo-Ethiopian war, the Ethiopians were financed and armed by other Western powers such as Russia (to add, Ethiopia eventually became colonized by Italy, so the superior tech won in the end). Aside from that, they were fighting on home soil. Similar with the Vietnamese, home soil was crucial in their victory.

In a zombie vs. human war, who has home soil? Obviously humans, who are defending their homes and families, and have a much greater motivation to win.

2. Zombies are mindless, so they can easily be drawn and cornered into an area where they can be wiped out. Unmanned drones and robots can be used for this simple purpose.. draw them into one area, then bomb the heck out of them. Would the zombies know what's coming? No way.

3/4. The US government has a massive stockpile of ammunition. Are you going to assume that the outbreak will start WITHIN the military? If that's the case, then you win. However, even my local gun store around the corner has hundreds of grenades and thousands of bullets on sale. I don't think humans would ever have a hard time securing weapons.

I'm not talking about one big battle either. It's simple mechanics.. just like the way the US made Iraq fall to their knees in less than a week. Bombing, air strikes, raids, etc. will take their toll without a single casualty. There's really too much power behind the military now to be threatened by a bunch of wild animals.