Could you survive a zombie apocalypse?

Pshaw, no problem .... I mean, I have played Left for Dead, I watched 28 Days at least 3 times, and I have watched Scooby-Doo on Zombie Island. I consider myself very well prepared.

Considering my only weapon is a katana, I don't have that much food stocked up, and I live relatively close to a major city. Realistically, about a week.

I'd go steal, err.... "loot": combat rifles, multiple pistols, combat knife, flare gun, shotguns, tons of ammo, crossbow, flare gun (with a lot of flares), fishing gear, food, water, and a bunch of other stuff, then pile into someone's 70-foot yacht with as many friends and family as I could gather (gotta man the ship), and my dog, and we'd sail to Hawaii.

If Hawaii was infested, we'd just live out life on the sail-boat - did I mention it has an entertainment room? Once food ran out, we could use our fishing gear to fish, and since zombies will have killed off most life on Earth, the fish will re-populate faster, providing an almost infinite food source for the few people left on Earth. Zombies can't swim, so they couldn't infect the fish, either. Eventually we'd have to go ashore to get more supplies if we ran out, but only if necessary. If we did run into trouble on land while getting supplies, we'd have our weapons with plenty of ammunition, and I'm sure they have gun stores in Hawaii, right?

"Ah, Zombies!!! Head for the hills!!!"

Yeah, that's how I would react. Pretty obvious that I'd be the first to be picked off.

If it got to be 80% zombies, suicide for me.

FREAKING HTML IS NOT FORMED GO DO SOMETHING ELSE

Yyyyup.

Verge_6

Sharing is caring.

I think a month is the longest I'd be able to last. All the running away, panicking, depression and drama with other survivors would probably get to me after a month and I'd just shoot myself.

I took a quiz on how long i would survive a zombie apocalypse and it said i would last around to 1 1/2 to 2 years.

A good shotgun with an ample supply of shells...

Yes, I will survive.

Yes. I wouldn't even have to lift a finger. Mother Nature will do all the work.

Ever seen a corpse left out in Florida heat? The rotting alone would pwn the faces of most zombies. The ones that don't get pwned in the face by rotting, get pwned in the face by some dude with a gun.

How exactly would you have super fast, super smart zombies?metroidfood

Hah. Just to add on to what you said(as opposed to disputing with you) Super-smart zombies? Isn't that oxy-moronic? I can't for the life of me imagine a zombie horde thats capable of diplomacy, nor a bunch capable of yelling "suppressive fire!" when encountering a crowd of humans they need to combat.

Ya. The most dangerous parts of a zombie outbreak is the mass panic which is caused, making us vunerable for infection, thus making more zombies, making our chances lower,making us morre panicked, and so on.Fundai

Ehh even with mass panic the zombie apocalypse is overrated. Especially considering that by the time the military rolls in and kills the frak out of the zombie threat, it will most certainly alleviate the threat of any zombie apocalypse and maintain order in any given city. All just depends on the reaction time of the military which basically should be well fast enough before the entire city turns and before even 1/100ths of the city hits the hypothetical crapper.

Depends if they're runners or walkers. Deijhan

Why? Either one is just nothing but cannon fodder for machine gun fire and explosives. One group is more of a threat to civilians granted but that group just happens to run into their deaths faster when confronted by a militant and sufficiently armed group.

Most likely, I am very fast and pretty strong. Not saying I would be fist fighting zombies but being athletic is probably one of if not the most key factor, especially if they are runners or even joggers.

[QUOTE="Fundai"]

[QUOTE="supa_badman"]

Probably not.

Fear and irrationality would most likely overcome. That and no good enough weapons are on hand. At least I'm honest

supa_badman

Ya. The most dangerous parts of a zombie outbreak is the mass panic which is caused, making us vunerable for infection, thus making more zombies, making our chances lower,making us morre panicked, and so on.

Oh, and it's also my firm belief, that if civilization fell, 10% would be dead in a week. And thats WITHOUT zombies.

Unforteunately, i live in Canada, which doesen't help me as far as guns go either, scince you can't get anything automatic out here.

ANd thanks for recognizing you'd probaly die. Most people don't realize howimpossible it would be to live in a city, surounded by hundreds of thousands of zombies. Even if you lived ina rural area though, it'd be much easier, but still hard.

I live in North Vnacouver, which isn't as populated as the main city ofVancouver, so as long as I stayed in my suburban forested area, and some smart person blew the bridges in from the main city, i'd probaly be able to survive maybe a week to 1/2 a year.

Why? Either one is just nothing but cannon fodder for machine gun fire and explosives. One group is more of a threat to civilians granted but that group just happens to run into their deaths faster when confronted by a militant and sufficiently armed group.

doanm

Runners in zombie films/games are usually so fast that you have to be a trained shot to follow and shoot to do damage.. If walkers, then I can outrun them with ease and hide in, say, a tree.. :PDeihjan

Being a trained shot is exactly what military personnel are supposed to be. And the speeds of which zombies will run is definitely not fast enough to knock down a force before it can react on their trigger fingers.

[QUOTE="Deihjan"]

Runners in zombie films/games are usually so fast that you have to be a trained shot to follow and shoot to do damage.. If walkers, then I can outrun them with ease and hide in, say, a tree.. :Pdoanm

Being a trained shot is exactly what military personnel are supposed to be. And the speeds of which zombies will run is definitely not fast enough to knock down a force before it can react on their trigger fingers.

Dude, you're forgeting there would be thousands of zombies, maybe hundreds of thousands. Do you know how much ammo that will take to kill em all, considering that zombies never give up, cuz they don't fell pain, so it could be more than one shot to kill them.

At the point where 50% of a city is infected, the military, would'nt be the un eficient as to attack the zombies, they'd probaly just nuke the city.

If they're even capable of running, they're not zombies in my book. Doubly so for ones that can open doors, climb stairs etc. Zombies will forever be the Romero "shamblers".

If they're even capable of running, they're not zombies in my book. Doubly so for ones that can open doors, climb stairs etc. Zombies will forever be the Romero "shamblers".

Verge_6

Actually I'm not afraid of the zombies. I have a baseball bat near my bed and once mass panic spreads I can probably head to the neaest precinct and take a gun from a dead cop. I'm worried about my family and how many of them will survive. I would probably go all around the country trying to save each one and kill the others. But in the end our biggest enemies is still other human beings. They are ore dangerous then any zombie.

[QUOTE="Fundai"]

Dude, you're forgeting there would be thousands of zombies, maybe hundreds of thousands.

There not going to magically have hundreds of thousands of zombies at the get go lets it be through the magic of writers fiat. They'll need to actually reach that number through the process of of attempting to spread out and infect the city. A process that won't go unnoticed and will be stymied by the time any militant force rolls around.

Do you know how much ammo that will take to kill em all

Exponentially lower by the time you get to higher caliber rounds. Heck even some of the common rounds will do more then enoughdamage to zombies considering how fleshy they are.

considering that zombies never give up,

Good. It means they'll funnel themselves into killzones faster.

cuz they don't fell pain, so it could be more than one shot to kill them.

So what if they don't feel pain? Just because you shoot them in the legs and shatter their bones with bullets does not magically mean they'll still be able to use that leg as efficiently as they have before getting shot. Yeah, they'll still be attempting to crawl at you or something but by that time there combat efficiency is severely affected. They will be hella compromised by the time they get shot and especially if we move up to higher end rounds or anything with a higher rate of fire.

At the point where 50% of a city is infected, the military, would'nt be the un eficient as to attack the zombies, they'd probaly just nuke the city.

Yeah but heres the thing. Its highly unlikely that a city will reach that state and even if it does, its still much better to evac civilians and do conventional killing methods as opposed to outright nuking.

Better question

Can the Zombie Apocalypse survive me?

I live in a major city, and the only usefull 'weapon' I have is a baseball bat....so unless I could somehow get guns and ammo and move into a secluded area I'd give myself about 3 weeks.

Shaun of the dead made it seem really easy. I could just stay in my house. But then we would go low on food.... So if my family survived 1 week.

I would live a long time after knowing how to kill a horde and that blunt weapons are better then weapons are better then sharpened ones such as swords or knives. I would have to use a baseball bat or cricket bat.

For food, i would go to the local store and take a big supply, then when that runs out then go look for other major food stores and hopefully find some survivors on my way. I would also keep a tally of how many zombies i manage to kill, a bit like dead rising style.

I need a ruling or two before I can answer. As a married man, I need to interpret both:

Till death do us part.

and

For better or for worse.

[QUOTE="Fundai"]

Dude, you're forgeting there would be thousands of zombies, maybe hundreds of thousands.

There not going to magically have hundreds of thousands of zombies at the get go lets it be through the magic of writers fiat. They'll need to actually reach that number through the process of of attempting to spread out and infect the city. A process that won't go unnoticed and will be stymied by the time any militant force rolls around.

I could think of so many scenarios enbaling enough zombies to spread, into numbers beyond what we can handle. Possibly spreading Through the McDonaldsFood, Of course this is theoretical, and depends on some zombifiing disease actually being out there., i'm just saying it's possible for a disease to go everywhere, making zombies in all citys. It could also start as a benign virus, then mutate in a few people with certain genes, so that i ecomes a zombie virus everywhere.

Do you know how much ammo that will take to kill em all Exponentially lower by the time you get to higher caliber rounds. Heck even some of the common rounds will do more then enoughdamage to zombies considering how fleshy they are.

Still take hundreds of thousands of rounds, and once you get to that point, it's even more likely equpmen failure will happen, and once on section of defense falls, it'd be hard for the rest not to fall with it.

considering that zombies never give up,

Good. It means they'll funnel themselves into killzones faster.

And keep crawling after their shot. And an enemy with no fear is dangerous.

cuz they don't fell pain, so it could be more than one shot to kill them.

So what if they don't feel pain? Just because you shoot them in the legs and shatter their bones with bullets does not magically mean they'll still be able to use that leg as efficiently as they have before getting shot. Yeah, they'll still be attempting to crawl at you or something but by that time there combat efficiency is severely affected. They will be hella compromised by the time they get shot and especially if we move up to higher end rounds or anything with a higher rate of fire.

Higher rate of fire = more rounds = higher cost + higher chance of failure in some part of the line

Of course tanks could probaly fix the problem.

At the point where 50% of a city is infected, the military, would'nt be the un eficient as to attack the zombies, they'd probaly just nuke the city.

Yeah but heres the thing. Its highly unlikely that a city will reach that state and even if it does, its still much better to evac civilians and do conventional killing methods as opposed to outright nuking.

Ya, they would probaly just have to quarantine it. Nuking would be kind of evil. But if it did reach 50% where there are more zombies than people, the chances of survival just plummet.

doanm

My responses are in italics.

I would live a long time after knowing how to kill a horde and that blunt weapons are better then weapons are better then sharpened ones such as swords or knives. I would have to use a baseball bat or cricket bat.

For food, i would go to the local store and take a big supply, then when that runs out then go look for other major food stores and hopefully find some survivors on my way. I would also keep a tally of how many zombies i manage to kill, a bit like dead rising style.

sambo2011

[QUOTE="Fundai"]

I could think of so many scenarios enbaling enough zombies to spread, into numbers beyond what we can handle. Possibly spreading Through the McDonaldsFood, Of course this is theoretical,

As far as zombie scenarios go, spreading through food is an outlier that hardly exist in what normally is to be expected from a zombie apocalypse scenario that at best it could only be considered writers fiat.

and depends on some zombifiing disease actually being out there., i'm just saying it's possible for a disease to go everywhere, making zombies in all citys.

barring an airborne infection(and assuming of course said airborne infection is malleable enough to survive different temperatures and atmospheres to travel while in airborne form), most other forms of infection will be far more easier to detect and react to. For all sakes and purposes, I generally refer to bites seeing as it is the most common means of spreading infection.

It could also start as a benign virus, then mutate in a few people with certain genes, so that it becomes a zombie virus everywhere.

Yeah.. see above.

Still take hundreds of thousands of rounds,

Which any given army has plenty of. Seriously, the average number of small rounds that have actually been expended to kill 1 insurgent pretty much averages 250,000 rounds and these are trained insurgents willing to take cover and use any form of concealment as they can.

and once you get to that point, it's even more likely equpmen failure will happen,

Yes, because apparently resupply and repair is somehow out of the question >_>.

and once on section of defense falls, it'd be hard for the rest not to fall with it.

Yeah and thats why the landing of Normandy was a complete failure what with so many soldiers falling and all that.......

....

wait.

Seriously, just because one guy experiences failure doesn't mean complete failure of the other components.

And keep crawling after their shot. And an enemy with no fear is dangerous.

I did mention that when they slow to a crawl that there combat efficiency is essentially neutered didn't I? They just fire into the bloody thing again. So what? And an enemy with no fear is overrated. It means that they fail to recognize any dangers to themselves and will not react to withdraw from anything that poses a threat to them. Basically validating what i said earlier when I said:

" Good. It means they'll funnel themselves into killzones faster"

Higher rate of fire = more rounds = higher cost + higher chance of failure in some part of the line

Which also equals to alot of dead zombies. In extreme liklihood enough dead zombies that Besides you're really overstating the danger of failure rate in a zombie apocalypse scenario. It's going to take a hell of a lot of rounds to generally get any modern weapons to get experience failure. Take the M4 carbine for example. In a test done back in 07 the M4 carbine had a failure rate of 1.47%. And this was when it was firing 60,000 rounds.(For proof i'll refer you to this link:http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/12/army_carbine_dusttest_071217/)

So yeah i'm not sure what this is about failure rates posing a sever danger to the operations of the military reigning a merry hell upon a zombie apocalypse.

Of course tanks could probaly fix the problem.

You would assume that they would go in without tanks? Granted it may not be outright needed considering APC's will probably be more useful but if there looking to mow down the Zombie apocalypse as fast as possible then tanks are a definite option.

Ya, they would probaly just have to quarantine it. Nuking would be kind of evil. But if it did reach 50% where there are more zombies than people, the chances of survival just plummet.

And here i thought 50% mean't that there were as much zombies as there were people. And survival would plummet mainly for civilians but not for any competent military personnel. There still likely capable of evacuating uninfected civilians at any rate even assuming that somehow a city can even manage to get up to a 50% infection rate.

I want so badly for there to actually be one. Would be so much fun. I would probably die doing something stupid though.

According to a thorough internet quiz...

Yes.

[QUOTE="Fundai"]

I could think of so many scenarios enbaling enough zombies to spread, into numbers beyond what we can handle. Possibly spreading Through the McDonaldsFood, Of course this is theoretical,

As far as zombie scenarios go, spreading through food is an outlier that hardly exist in what normally is to be expected from a zombie apocalypse scenario that at best it could only be considered writers fiat.

and depends on some zombifiing disease actually being out there., i'm just saying it's possible for a disease to go everywhere, making zombies in all citys.

barring an airborne infection(and assuming of course said airborne infection is malleable enough to survive different temperatures and atmospheres to travel while in airborne form), most other forms of infection will be far more easier to detect and react to. For all sakes and purposes, I generally refer to bites seeing as it is the most common means of spreading infection.

It could also start as a benign virus, then mutate in a few people with certain genes, so that it becomes a zombie virus everywhere.

Yeah.. see above.

Still take hundreds of thousands of rounds,

Which any given army has plenty of. Seriously, the average number of small rounds that have actually been expended to kill 1 insurgent pretty much averages 250,000 rounds and these are trained insurgents willing to take cover and use any form of concealment as they can.

and once you get to that point, it's even more likely equpmen failure will happen,

Yes, because apparently resupply and repair is somehow out of the question >_>.

and once on section of defense falls, it'd be hard for the rest not to fall with it.

Yeah and thats why the landing of Normandy was a complete failure what with so many soldiers falling and all that.......

....

wait.

Seriously, just because one guy experiences failure doesn't mean complete failure of the other components.

And keep crawling after their shot. And an enemy with no fear is dangerous.

I did mention that when they slow to a crawl that there combat efficiency is essentially neutered didn't I? They just fire into the bloody thing again. So what? And an enemy with no fear is overrated. It means that they fail to recognize any dangers to themselves and will not react to withdraw from anything that poses a threat to them. Basically validating what i said earlier when I said:

" Good. It means they'll funnel themselves into killzones faster"

Higher rate of fire = more rounds = higher cost + higher chance of failure in some part of the line

Which also equals to alot of dead zombies. In extreme liklihood enough dead zombies that Besides you're really overstating the danger of failure rate in a zombie apocalypse scenario. It's going to take a hell of a lot of rounds to generally get any modern weapons to get experience failure. Take the M4 carbine for example. In a test done back in 07 the M4 carbine had a failure rate of 1.47%. And this was when it was firing 60,000 rounds.(For proof i'll refer you to this link:http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/12/army_carbine_dusttest_071217/)

So yeah i'm not sure what this is about failure rates posing a sever danger to the operations of the military reigning a merry hell upon a zombie apocalypse.

Of course tanks could probaly fix the problem.

You would assume that they would go in without tanks? Granted it may not be outright needed considering APC's will probably be more useful but if there looking to mow down the Zombie apocalypse as fast as possible then tanks are a definite option.

Ya, they would probaly just have to quarantine it. Nuking would be kind of evil. But if it did reach 50% where there are more zombies than people, the chances of survival just plummet.

And here i thought 50% mean't that there were as much zombies as there were people. And survival would plummet mainly for civilians but not for any competent military personnel. There still likely capable of evacuating uninfected civilians at any rate even assuming that somehow a city can even manage to get up to a 50% infection rate.

doanm

Dude your acting like our argument is wehter there could be a zombie outbreak.

This thread is what you would do if one happened and if you would survive.

Dude your acting like our argument is wehter there could be a zombie outbreak.

This thread is what you would do if one happened and if you would survive.

Fundai

It's not. Our argument is what is the far more likeliest and plausible scenario if a zombie outbreak was to occur. Thats pretty much my stance throughout most of this thread.

And I make my arguments mainly because people assume that they will need to bunker down for a very long time and put themselves in a survivalist situation in a hypothetical zombie world, which really now is unlikely to happen.

Just played the undead survival test on addicitng games.

I would last 6weeks- 6 months. I would lack the nessecary practical skills to survive, such as mechanichs, and my knowledge in zombie therom isn't enough to get me through the outbreak. I am however very strategetic, have common sense,and would be suited to being the leader.

Of course, i am a also cold, seirious,uncompationat person who decided it'd be better to survive than help his teammembers, leaving them to become just more rotting flesh sacks...

Ya, that sounds like me lol :D :P

I'd survive, but I wouldn't tell OT because I don't want any competition for when I become king after the apocalypse blows over.

1/2 year proboly.

well, i got a kukri knife (getting another, bigger one soon), which is really good for chopping, i got enough firearms and ammo to outfit a small squad, my mountain bike's tires are inflated and tuned up, i have a considerable amount of survival skill training for living in the wilderness for extended periods of time, and i got my whole zombie plan planned out (3-4 different plans. always have a back-up plan)

like Tallahassee says "Thank god for rednecks!"

I'd be one of the first victims

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z80LlwkVWY&feature=feedf

Watch this then ask yourself if you could survive the Zpoc.

yes i could. got it all panned out in my head.