Zombies VS the US Army

[SmashTheState]

It's well known that the Pentagon develops contingency plans for highly unlikely events such as war with Canada or an alien invasion. What I'm wondering is whether the US military has an actual written plan for dealing with a zombie apocalypse. Is there any way to find out for sure? And, if so, is it possible to obtain a copy of it? It would make for interesting reading.

[LSLGuy]

As you suggest, they probably have a plan for alien invasion. How are zombies really different from aliens?

At the planning level, all you care about are the capabilities and probable intentions of your adversary. And ultimately your responses are driven by your tactics, training and equipment. IOW, the Army knows how to surround, blast, and occupy. The Air Force knows how to locate & bomb.

Whether the enemy arrived from orbit, the graveyard, or a fissure in the earth, the DOD response is going to be pretty similar. How well that will work depends on the enemy capabilities. What exactly are zombie's strong & weak points? What tactics do they use?


I also think we've done this topic before. We've certanly discussed zombies a bunch. You might try searching, both with our built-in search & Google.

[SmashTheState]

Originally Posted by LSLGuy

I also think we've done this topic before. We've certanly discussed zombies a bunch. You might try searching, both with our built-in search & Google.

It's not so much what they'd do which I'm curious about, but whether or not they actually have a plan for dealing with something which is, to the best of our knowledge, entirely fictitious. Did some shadowy arm of the Pentagon spend millions sequestering scientists and theologians to develop a military response to an attack by the undead? And, if so, would they admit it?

[Elendil's Heir]

Originally Posted by SmashTheState

...Did some shadowy arm of the Pentagon spend millions sequestering scientists and theologians to develop a military response to an attack by the undead? And, if so, would they admit it?

I'd suggest the answers are "no" and "hell, no," respectively. The Pentagon may very well plan for invading every other country on the face of the Earth, because you can just never know which way the geopolitical winds might blow, but for something so absurd and incredibly unlikely as a zombie invasion, I suspect the general or admiral who considered authorizing such a plan would be concerned about what would happen to his career if word of it leaked (as it surely would). No top officer wants to be the laughingstock of Fort Fumble, or grilled on Capitol Hill for wasting taxpayers' money.

[constanze]

Originally Posted by SmashTheState

It's not so much what they'd do which I'm curious about, but whether or not they actually have a plan for dealing with something which is, to the best of our knowledge, entirely fictitious.

The difference is between "highly unlikely" and "entirely fictous". We can imagine an unlikely, but not impossible, scenario where Canada would attack the US. We can also imagine a very highly unlikely, but not impossible, scenario of unfriendly aliens landing, since there also active programs to try and find them. (Although I rate our chances against any civilsation that has developed better space travel than us slimmer than stone-age people against nuclear rockets. However, I also have a hard time imganing any species rising farther than us without overcoming needless aggression, because humans are so close to extinction through stupidity; if we could cooperate, we would be farther. Initially peaceful aliens might be provoked into attack by the aggressive behaviour of Earthlings, however.)

But we can't imagine people rising from the dead like zombies, because that would be impossible from what we know about biological laws.

[silenus]

Bah. The Army doesn't have to do any planning. All it would take is a couple of cases of beer, a couple of cases of Mountain Dew, chips, a few geeks and a tape recorder. One weekend and they'd have a complete set of plans, with subsections based on what type of zombie and other variables. Hell, they could just read here and get a pretty good outline.

[HorseloverFat]

The difference between aliens and zombies is that one is a very easy to predict reality while the other is pure fantasy. You might as well be asking about hobbit attacks or godzilla attacks.

As far as pentagon plans for aliens, Id like to see a real cite about this. I have read that there are first contact protocols written, but I doubt they are binding or even detailed past some basics like quarantine, negotiation, etc.

As far as a war with Canada, why shouldnt we have plans for this? A victorious military is a prepared military. Tomorrow the PM of Canada could side with an enemy and we're better off knowing their strategic sites now than later. Every good intelligence outfit has detailed plans on its allies. Look at Iran today compared to the Shah or drug lord controlled parts of Mexico. Its always good to know your friends.

[MOIDALIZE]

What about Canadian zombies?

Are we prepared to deal with handsome young vampires stalking America's teenage girls?

Perhaps funding could be set aside to deal with the Blair Witch.

[Bisected8]

And maybe the government over here in Britain could publish health & safety guidelines on what to do if one met one of the many "Black Dogs".

[Sunspace]

Originally Posted by MOIDALIZE

What about Canadian zombies?

What, did the corporations let Parliament off its leash again?

Originally Posted by MOIDALIZE

Are we prepared to deal with handsome young vampires stalking America's teenage girls?

It's not the handsome young vampires you need to be afraid of; it's the old and scary ones.

[davekhps]

The DoD's Joint Staff has planning responsibilities. J7, J5, and J3 all have a hand in it.

From what I know, I'm willing to bet the SDMB there isn't a zombie plan. I'm sure someone somewhere has contemplated a "first contact" plan, but my guess is they just consider that a scenario along the lines of preparation for natural disasters/homeland security/civil disturbance incidents.

As for the "the Pentagon plans for war in every country," that's a popular myth. Contingency planning goes stale *very* quickly. Political, social, economic, geographic, pretty much everything about a country and region is changing rapidly. Hell, just try keeping up with road atlases (if even available). Keeping up with those changes is a manpower-intensive job, and resources are scarce, so the only plans that are likely kept up-to-date are the ones you'd all expect (China, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Al Qaeda's operating bases, etc.).

Now, that doesn't mean that those plans are any good , RE: the invasion of Iraq. The on-the-shelf plan for that from the 1990s was changed, however.

A similar situation occurred during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. "Desert Shield" was a (major) modification of existing plans to deploy to counter a Soviet threat to Saudi Arabia.

Of course, someone somewhere sometime probably considered some bizarre scenarios, especially during the Cold War. I'd imagine that the Pentagon looked at things like interventions to stop communist revolutions in places off-the-beaten path. Probably not an invasion of Canada, but maybe Italy, Greece, Thailand, etc. Trouble is, those plans are all obsolete-- the countries are different, the threats are different, our capabilities are different-- and thus of historical interest only (if they ever get unclassified, which is rare, because it never looks good for it to be known that the U.S. once considered invading your country .

BTW, no discussion of this topic can be complete without a link to the color-coded war plans which is usually the source for the "U.S. plans for everything" myth.

[Captain Carrot]

The DoD may well have made some sort of plan for dealing with an infectious pandemic which makes its victims aggressive and functional, and that seems like a decent approximation of a zombie attack to me.

[HorseloverFat]

Trouble is, those plans are all obsolete-- the countries are different, the

Things like the location of major roads, permanent military bases, naval docks, etc dont change that often, but yes I agree that this is more popular myth than anything else.

[lazybratsche]

I'm surprised the thread has come this far without a mention of Max Brooks, author of "World War Z" and "The Zombie Survival Guide". The first of those books is particularly relevant, telling (in faux-documentary style) how useless the modern military is against zombies and how eventually some useful tactics evolved. Basically, zombies could survive anything that didn't destroy the head, so all those explosives in our current arsenal were pretty useless, since shrapnel and concussion just slowed down the zombies a bit. The re-tooled army won with 18th-century firing line tactics, and lots of cheap rifles instead of high tech precision gadgetry.

Any chance Max Brooks was really hired as a Pentagon consultant?

World War Z is a damn good book, by the way.

[MOIDALIZE]

The US military is also powerless against Godzilla.

[alphaboi867]

Originally Posted by Captain Carrot

The DoD may well have made some sort of plan for dealing with an infectious pandemic which makes its victims aggressive and functional, and that seems like a decent approximation of a zombie attack to me.

Agreed (though iI think it would be more Homeland Security & the CDC's province). The hardest part would be actually convincing the general public that grandma isn't sick or deranged, she's dead and she needs a bullet to her brain, not medical treatment. There's a very good book called Zombie CSU: The Forensics of the Living Dead by Jonathan Maberry.

[Elendil's Heir]

Originally Posted by davekhps

...BTW, no discussion of this topic can be complete without a link to the color-coded war plans which is usually the source for the "U.S. plans for everything" myth.

Here's a SDSAB report on the same subject: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...a-in-the-1920s

[Pushkin]

Originally Posted by lazybratsche

I'm surprised the thread has come this far without a mention of Max Brooks, author of "World War Z" and "The Zombie Survival Guide"

I hoped nobody would...

Besides which, a South African called Abraham du Toit had a solution decades before Brooks published his books.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by lazybratsche

I'm surprised the thread has come this far without a mention of Max Brooks, author of "World War Z" and "The Zombie Survival Guide". The first of those books is particularly relevant, telling (in faux-documentary style) how useless the modern military is against zombies and how eventually some useful tactics evolved. Basically, zombies could survive anything that didn't destroy the head, so all those explosives in our current arsenal were pretty useless, since shrapnel and concussion just slowed down the zombies a bit. The re-tooled army won with 18th-century firing line tactics, and lots of cheap rifles instead of high tech precision gadgetry.

People on other boards have pointed out that modern military weapons would actually reduce zombies to undead hamburger, however. Hamburger that's on fire.

[UncleBill]

As for war plans going out of date, my mother was a secretary for the CIA back in the 50's when they were in an old skating rink in DC, writing up reports and assessment from the field guys. On sector she had was Afghanistan, back when the CIA was in there, and the HUMINT was still fresh, and I think we helped build a lot of those cave systems. When the USSR invaded in 1979, she seriously was considering a request to go back since she had knowledge of those areas. Five kids, the oldest just in college, kept her in SC.

[lazybratsche]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

People on other boards have pointed out that modern military weapons would actually reduce zombies to undead hamburger, however. Hamburger that's on fire.

Yeah, but they'd be a very expensive way to kill relatively few zombies. And with, say, a high explosive shell, only a direct hit would create zombie hamburger. If you accept that a zombie has to be shot in the head, then it follows that shrapnel won't be very effective against zombies. And my understanding is that most of the casualties from explosives are from the shrapnel, not the immediate explosion.

I suppose it just depends on how big your zombie outbreak is.

But, back to the OP, I really doubt there's an actual Pentagon plan for zombies. Why plan against the entirely fictional? Zombies are about as plausible as ghosts, killer tomatoes, or flying monkeys.

[alphaboi867]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

...Hamburger that's on fire.

As Max Brooks pointed out since zombies don't feel pain (or have a self-preservation instict) a zombie on fire would keep moving around and spreading the fire until enough damage was done to it that it became imobile.

[Bisected8]

Originally Posted by lazybratsche

Yeah, but they'd be a very expensive way to kill relatively few zombies. And with, say, a high explosive shell, only a direct hit would create zombie hamburger. If you accept that a zombie has to be shot in the head, then it follows that shrapnel won't be very effective against zombies. And my understanding is that most of the casualties from explosives are from the shrapnel, not the immediate explosion.

I suppose it just depends on how big your zombie outbreak is.

But, back to the OP, I really doubt there's an actual Pentagon plan for zombies. Why plan against the entirely fictional? Zombies are about as plausible as ghosts, killer tomatoes, or flying monkeys.

Well there are those guys who prepare for a zombie apocolypse on the grounds its a good way to prepare for just about anything else. I can't recall exactly what they call themselves, but they had a wikipedia article which hadn't been deleted last time I looked (or when I first found it a few months earlier).

Originally Posted by alphaboi867

As Max Brooks pointed out since zombies don't feel pain (or have a self-preservation instict) a zombie on fire would keep moving around and spreading the fire until enough damage was done to it that it became imobile.

To be fair, hamburgers aren't known for their locamotive skills.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by lazybratsche

Yeah, but they'd be a very expensive way to kill relatively few zombies. And with, say, a high explosive shell, only a direct hit would create zombie hamburger. If you accept that a zombie has to be shot in the head, then it follows that shrapnel won't be very effective against zombies. And my understanding is that most of the casualties from explosives are from the shrapnel, not the immediate explosion.

But that's against soldiers who are dispersed and using cover, not shambling out in the open. And if it takes a lot of shells to kill zombies, that's what massed artillery, cluster bombs and such are for. And then there's weapons like .50 caliber machine guns ( which can cut a tree in half much less a zombie ) and belt fed grenade launchers.

Originally Posted by alphaboi867

As Max Brooks pointed out since zombies don't feel pain (or have a self-preservation instict) a zombie on fire would keep moving around and spreading the fire until enough damage was done to it that it became imobile.

It's not likely to move much if it's shredded, as pointed out. And most likely, the entire area it's in is going to be engulfed in fire from the incendiary weapons themselves, anyway.

[Green Bean]

Originally Posted by LSLGuy

What exactly are zombie's strong & weak points? What tactics do they use?

I saw a documentary on this once. Apparently, the zombies can mesmerize you with their coordinated dance maneuvers. Once you are immobilized in this way, your brain is theirs for the eating.

Some years after the documentary was filmed, however, an unfortunate discovery was made. A person who comes into close contact with the dancing zombies and is actually allowed to live will start to suffer strange and troubling medical conditions that will grow more severe over the next few decades. The chief documentarian fell victim to this syndrome. He has experienced a baffling complex of symptoms, both physical and psychiatric. His skin turned pasty pale. His nose fell off. And by all accounts, he's gone entirely batshit crazy.

Based on this one man's singular experience, the Pentagon has indeed come up with a contingency plan to deal with a zombie apocalypse. It's long, but here's a summary: "Shoot them in the head before they can start dancing. Shoot Vincent Price too, while you're at it. Keep anybody who has been exposed to zombies away from pre-teen boys. That is all."

[Scuba_Ben]

Originally Posted by HorseloverFat

The difference between aliens and zombies is that one is a very easy to predict reality while the other is pure fantasy. You might as well be asking about hobbit attacks or godzilla attacks.

Ah -- but we have discussed Godzilla attacks here in GQ before.

On the main point -- the zombie war fiction generally shows the convential military as thoroughly useless. Realistically, as this is GQ, how well would the US military fare against a zombie outbreak? Assume that the National Command Authorities have gone through the necessary stages of disbelief, reconnaissance, staff meetings, news blackouts, and finally public proof, and generally acknowledge that there is a zombie "situation."

[lazybratsche]

Originally Posted by Scuba_Ben

Ah -- but we have discussed Godzilla attacks here in GQ before.

On the main point -- the zombie war fiction generally shows the convential military as thoroughly useless. Realistically, as this is GQ, how well would the US military fare against a zombie outbreak? Assume that the National Command Authorities have gone through the necessary stages of disbelief, reconnaissance, staff meetings, news blackouts, and finally public proof, and generally acknowledge that there is a zombie "situation."

That probably depends on how big the outbreak is. Max Brooks had a medium sized, combined arms unit (a brigade?) wiped out by the entire population of Zombie New York City, and I found that to be pretty plausible. Sure, each high explosive shell could kill tens of zombies, and larger bombs could take out hundreds easily, but when there are millions you run out of ordinance fast. Each air strike or artillery barrage could take out hundreds, but how how long before you run out of all those high explosives? How long before all of the big machine guns are out of ammo?

What kind of zombies are you talking about? I suppose the standard sort in these scenarios will shamble along, eating whatever is within arm's reach. The only way to kill them for sure is to destroy what's left of the brain. Inexperienced soldiers would waste a lot of ammo shooting zombies in the torso and only slowing them down a bit. Fast zombies would be a lot harder, obviously, since then you can't even rely on the "stand your ground, aim for the head, save your ammo" tactic.

How concentrated is the outbreak? If one in ten people are infected, that might be diffuse enough to be handled with martial law, regular patrols, and house-to-house clearing.

If there are full-on zombie hordes, that probably becomes a ratio game. My WAG is that any unit should be able to handle 10:1 odds if they know how to kill zombies, and 100:1 with a lot of support, good tactics, and plenty of ammo.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Scuba_Ben

Assume that the National Command Authorities have gone through the necessary stages of disbelief, reconnaissance, staff meetings, news blackouts, and finally public proof, and generally acknowledge that there is a zombie "situation."

Those are pretty radical assumptions. First of all, who would really detect a zombie outbreak first? It seems to me that it would be far more in the lane of public health officials, not the military, as science fiction writers and movie producers are quick to assume. Just think about it for a moment: the military doesn't keep track of American deaths, causes of death, and they certainly wouldn't be the first to know about reanimations of people in hospitals, morgues, or whatever. Doctors would almost certainly be reporting these strange occurrences to public health offices and the CDC. I think speculation of news blackouts are without merit, as public health officials and the media have been so quick to report on things like the H1N1 virus.

If anything, I would think news of a zombie outbreak would be spread and substantiated far more quickly than the H1N1 story. One can't really show the swine flu on TV, but pictures of a reanimated corpse would be CNN/Fox News ratings gold.

As far as military planning, although I am not an expert on the matter, I understand that there are various levels of plans. There are strategic and theater plans which lay out very general, top level objectives; there are conceptual plans (CONPLANs) which are a step toward designing strategies to achieve objectives; and there are operational plans (OPLANs) that include very detailed instructions on how personnel are to be mobilized, how logistics are going to work, etc.

The reason why I explain this is that there is virtually no chance of there being an OPLAN for a zombie invasion. However, there may be more conceptual plans for what the military should do if there were to be a general insurrection in the United States. For example, such a plan may lay out which facilities in the US must be protected, but not go into the operational detail of what troops need to protect them and what units those troops will come from. But it would stand to reason that these conceptual plans would be valuable as a framework for informing the early stages of a military response to a zombie insurrection, even though the plan wasn't designed for that threat specifically.

Also color me skeptical that the issues that most people talk about in hypothesizing how unprepared the military would be, as displayed in World War Z when military units were destroyed by the zombies, would be as big a deal as is made out. Once the strategy to protect critical facilities, secure lines of communication, and conduct reconnaissance is done, telling soldiers to adjust their tactics, techniques and procedures to shoot zombies in the head, not the chest, isn't something that requires a heck of a lot of bureaucratic churn, in contrast to things like logistics and generating manpower.

ETA: Oh yeah, but I have no idea whether there are more general contingency plans in the military for dealing with something like a mass insurrection in the United States. I would be surprised, however, if there isn't some kind of very general plan laying out top level objectives for such an event, even though details would not be filled in until the s--- hits the fan.

[Little Nemo]

Special Contingency Plan Z:

1. Call up file Special Contingency Plan V.
2. Using Control-H replace all "blood" to "brains".
3. Using Control-H replace all "heart" to "head".
4. Using Control-H replace all "Christina Aquilera" to "Britney Spears".
5. Save file as Special Contingency Plan Z.

[Mr. Excellent]

Originally Posted by constanze

. However, I also have a hard time imganing any species rising farther than us without overcoming needless aggression, because humans are so close to extinction through stupidity; if we could cooperate, we would be farther.

Bit of a hijack, but this is nonsense. The whole reason we have space travel in the first place is because of warfare. Powerful rockets were developed as weapons of war - and so, too, was most of our knowledge of ballistics. (If you want to lob a cannon-ball or artillery shell at the other guy, it helps to know where it will land). The space race was spurred by the cold war, both as a national prestige thing and a deadly serious effort to develop better strategic weapons platforms. For that matter, it's hard to point to much of our technology at all that hasn't been given a huge boost by warfare - aviation, computers, etc.

War drives technological innovation. Without it, we probably wouldn't develop much technology beyond what's needed to protect us from the elements and keep ourselves fed - and that doesn't get you to space.

[Merijeek]

Originally Posted by MOIDALIZE

Perhaps funding could be set aside to deal with the Blair Witch.

I think we should budget some money to exterminate whomever is currently writing Blair Witch Project 3. Better safe than sorry.

-Joe

[Rigamarole]

Originally Posted by SmashTheState

It's well known that the Pentagon develops contingency plans for highly unlikely events such as war with Canada or an alien invasion.

Wouldn't these be essentially the same thing?

[SmashTheState]

Originally Posted by HorseloverFat

The difference between aliens and zombies is that one is a very easy to predict reality while the other is pure fantasy. You might as well be asking about hobbit attacks or godzilla attacks.

Given that quite a few politicians in the US are fundamentalist christians, and given that Revelation says the dead will walk the Earth after the Rapture, I don't think it's ridiculous to suppose the Pentagon has a post-Rapture military strategy paper drawn up. Certainly they must have contingency plans for, say, replacing nuclear missile silo staff who vanish during the Rapture. It's not beyond the bounds of reason that along with their strategy for dealing with seven-headed blaspheming dragons and locusts with human faces, they've got a strategy for dealing with the shambling undead.

[GoodOmens]

Originally Posted by HorseloverFat

The difference between aliens and zombies is that one is a very easy to predict reality while the other is pure fantasy. You might as well be asking about hobbit attacks or godzilla attacks.

Which is which?

[Umbriel2]

The famous "color coded plans" were/are for geopolitical contingencies. They made no specific plans for fighting a particular government (War Plan Red was as applicable to war with a fascist Britain as to a communist or democratic one) or against particular weapon systems or tactical doctrines. Such specifics would be considered operational or tactical concerns, which would be applied to the broader war plan as appropriate.

The usual concept of the zombie apocalypse would probably be addressed by application of a descendant of War Plan White, AKA Operaton Garden Plot -- the civil insurrection/revolution contingency. This would be applicable to any enemy popping up within the nation as opposed to invading from elsewhere, as well as to civil disruption caused by natural disasters or the Rapture.

Other factors relevant to a zombie apocalypse would include contagion and the resiliancy/specific vulnerabilities of the foe. These tactical considerations, as referenced above, would be addressed by overlaying specific operational and tactical plans as relevant. Since, as Moltke noted, no plan survives contact with the enemy, an overly detailed battle plan is potentially worse than useless. Better to operate in "Chinese Menu" fashion, and assemble relevant parts into a dynamic whole. That way you're covered whether the zombies are fast or slow, are killed by headshots or require dismemberment, eat primarily brains or consume everything.

[Shark Sandwich]

Originally Posted by MOIDALIZE

What about Canadian zombies?

What about handsome alien Canadian vampire zombies that are on fire?

We'd be hosed.

[Elendil's Heir]

Offer them beer and bearclaws and they'd settle right down, eh?

[Bisected8]

Wait, how could they be aliens and Canadian at the same time? On the understanding that "aliens" in this case specifically means an entity from another planet.

[Shark Sandwich]

Originally Posted by Bisected8

Wait, how could they be aliens and Canadian at the same time? On the understanding that "aliens" in this case specifically means an entity from another planet.

They're from the planet Canad.

[Lawn Gnome!]

Here's the results of my Google search:

http://etprotocol.fanspace.com/

Just a little fun to think about.

[Captain Carrot]

Superman is an alien and an American.

[Chronos]

I can't imagine how the US Army could have difficulty with zombies-- Mobility alone would be enough of an advantage to guarantee that the army couldn't lose. Even if the zombies are able to move as quickly as living human athletes, they can't drive vehicles, which means that if you find your tactics (whatever they are) aren't working, you just pile into your Humvees and fall back. Or more likely, you never left the Humvees in the first place.

[ivn1188]

I also question the utility of a pack to horde of zombies vs a machine that has at least 3 machine guns, a 120mm cannon, thermal sights, over a foot of armor, and 65-70 tons of squish powered by 1500 horsepower.

[Raguleader]

So, funny story:

When I was in tech school, one of the squadrons I was assigned to employed airmen who were not currently in class (either awaiting the start of their class, recently graduated, or out of class due to academic, medical, or whatever reasons) to run various things around the squadron, including the Charge of Quarters (a cross between a security/orderly room and a hotel's front desk).

Anyhow, as you might expect, these guys get bored from time to time, and proactively decide to dedicate their efforts to the improvements of the squadron and the Air Force as a whole. Some of these guys put their heads together and came up with a "Squadron Zombie Outbreak Contingency Plan" which more or less consisted of "Sound the alarm, secure the dorms/squadron area, and contact other military units on the base and local law enforcement to provide mutual security and response until relief arrives".

Well, an airman showed it to one of the sergeants as a joke, the sergeant took it to one of his supervisors to share the funny, and long story short, it was signed off by the Squadron Commander and kept in a file cabinet for a time before it was removed in preparation for an inspection from some higher-ups in the Air Education Training Command who might not see the humor in the thing.

So, not the military planning for zombies, per se, but people IN the military planning for it.

[Labtrash]

Originally Posted by ivn1188

I also question the utility of a pack to horde of zombies vs a machine that has at least 3 machine guns, a 120mm cannon, thermal sights, over a foot of armor, and 65-70 tons of squish powered by 1500 horsepower.

Strength in numbers? You're gonna run out of ammo / fuel sooner or later.

[Dissonance]

Originally Posted by labtrash

Strength in numbers? You're gonna run out of ammo / fuel sooner or later.

What numbers? This is where traditional zombie stories pretty much always fall on thier face. Even if you have the dead rising from thier graves, there simply aren't that many non-decomposed dead bodies out there. If they're the traditional slow moving zombies, they're not going to be biting very many people at all. That said,

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

It's not likely to move much if it's shredded, as pointed out. And most likely, the entire area it's in is going to be engulfed in fire from the incendiary weapons themselves, anyway.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you. Not on any logical or rational basis, but something will simply have to go wrong, it's the nature of the beast. Setting zombies on fire is always a bad idea, that's just the way these things work. It'd be like the red shirt not dying.

[cerberus]

You'd need an infectious disease approach, given the current "infectious fluid undead" in play with the movies. This would be more relevant in terms of biohazard-type planning with units like USAMRIID.

[SmashTheState]

Originally Posted by ivn1188

I also question the utility of a pack to horde of zombies vs a machine that has at least 3 machine guns, a 120mm cannon, thermal sights, over a foot of armor, and 65-70 tons of squish powered by 1500 horsepower.

During the Second World War, the Soviets were so hard-pressed by the Germans that they were often forced to face tanks bare-handed. One in three adult Russians were killed by the Germans during the fighting, so there was fanatical hatred by the Soviets. There's at least one documented case which has a bearing on the zombies VS tanks issue. In this particular battle the Red Army was reduced to rushing the tanks with Molotov cocktails. One of the soldiers had his cocktail shot in his hands while he was holding it, causing him to be instantly engulfed in flames. In his crazed hatred, he rushed the German tank -- a human bonfire -- and flung his burning body over the air intake, holding on even as he burned, until the inside of the tank ignited and it was destroyed.

I'm sure a large swarm of zombies would have no difficulty plugging up the air intake or even gumming up the treads.

I should note that there is also at least one documented case of an Italian tank being penetrated by a spear in Ethiopia, killing the driver. Zombies may be able to simply peel the armour back with their bare hands.

[Pushkin]

Originally Posted by Dissonance

What numbers? This is where traditional zombie stories pretty much always fall on thier face. Even if you have the dead rising from thier graves, there simply aren't that many non-decomposed dead bodies out there. If they're the traditional slow moving zombies, they're not going to be biting very many people at all.

I hate to hijack, but that was exactly my problem with Brooks and his Zombie books. The fun of the Living Dead films was that conceit, the idea that we might wake up and suddenly find zombies everywhere. We're never shown and never need to see them taking over the Earth, we just need to know that they do (already have) and take it from there.

There, back to our scheduled programming.

[Elendil's Heir]

Originally Posted by cerberus

You'd need an infectious disease approach, given the current "infectious fluid undead" in play with the movies. This would be more relevant in terms of biohazard-type planning with units like USAMRIID.

Yes, up to a point, although USAMRIID is all about trying to heal people and avert a broader outbreak, while with zombies all you can do is destroy them.