Nuclear fallout, or Zombie uprising?
- Thread starter Higlac
- Start date
Mr-Fusion
Tank
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2003
- Messages
- 5,517
- Reaction score
- 1
It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation idn't it? (that's cockney for is it not?)
When the zombies rise up, governments world wide will try and nuke them then we'll have a fallout. Or possibly the worlds leaders will have become zombies themselves and accidentally launch the ICBMs everywhere.
And are we talking about undead zombies that are powered by demonic forces of unknown origin or are we talking about rage virus zombies? Rage virus zombies are more likely.
When the zombies rise up, governments world wide will try and nuke them then we'll have a fallout. Or possibly the worlds leaders will have become zombies themselves and accidentally launch the ICBMs everywhere.
And are we talking about undead zombies that are powered by demonic forces of unknown origin or are we talking about rage virus zombies? Rage virus zombies are more likely.
Higlac
Companion Cube
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 2,483
- Reaction score
- 55
Yeah, none of this necromancy/magic bullshit. I'm talking the horror movie type of zombie. You get bitten and "die" but soon come back to life and start biting other people and spreading the virus.
mechanicallizard
Party Escort Bot
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2008
- Messages
- 1,209
- Reaction score
- 18
DEATHMASTER
The Freeman
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2005
- Messages
- 12,752
- Reaction score
- 151
Of course nukes are more likely. Combat the situation?
1) survive initial onslaught
2) watch that new show that explains how to survive an apocalypse. ("Surviving Disaster" on Spike)
1) survive initial onslaught
2) watch that new show that explains how to survive an apocalypse. ("Surviving Disaster" on Spike)
Tacoeaterguy
Party Escort Bot
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Messages
- 859
- Reaction score
- 84
I would choose fallout. The first couple of days of zombies attacking you would be awesome, but then it would turn into L4D and get boring.
DEATH eVADER
Space Core
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2003
- Messages
- 8,142
- Reaction score
- 19
You wouldn't say that when you hair starts falling out and bleed out your a**
13LACKBISHOP
Spy
- Joined
- May 28, 2009
- Messages
- 522
- Reaction score
- 0
Nukes. Zombies are to weak. You can can kill dozens of zombies with basic household objects. Thats why there would never be a massive outbreak. It would never spead far enough becouse it would be halted in its early stages by some dudes armed with vaccum cleaners or some sh!! like that. Plus they have no defences or nowere to hide. Just hunt them down and kill em all.
Raziaar
I Hate Custom Titles
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 29,769
- Reaction score
- 140
Zombies will never happen. So my vote goes towards Nuclear Fallout which is a very real possibility that hopefully never happens in my lifetime.
flamingdts
Spy
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2008
- Messages
- 773
- Reaction score
- 0
With the technological advances in life, it's only a matter of time before somebody creates an "I am Legend" type virus that originally benefits humanity but soon "unforeseen consequences" bites us all in the ass. Of course that usually only happens in movies, because in the actual world scientists will perform experiments in a controlled environment first.
On the other hand, some countries already have their finger on the button. Maybe one of these countries developed a biological weapon that turns us into zombies?
On the other hand, some countries already have their finger on the button. Maybe one of these countries developed a biological weapon that turns us into zombies?
GiRoX
Newbie
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2008
- Messages
- 16
- Reaction score
- 0
Zombies would be more funn, but a fallout would be more likely.
We would probably survive better from zombie because, if you think about it, a zombie is decaying flesh, gravity would break their brittle bones and they wouldnt be able to move to fast...
We would probably survive better from zombie because, if you think about it, a zombie is decaying flesh, gravity would break their brittle bones and they wouldnt be able to move to fast...
Xevrex
Still believes in Santa
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2008
- Messages
- 781
- Reaction score
- 0
Brotherhood of Steel?
I wanted it to be more like STALKER, but that might work.
DEATHMASTER
The Freeman
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2005
- Messages
- 12,752
- Reaction score
- 151
Not So Clear Sky?
kupocake
Tank
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2004
- Messages
- 6,127
- Reaction score
- 16
Darkedge34
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 360
- Reaction score
- 1
WHY NOT HAVE BOTH?
YEAH MOTHER****ERS
YEAH MOTHER****ERS
jet_porkins
Newbie
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 1,459
- Reaction score
- 0
The thread title made me think you were asking for which one I would rather have happen, in which case I would have selected nuclear fallout.
So really, it wouldn't have mattered if I had voted before or after I read the OP because I still voted fallout.
So really, it wouldn't have mattered if I had voted before or after I read the OP because I still voted fallout.
DEATHMASTER
The Freeman
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2005
- Messages
- 12,752
- Reaction score
- 151
The thread title made me think of shit, so I bothered to read the OP and understood it.
theotherguy
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2003
- Messages
- 5,107
- Reaction score
- 1
Neither would be very appealing, but of course nuclear fallout is more likely to happen. The end of the cold war has left people more or less insensitive to the threat of global thermonuclear war -- but keep in mind that the U.S and Russia still have the extent to destroy each other and all of their allies within a few hours, resulting in global devastation. Even smaller powers like Pakistan, India, and China have enough nuclear weapons to cause a major local nuclear war, which could quickly escalate to a global thermonuclear war.
We came very close to destroying ourselves during the Cold War, and we are only slightly less likely to kill everyone on the planet nowadays. The threat is real, and it is terrifying.
In the event of a global thermonuclear war, almost nobody would survive. Forget this apocalypse movie bullshit. Forget Fallout, forget Mad Max, forget On The Beach. What would happen in the event of such a war would be this: every major city in the U.S and Russia would be almost totally obliterated, along with Western Europe, and anywhere else the U.S or Russia has nuclear silos or missile defense bases. Our defenses are not nearly good enough to counter a significant number of nuclear missiles, and even if they did, we (and the enemy) would have reserves in nuclear submarines and bombers which would make short work of whatever was left.
The initial blasts would likely be air bursts, which would cause EMP blasts. In fact, the first thing the enemy would do is probably explode a large nuclear weapon far up in the atmosphere, nearly in orbit. The EMP blast would be enough to cover an entire continent. ALL electronic devices would simply cease to work after these blasts. After the initial exchange, we would face two major threats: radiation, and fire.
Radiation from blasts over the cities would kill almost everyone in every major city.
During the initial exchange, up to 20 million people may die in the U.S alone. People near the blast would only have a few hours to live. People further out would have a few days. After that, fallout from ground bursts will contaminate the soil and water, killing nearly everyone after a few weeks. Raging fires would quickly engulf every metropolitan area. And, without working fire-trucks or pumps, none of them will be put out.
If anyone survives this who lives in the cities, they will have to contend with an almost complete lack of medical care, clean water, and food. Emergency services will be non-existent.
Those who survive will have an extremely difficult time rebuilding, mainly due to the ensuing nuclear winter. Ash and smoke from burning cities will fill the atmosphere. Contaminants will almost entirely strip the ozone. For the first year, ALL plant growth will be stunted. No new plants will grow in the first year at all, and those that survive will likely be weak, and stunted. The average local temperatures over the great plains of the U.S and Russia will be BELOW FREEZING during the SUMMER for the first two years. Agricultural production during this period will be zero.For the first DECADE agricultural production will be extremely meager, probably not enough to feed even who is left alive after that time. Global temperatures would fall as much as 7 degrees Celsius for a period of ten years, which is twice as much as it fell during the last ice age. During this time, global precipitation could fall as much as 45%.
Now how about a Zombie Apocalypse?
This is not at all likely to happen. Not even the "rage" virus scenario seems likely at all. Here's why: a disease of that nature could not spread. Any disease which turns its host into a raging lunatic, spurting blood, is likely to pick up a lot of attention -- especially one which shows symptoms within 20 seconds (as was depicted in 28 days later.) Such a disease would easily be spotted by anyone. Furthermore, the main transmission vectors --bites-- are incredibly easy to avoid. The spread of the virus would be very slow. Authorities would easily be able to contain it with lethal force --unarmed people are not very hard to kill. Infected cities could simply be gassed, if it came to that. To avoid infection, people would simply have to lock themselves away in places that are not susceptible to unarmed humans -- something we're very good at constructing. After a short amount of time, the virus would run its course, run out of living hosts, and die out.
A much more likely pandemic scenario is one that is airborne, has a relatively long latent phase, and a very high fatality rate once symptoms have set in. One could imagine a "super-flu" which simply transmits from person to person from hand to mouth, or from sneezes, or in airborne particles. It would have a slow onset -- something like the common cold or even weaker for a week or so -- which would end in severe symptoms like pneumonia or hemorrhaging, resulting in death. This seemingly mundane virus would be impossible to contain. It would spread easily between people, and would quickly cover the globe. If it had just the right parameters, the survival rate for humanity could be very near zero.
We came very close to destroying ourselves during the Cold War, and we are only slightly less likely to kill everyone on the planet nowadays. The threat is real, and it is terrifying.
In the event of a global thermonuclear war, almost nobody would survive. Forget this apocalypse movie bullshit. Forget Fallout, forget Mad Max, forget On The Beach. What would happen in the event of such a war would be this: every major city in the U.S and Russia would be almost totally obliterated, along with Western Europe, and anywhere else the U.S or Russia has nuclear silos or missile defense bases. Our defenses are not nearly good enough to counter a significant number of nuclear missiles, and even if they did, we (and the enemy) would have reserves in nuclear submarines and bombers which would make short work of whatever was left.
The initial blasts would likely be air bursts, which would cause EMP blasts. In fact, the first thing the enemy would do is probably explode a large nuclear weapon far up in the atmosphere, nearly in orbit. The EMP blast would be enough to cover an entire continent. ALL electronic devices would simply cease to work after these blasts. After the initial exchange, we would face two major threats: radiation, and fire.
Radiation from blasts over the cities would kill almost everyone in every major city.
During the initial exchange, up to 20 million people may die in the U.S alone. People near the blast would only have a few hours to live. People further out would have a few days. After that, fallout from ground bursts will contaminate the soil and water, killing nearly everyone after a few weeks. Raging fires would quickly engulf every metropolitan area. And, without working fire-trucks or pumps, none of them will be put out.
If anyone survives this who lives in the cities, they will have to contend with an almost complete lack of medical care, clean water, and food. Emergency services will be non-existent.
Those who survive will have an extremely difficult time rebuilding, mainly due to the ensuing nuclear winter. Ash and smoke from burning cities will fill the atmosphere. Contaminants will almost entirely strip the ozone. For the first year, ALL plant growth will be stunted. No new plants will grow in the first year at all, and those that survive will likely be weak, and stunted. The average local temperatures over the great plains of the U.S and Russia will be BELOW FREEZING during the SUMMER for the first two years. Agricultural production during this period will be zero.For the first DECADE agricultural production will be extremely meager, probably not enough to feed even who is left alive after that time. Global temperatures would fall as much as 7 degrees Celsius for a period of ten years, which is twice as much as it fell during the last ice age. During this time, global precipitation could fall as much as 45%.
Now how about a Zombie Apocalypse?
This is not at all likely to happen. Not even the "rage" virus scenario seems likely at all. Here's why: a disease of that nature could not spread. Any disease which turns its host into a raging lunatic, spurting blood, is likely to pick up a lot of attention -- especially one which shows symptoms within 20 seconds (as was depicted in 28 days later.) Such a disease would easily be spotted by anyone. Furthermore, the main transmission vectors --bites-- are incredibly easy to avoid. The spread of the virus would be very slow. Authorities would easily be able to contain it with lethal force --unarmed people are not very hard to kill. Infected cities could simply be gassed, if it came to that. To avoid infection, people would simply have to lock themselves away in places that are not susceptible to unarmed humans -- something we're very good at constructing. After a short amount of time, the virus would run its course, run out of living hosts, and die out.
A much more likely pandemic scenario is one that is airborne, has a relatively long latent phase, and a very high fatality rate once symptoms have set in. One could imagine a "super-flu" which simply transmits from person to person from hand to mouth, or from sneezes, or in airborne particles. It would have a slow onset -- something like the common cold or even weaker for a week or so -- which would end in severe symptoms like pneumonia or hemorrhaging, resulting in death. This seemingly mundane virus would be impossible to contain. It would spread easily between people, and would quickly cover the globe. If it had just the right parameters, the survival rate for humanity could be very near zero.
dfc05
Tank
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2003
- Messages
- 3,113
- Reaction score
- 6
I think nuclear fallout is more likely. Explanations for zombie-ism in movies are all kinda silly, especially considering that the body is already rotting. I guess you could also count extreme disease/parasite-induced behavioral changes as zombie-ism, but I still think that's unlikely.
If I were at my old school, I would've made a beeline for the fallout shelter on campus. Seriously, they have one (though I heard rumor that it will be or has been converted/removed). It has an occupancy of ~500 on a campus of ~50,000
.
But alas, I don't know if any fallout shelters exist where I'm currently at. So the best option is obviously to Duck and Cover, at least during the blast. According to the government, hiding under a piece of newspaper is good enough, and if the government says it, it must be true!
Failing that, I would Duct Tape and Cover, so instead of dying horribly from radiation, I can suffocate myself in a small airtight room!
If I were at my old school, I would've made a beeline for the fallout shelter on campus. Seriously, they have one (though I heard rumor that it will be or has been converted/removed). It has an occupancy of ~500 on a campus of ~50,000
.But alas, I don't know if any fallout shelters exist where I'm currently at. So the best option is obviously to Duck and Cover, at least during the blast. According to the government, hiding under a piece of newspaper is good enough, and if the government says it, it must be true!
Failing that, I would Duct Tape and Cover, so instead of dying horribly from radiation, I can suffocate myself in a small airtight room!
Similar threads
