In a zombie apocalpyse

[noparlpf]

a spear however lets you keep a modicum of distance from your opponent..which in a zombie-infection melee scenario is desirable.
that said, blunt weapons are less likely to get stuck into a zombie than a blade...and are dull to begin with, so need less maintenance to remain functional
..so, yeah, blunt weapons ftw

@karoth..aren't ski slopes ...covered in snow?.. doesn't that make hunting and generally getting about more hazardous for yourself or any hunting party you send out? (not to mention friggin' cold)

Are there any longish blunt weapons? The best I can think of is a mace. And that's pretty short.

For those interested in professional opinions on the matter, I refer you to Michigan State University's course on zombie survival.

If a university is on board then the dooks must be close to hitting the fan. Looks like I have a convenient excuse to buy that maul now.

Darn it, why didn't I apply there?

[Cobra_Ikari]

Are there any longish blunt weapons? The best I can think of is a mace. And that's pretty short.

Lucerne hammer? Some kind of maul?

[noparlpf]

Lucerne hammer? Some kind of maul?

Google's giving me "war hammers", which include the Lucerne, bec de corbin, and some other sorts. Polearm war hammers existed and were generally used against mounted foes. Aside from that there are the mace and morning star, and shorter war hammers. And sledgehammers and mauls.
I get the feeling that a really long bludgeoning weapon would be difficult to use because the head would have to be heavy, and the torque from the long handle would make it unwieldy.

[WyvernLord]

But so would the zombies.

[dehro]

I'd go with a warhammer or a simple mace. not long, but they're easy to carry, and easier to use unless you've trained specifically for 2handed weapons..movies make it look easy. it isn't.
also, too long weapons would be a bitch to use in small quarters. narrow passages, doorframes, corridors or bushes and low hanging branches would render any pole weapon pretty much useless.

[noparlpf]

I'd go with a warhammer or a simple mace. not long, but they're easy to carry, and easier to use unless you've trained specifically for 2handed weapons..movies make it look easy. it isn't.
also, too long weapons would be a bitch to use in small quarters. narrow passages, doorframes, corridors or bushes and low hanging branches would render any pole weapon pretty much useless.

I rather like halberds, but I'd rather not carry one around.
Still going with the classic crowbar. (Especially considering I own one and don't own a mace.)

[Riverdance]

On the subject of Zombie apocalypses and the end of civilization, today I was in a place that seemed just like the kind of spot where zombies would attack. It was a run down train yard with tons of old overgrown brick buildings full of junk all around. Me and a friend got up on top of two tanker cars and ran back and forth on the catwalks on top. Those cars have huge shocks and if we rocked back and forth the whole car swayed. There is nothing like the rush from jumping across a five foot gap between two swaying train cars 15 feet in the air, even if it is only five feet. I felt like I should either be having a revolver shootout or blowing the heads off zombies with a shotgun.

[Hiro Protagonest]

@karoth..aren't ski slopes ...covered in snow?.. doesn't that make hunting and generally getting about more hazardous for yourself or any hunting party you send out? (not to mention friggin' cold)

Not in summer. Or most of spring and fall. And it's not slippery if you avoid icy spots. And you could shovel the snow out of the way, making barricades. And it's not any colder than anywhere else in the area.

As for the bludgeoning weapon, I'd take a wood staff and put a layer of iron on the last foot or so of wood.

[noparlpf]

Not in summer. Or most of spring and fall. And it's not slippery if you avoid icy spots. And you could shovel the snow out of the way, making barricades. And it's not any colder than anywhere else in the area.

As for the bludgeoning weapon, I'd take a wood staff and put a layer of iron on the last foot or so of wood.

As a guy going to school in the Berkshires with half an hour of at least three different big ski places, I can second that. Even this winter it's mostly been artificial snow; the only real snow we got this winter was back in October. And I doubt the machines will be pumping out artificial snow after the apocalypse. So it's just a big hill, except in the winter when it's a big snowy hill. But in the winter everything is snowy. (Or mountain, whatever. What's the distinction?)

[SDF]

I've lived and thrived in some of the worst environments this planet has to offer, including cold temperatures where the unacclimated will die in under an hour of exposure (went out in shorts and a tee-shirt, actually).

What temperature would that be?

I'd go with a warhammer or a simple mace. not long, but they're easy to carry, and easier to use unless you've trained specifically for 2handed weapons..movies make it look easy. it isn't.
also, too long weapons would be a bitch to use in small quarters. narrow passages, doorframes, corridors or bushes and low hanging branches would render any pole weapon pretty much useless.

I have a tactical tomahawk myself. Better for CQC than a knife, works well as a pry bar, and has a sheath that fits on my MOLLE bag.

[noparlpf]

What temperature would that be?

I have a tactical tomahawk myself. Better for CQC than a knife, works well as a pry bar, and has a sheath that fits on my MOLLE bag.

Yeah, what temperature, weather, and wind speed?
I wear shorts rarely enough I could probably count on one hand the number of times a year I wear them. But, to me, it's not worth putting on long sleeves until it's below freezing. Though if it's below five degrees out, and I expect to be out for more than half an hour or so without moving around much, I will put on long sleeves. If I will be moving around, there's no need for long sleeves until maybe negative five, though I'll wear light gloves below positive five.

[Murska]

I've been out in -40C. That's cold. And the main thing about why people who grow up in cold climates fare better in them than ones who don't? We have the equipment, skills and knowledge to protect ourselves. I know how to survive in snow, build safe and warm shelters out of it, make snow-shoes and so on, and I also know that it's best to wear warm clothing when it's below freezing out.

I've had worse damage from the frostbites I got cycling a few kilometers home through sleet in roughly 0C with improper clothing than from walking around in below -30C properly clothed for hours.

[noparlpf]

I've been out in -40C. That's cold. And the main thing about why people who grow up in cold climates fare better in them than ones who don't? We have the equipment, skills and knowledge to protect ourselves. I know how to survive in snow, build safe and warm shelters out of it, make snow-shoes and so on, and I also know that it's best to wear warm clothing when it's below freezing out.

I've had worse damage from the frostbites I got cycling a few kilometers home through sleet in roughly 0C with improper clothing than from walking around in below -30C properly clothed for hours.

I live in New England, so I get the hot summers and (sometimes) the cold winters. And I have never had frostbite. I know what my limits are.

[dehro]

Yeah, what temperature, weather, and wind speed?
I wear shorts rarely enough I could probably count on one hand the number of times a year I wear them. But, to me, it's not worth putting on long sleeves until it's below freezing. Though if it's below five degrees out, and I expect to be out for more than half an hour or so without moving around much, I will put on long sleeves. If I will be moving around, there's no need for long sleeves until maybe negative five, though I'll wear light gloves below positive five.

I'm fairly used to cold weather..though not -40C today it was around 5 degrees here, (celsius of course..) and I was wearing a light sweater.
in case of zombie apocalypse however, I don't think you'll see me wearing anything less than 3 layers of clothing, the outer one preferably a leather jacket or somesuch..and gloves.. even if it gets up to 35-40 degrees in these parts, in the summer. wouldn't it be convenient if zombie apocalypses only happened in mild spring weather?

[noparlpf]

I'm fairly used to cold weather.. today it was around 5 degrees here, (celsius of course..) and I was wearing a light sweater.
in case of zombie apocalypse however, I don't think you'll see me wearing anything less than 3 layers of clothing, the outer one preferably a leather jacket or somesuch.. even if it gets up to 35-40 degrees in these parts, in the summer. wouldn't it be convenient if zombie apocalypses only happened in mild spring weather?

I'm American and I use Celsius. Who doesn't?
Where I'm from spring is rainy and too short. Autumn is nicer, though the fallen leaves are a double-edged sword in that they make walking louder.
And obviously if there are zombies around I'm wearing a leather jacket or something. I don't want to get bitten.

[dehro]

I remember this bit in QI (a british tv show) where the tv host was joking about how people (the brits I suppose) use farenheit temperatures to say it's really hot, and celsius to say it's really cold

[Starwulf]

I'm American and I use Celsius. Who doesn't?

Might be common in your area of the States, but in my area, I've never heard anyone use Celsius, myself included. I was confused as all hell when I got up into canada a few years ago and that's what they used. I still don't, to this day, have any clue as to what the temperature actually was, except "Warm" the second year, and "hot" the first year. ^^

[TheFallenOne]

You know, there's a lot wrong with what boredgremlin said, but he does have a point with the scenario adapted from The Walking Dead.

If doing the moral thing leads to 3 out of 3 people dying, but taking the immoral option means you and a young boy survive, should we really hang onto that piece of morality in the face of a global extinction event?
I'm not advocating tossing out morality altogether like he seems to do. Just... cut it down to the bare essentials. Make results matter. If morality leads to more people dying without gain, ignore morality in this instance.


So far, no one presented a reasonable rebuttal to this. All you did was weasel around it with 'There's always a chance', 'Maybe fattie ends up saving your life', 'Maybe there is conveniently a sniper you never met before watching from a rooftop'...

That is NOT how thought experiments work. 3/3 people die if you try to get away together. 2/3 survive if you backstab a friendly slowing you down. No loopholes, no third options. Choose.

[Objection]

Why would one of your allies be slowing you down anyway? Are they literally grabbing you and trying to drag you back towards the zombies?

[Traab]

Are there any longish blunt weapons? The best I can think of is a mace. And that's pretty short.



Darn it, why didn't I apply there?

kanabo. Basically, a giant freaking club used to crush things like armor, bones, and warhorses at a charge.

Kanabō type weapons came in all sizes and shapes with the largest ones being as tall as a man

Hows that for a longish blunt weapon? Takes a lot of training to use it properly, but zombies will practically explode with every hit you land on them.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Why would one of your allies be slowing you down anyway? Are they literally grabbing you and trying to drag you back towards the zombies?

Yeah, this is what I didn't get in his argument. "But some of them might come after you while you're messing with they keys if the guy falls while still in sight" (paraphrase) is a rather weak argument, as is "the slow guy is carrying the keys".

[WyvernLord]

Why would one of your allies be slowing you down anyway? Are they literally grabbing you and trying to drag you back towards the zombies?

This. What Bored said was a fat chain smoking man was behind him. They were both running at full speed. He would out run him already he was shooting him for no reason at all.

[TheFallenOne]

As said he posted a lot of nonsense, but that's not the point, nor is the exact reason why you need to shoot the lagger to survive. A scenario where you have to kill an innocent friendly in order to avoid everyone dying can be devised; unless you say that either
1) this is impossible, or
2) shooting him can be justified or not justified depending on the manner in which he slows us down
the exact particulars aren't important.
All you do is, again, weaseling around the difficult choice by challenging the premise or postulating third options.

[Traab]

Meh, fine then, if there was absolutely no way we could escape without shooting one of my own innocent teammates, id do it. But as I have yet to hear a scenario where that would be the case, im not going to obsess over it. Im just really having a hard time thinking of any scenario where three people are in danger of imminent death by zombie, but by killing one the other two will live.

[Starwulf]

You know, there's a lot wrong with what boredgremlin said, but he does have a point with the scenario adapted from The Walking Dead.

If doing the moral thing leads to 3 out of 3 people dying, but taking the immoral option means you and a young boy survive, should we really hang onto that piece of morality in the face of a global extinction event?
I'm not advocating tossing out morality altogether like he seems to do. Just... cut it down to the bare essentials. Make results matter. If morality leads to more people dying without gain, ignore morality in this instance.


So far, no one presented a reasonable rebuttal to this. All you did was weasel around it with 'There's always a chance', 'Maybe fattie ends up saving your life', 'Maybe there is conveniently a sniper you never met before watching from a rooftop'...

That is NOT how thought experiments work. 3/3 people die if you try to get away together. 2/3 survive if you backstab a friendly slowing you down. No loopholes, no third options. Choose.

3/3 die. I'm not going to backstab a friendly ally just to ensure the life of myself and someone else, even if that was my daughter. Not by shooting him anyways. If you want to consider "backstab" as "continue running while the zombies catch and eat him" then sure, I'll let that happen, I'd expect others to let me get eaten if I can't outrun the zombie horde and the only thing they could do was die with me.

edit: Also, if you'll go back and read closely, at the top of my posts, I actually already said that I wouldn't do what bored said "all" would do. So, you're wrong, not everyone "weaseled" their way out of answering by giving loopholes. I specifically said even if it was my daughter I wouldn't do it, and I said that a page or two ago.

[TheFallenOne]

@Traab
You are hiding with nowhere to run when one has a panic attack and doesn't stop screaming, which will attract zombies, and is too strong for you to physically overpower and silence?

3/3 die. I'm not going to backstab a friendly ally just to ensure the life of myself and someone else, even if that was my daughter. Not by shooting him anyways. If you want to consider "backstab" as "continue running while the zombies catch and eat him" then sure, I'll let that happen, I'd expect others to let me get eaten if I can't outrun the zombie horde and the only thing they could do was die with me.

See, that I can't agree with. You are valueing moral integrity higher than human life, in a situation where humanity is facing the threat of total extinction. I can understand not killing someone who'd survive otherwise to save your own hide and someone else, but not killing someone who'd die anyway to save the lifes of others? I'd call that foolish, more prideful than moral.

[SaintRidley]

See, that I can't agree with. You are valueing moral integrity higher than human life, in a situation where humanity is facing the threat of total extinction. I can understand not killing someone who'd survive otherwise to save your own hide and someone else, but not killing someone who'd die anyway to save the lifes of others? I'd call that foolish, more prideful than moral.

I call it practical. Why waste the ammo to kill someone who is going to die without your interference?

[Objection]

As said he posted a lot of nonsense, but that's not the point, nor is the exact reason why you need to shoot the lagger to survive. A scenario where you have to kill an innocent friendly in order to avoid everyone dying can be devised; unless you say that either
1) this is impossible, or
2) shooting him can be justified or not justified depending on the manner in which he slows us down
the exact particulars aren't important.
All you do is, again, weaseling around the difficult choice by challenging the premise or postulating third options.

Very well.

Come up with a feasible scenario in which the only choices are "shoot one guy" and "everybody dies". As long as you do not do that, statement 1) is true.

[Traab]

@Traab
You are hiding with nowhere to run when one has a panic attack and doesn't stop screaming, which will attract zombies, and is too strong for you to physically overpower and silence?

So, I cant just clobber him with a rifle butt to knock him out, and my only choice is to shoot him, (which will likely attract zombies just as well as screaming would) or let him keep screaming till the zombies kill us all because there is no way out somehow? And he is just going to LET me shoot him?

[Murska]

I consider myself rather pragmatic, and if there was this strange situation where I have to shoot an ally (and for whatever reason can't volunteer as the sacrifice myself) to reach the better outcome, and I can't explain this to the ally and get his consent, if there was enough time to really go through it in my head and justify it to myself I might be able to pull the trigger. But in a very fast situation, my gut reaction would be 'No!' and so I'd waste time, which depending on the scenario might doom us all.