In a zombie apocalpyse

[Karoht]

I'm a sharpshooter (or better) with an M16A2, M4, M249 (scary good with that, actually), M240-series, and Browning M2 .50-cal HMG. I used to be able to claim howitzers, but my gunner qual lapsed. I'm a Shadow operator now, and thus am able to provide aerial surveillance of the sort that makes senior officers squeal with glee. I'm proficient in hand-to-hand, both armed and unarmed, and excel at grappling (I'm a lightweight who rolls with heavyweights) - particularly not letting the enemy grab me. My experience also goes beyond mere training; suffice to say I do have nerve. 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). My expertise is in urban and guerilla warfare: Where most fear to tread, my team and I will own the city.
Yes, I said team. I am, unlike your average movie hero, a team player. Alone I am formiddable; together we are unbeatable.

I'd be doing in a zombie apocalypse what I do every day: Standing ready to defend those who cannot defend themselves.

You sir, win the thread.

In your professional opinion, what is the actual viability of flamethrowers in this situation? Particularly in urban zones?
I personally don't plan to use one as I don't enjoy walking around with a bomb strapped to my back where a single stray round can blast me to bits/burn me to a crisp, and the resource usage (hard to acquire petrolium product/s) I just can't justify. But, say the resource problem wasn't an issue. Thoughts?

[Traab]

You sir, win the thread.

In your professional opinion, what is the actual viability of flamethrowers in this situation? Particularly in urban zones?
I personally don't plan to use one as I don't enjoy walking around with a bomb strapped to my back where a single stray round can blast me to bits/burn me to a crisp, and the resource usage (hard to acquire petrolium product/s) I just can't justify. But, say the resource problem wasn't an issue. Thoughts?

Flamethrowers are a bad idea against zombies period. It isnt a fast killing weapon, and until they finally burn enough to ash to fall over, you have comets shambling all over the place setting fire to everything they touch. Combine that with the weight of the weapon plus fuel, the scarcity of said fuel, and as you said, the explosive potential due to stray shots, and its just not a good idea. Flamethrowers are a fear weapon. Zombies dont feel fear.

[Tyndmyr]

You sir, win the thread.

In your professional opinion, what is the actual viability of flamethrowers in this situation? Particularly in urban zones?
I personally don't plan to use one as I don't enjoy walking around with a bomb strapped to my back where a single stray round can blast me to bits/burn me to a crisp, and the resource usage (hard to acquire petrolium product/s) I just can't justify. But, say the resource problem wasn't an issue. Thoughts?

I personally wouldn't bother with flamethrowers for most things. They're an easy improvised weapon, but flame doesn't kill instantly the way bullets do, short range is a problem, they're fairly heavy...and they really are best at one niche...clearning people out of tunnels/bunkers without going inside. Most homes a flamethrower won't work on without destroying them.

I suppose there may come times when their original niche is a thing, but for most terrain, a good rifle or carbine is much more practical option.

[TheFallenOne]

I figure the right answer to people poking holes into hypothetical scenarios is not to add detail but to substract it.

As in, "Imagine there's a situation where, if a person does nothing, five people will die, and if he flips a switch, one person will die. He can't do anything else. Which would be the moral thing to do?"

Then, answer every complaint about the scenario with "Magic."

Thank you, I was abou to give up hope.

And often there are other moral realists who disagree with them.
=Subjective.

So if there is disagreement on something it is inherently subjective without an objective truth vaue? I'm sorry, but... WHAT?
My entire point there was that there are philosophers who advocate morality as an objective and universal truth independent of human thinking. I don't see where your objection is supposed to lead.

The kanabo is the same weight as that ridiculously huge sword you have in that picture. A two-handed sword that long can weigh four pounds, and a reinforced wooden kanabo fifty-seven inches long weighs four pounds. Plus it has a longer grip, and it's radially symmetric, so it would actually be better in every single way than a two-handed, double-edged European straight sword.

Um, that old picture obviously isn't 100% accurate when it comes to dimensions. Or perspective and angles for the matter. I just wanted to illustrate the stance from which you can easily execute a stab straight to the face.
And better in every single way... What about the ability to stab I mentioned? What about the amount of effort required per kill? What about reach?
On the contrary, I'd assert that a hand-and-a-half sword is strictly superior to a Kanabo for our zombie scenario.

[dehro]

Thank you, I was abou to give up hope.

I still fail to see why the whole philosophical conundrum comes into play...

as I've mentioned before (post 323) the issue started from Boredgremlin's statement that offing his allies to enhance his chances was basically going to be not a last resort specific situation, but his main strategy and his role in the group... and to prove his point he started putting out examples of situations and people started to disprove them by nitpicking and applying armchair strategy.
the objection was never to the examples he brougth forth though..but rather to his plan of action...the examples were merely a bad attempt at somehow prove that it was the right path to walk, and that cold logic was on his side.

[Tyndmyr]

Right. There's a difference between a situation with literally only two options and "execute everyone in the prison and take it over".

That latter one is morally pretty horrible.

[noparlpf]

Flamethrowers are a bad idea against zombies period. It isnt a fast killing weapon, and until they finally burn enough to ash to fall over, you have comets shambling all over the place setting fire to everything they touch. Combine that with the weight of the weapon plus fuel, the scarcity of said fuel, and as you said, the explosive potential due to stray shots, and its just not a good idea. Flamethrowers are a fear weapon. Zombies dont feel fear.

It's a fear/pain weapon. Humans will shy away from flames because it's hot and painful.
In other words, zero practical application against mobile zombies.

So if there is disagreement on something it is inherently subjective without an objective truth value? I'm sorry, but... WHAT?
My entire point there was that there are philosophers who advocate morality as an objective and universal truth independent of human thinking. I don't see where your objection is supposed to lead.

Any moral code we are capable of philosophizing is going to be subjective, with no way of verifying whether it is objective or not. Sure, I'm open to the possibility that there is an objective and universal truth independent of human thinking, but I have yet to see any indication of this when it comes to morality. All the moral codes I've seen were only subjectively right. And, unlike in real science, there's no way to prove that a moral hypothesis is factual. I was objecting to your use of the word "factual".
As long as you're disagreeing with me, what's wrong with my response to the trolley problem?

Um, that old picture obviously isn't 100% accurate when it comes to dimensions. Or perspective and angles for the matter. I just wanted to illustrate the stance from which you can easily execute a stab straight to the face.
And better in every single way... What about the ability to stab I mentioned? What about the amount of effort required per kill? What about reach?
On the contrary, I'd assert that a hand-and-a-half sword is strictly superior to a Kanabo for our zombie scenario.

Well, how should I know that? There are swords that large, and if the only image you provide shows swords that large, it's natural to assume you're talking about something similar. (I have seen pictures of the ochs stance showing smaller swords. Obviously a sword stance isn't limited to one weapon.)
The kanabo can also crush with the tip. No reason it couldn't. You execute the same motion you would to stab with a sword from the ochs position, and it would most likely bash in the zombie's face. (I haven't used a kanabo before, but if you'd like, I could go about getting one, and getting some skulls, and test that.)

[TheFallenOne]

Well, if you think I'm just picking up where gremling left I can understand your misgivings. But I'm not. I said - more than once - that there is a lot of things wrong with what he said. Yes, that is an understatement. But I have to keep the forum rules in mind.

However, the example adapted from The Walking Dead did have some value I thought. I wanted to use it to explore how human morality would hold up when faced with an apocalypse. When humanity's very survival is at risk, would people be willing to murder an innocent if it is the only way to save themselves and others? Or would they stick to their morals, even if it means everyone will die and doing the moral thing has no practical net benefit(aside from that one guy living one or two minutes longer)?

THAT is an interesting question. Would we be willing to make that tough decision or would we stick to our beliefs and thus condemning us and others to a death that could have been avoided?
Some gave an answer to this. Unfortunately, the common reaction was to evade the question.

[noparlpf]

Well, if you think I'm just picking up where gremling left I can understand your misgivings. But I'm not. I said - more than once - that there is a lot of things wrong with what he said. Yes, that is an understatement. But I have to keep the forum rules in mind.

However, the example adapted from The Walking Dead did have some value I thought. I wanted to use it to explore how human morality would hold up when faced with an apocalypse. When humanity's very survival is at risk, would people be willing to murder an innocent if it is the only way to save themselves and others? Or would they stick to their morals, even if it means everyone will die and doing the moral thing has no practical net benefit(aside from that one guy living one or two minutes longer)?

THAT is an interesting question. Would we be willing to make that tough decision or would we stick to our beliefs and thus condemning us and others to a death that could have been avoided?
Some gave an answer to this. Unfortunately, the common reaction was to evade the question.

I would stick to my morals rather than killing an innocent, or especially a trusted teammate. If I survive, I have to live with myself. I'd rather die honorably than live with myself after betraying a comrade.

So what about my answer to the trolley problem?

[WyvernLord]

I'd say I would sacrifice myself. Unless the situation posed wouldn't accept that answer. I would not shoot someone just to survive I'd stop and shoot the zombies till they closed. Unless you want to add a detail that would otherwise add something else to the equation that is my answer.

[Karoht]

a spear however lets you keep a modicum of distance from your opponent..which in a zombie-infection melee scenario is desirable.

Shield and Spear are for narrow confines, Shield and blunt object (ranging from proper war hammer to pipe wrench to baseball bat) for more open areas. Shield and Spear are mostly for the initial charge and keeping things at a distance for as long as humanly possible. In theory, if my backup behind me is any good, I'm really just a front line support acting as a layer of defense for the shooters.

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

Indeed. Though two handed blunt objects and polearms require a lot of space to operate. Just a warning. I still think a Halberd would be excellent if we ignore things like splattering blood everywhere. My riot helmet is actually really good for that purpose, so is my gas mask.

@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)

It's Karoht, not Karoth. Just saying. =p
1-I'm Canadian. Cold? Pffft. -20 C is a normal winter for us. -40 C is when it really starts to suck.
2-Cold zombies are probably slowed down. Either by the snow, the cold itself, or a combination of both. If they aren't affected by the cold I'll be genuinely surprised.
3-Snow is easily removed to clear paths for us to use, make cover, make trenches and pitfalls, etc. While it would likely be a waste of fuel to use them, ski hills actually have the machines to make terrain like that, and quickly. Zombies want to come up the hill at us? Great, they have to at some point negociate an 8-10 foot deep trench. This is really just one example mind you. At worst, it should be easy enough to use the snow to create bottlenecks and barracades.
4-Snow is white, it is very very easy to spot something that does not belong on a white background, even at night, though that does depend somewhat on lighting available. A person moving up the hill past lights out is easy to spot, and easy to connect the dots of 'no one is supposed to be up there at this hour, possible threat, treat with caution, get people together to investigate carefully'
5-The snow/ice is a deterrant to vehicles and people. This is more to keep out raiding parties, note that I say deterrant and not complete and total prevention. Snow also means easy to spot tracks, so during the winter it is a bit easier to spot traces of activity, such as a scout ahead of a raiding group, or maybe some wandering zombie activity.
IE-Footprints spotted by active patrollers down at the bottom of the trail where hardly anyone ever has a reason to go. Possible threat. Call it in, arm people up, lock entrances down, organize a group to carefully investigate.
6-The bears hibernate, the deer/elk/cariboo/moose do not. In the spring, the hunting is even better.
7-Wood. Lots of it. Everywhere. For every conceivable purpose.
8-Snow = source of clean water. It's actually not that hard to store lots of it past winter either, if it's even needed.
9-Land. Most Ski Hills now rent out parts of their land as grazing areas for cattle, at least in BC. Parts of the hill will have decent topsoil and good sun facing. That helps if one wants to garden. The hill I have in mind, has berry bushes and carrots growing wild on the hill. Strawberries as well. It wouldn't be hard to get potatoes growing in those conditions, and the soil is quite good for that purpose. That's before I get something of a greenhouse going.

[TheFallenOne]

Well, how should I know that? There are swords that large, and if the only image you provide shows swords that large, it's natural to assume you're talking about something similar. (I have seen pictures of the ochs stance showing smaller swords. Obviously a sword stance isn't limited to one weapon.)
The kanabo can also crush with the tip. No reason it couldn't. You execute the same motion you would to stab with a sword from the ochs position, and it would most likely bash in the zombie's face. (I haven't used a kanabo before, but if you'd like, I could go about getting one, and getting some skulls, and test that.)

Fair enough, I notice I indeed didn't specify it wasn't supposed to be one of the bulkier and impractical kinds of twohanders.

ISo what about my answer to the trolley problem?

The one where you throw dice to decide?
Well, it is an answer instead of a rejection of the premise, so kudos.
On the other hand, I'd consider it a bad answer. You still evade. You shift responsibility to random dice because, I surmise, you don't want to take responsibility for deciding who dies and who lives. Because either choice would weight on your consciousness.
You call it an impossible decision, because you don't know if maybe the five are evil or the one later saves lifes. I call it choosing the lesser of two evils with the information you have at hand. I'd save the five and kill the one.
Yes, it might turn out later that the five are murderers and the one knew the cure for the zombie infection. But that's Hindsight Bias. Even if that happens, saying saving the five is the lesser evil was rationally correct with the information I had when making the decision. That saving the one would have had a better outcome doesn't change that because that was outside the information I had available. I'd understand that, and I'd be able to live with myself even after saving five mass murderers.

[LordVader]

I figure the right answer to people poking holes into hypothetical scenarios is not to add detail but to substract it.

As in, "Imagine there's a situation where, if a person does nothing, five people will die, and if he flips a switch, one person will die. He can't do anything else. Which would be the moral thing to do?"

Then, answer every complaint about the scenario with "Magic."

If it has no possible basis in reality, than why bother even asking it in the first place?

Seeking to evaluate people's morals, yet denying them the full range of actions and context which morality is necessarily defined by strikes me as rather pointless. Context and detail is hugely important to any question of morality.

Regarding the discussion of The Walking Dead scene where Shane shoots Otis:

Shane did, in fact, tell Otis to take the bag and go on ahead to save Carl. Otis did not; therefore, Shane shot him in order to make his escape with the medicine.

[Tyndmyr]

The one where you throw dice to decide?
Well, it is an answer instead of a rejection of the premise, so kudos.
On the other hand, I'd consider it a bad answer. You still evade. You shift responsibility to random dice because, I surmise, you don't want to take responsibility for deciding who dies and who lives. Because either choice would weight on your consciousness.
You call it an impossible decision, because you don't know if maybe the five are evil or the one later saves lifes. I call it choosing the lesser of two evils with the information you have at hand. I'd save the five and kill the one.
Yes, it might turn out later that the five are murderers and the one knew the cure for the zombie infection. But that's Hindsight Bias. Even if that happens, saying saving the five is the lesser evil was rationally correct with the information I had when making the decision. That saving the one would have had a better outcome doesn't change that because that was outside the information I had available. I'd understand that, and I'd be able to live with myself even after saving five mass murderers.

This isn't responsibility. There is no responsibility in the choice.

The responsibility is with the person who arranged this twisted choice to begin with.

I pick the 5 because, on such an abstract level, the only question I am answering is "would you prefer more people died or less?" The easy answer to this trivial question is "less".

But such a question and answer has basically nothing to do with the real world or solving actual moral questions.

[Murska]

If it has no possible basis in reality, than why bother even asking it in the first place?

Seeking to evaluate people's morals, yet denying them the full range of actions and context which morality is necessarily defined by strikes me as rather pointless. Context and detail is hugely important to any question of morality.

Because it's interesting? I've got imagination, I think of a lot of things that aren't applicable to reality.

Context and detail are problematic because the more of those we add to the situation, the smaller amount of situations we're considering - to understand morality, reduce it, figure out how it works exactly and what laws and rules it follows, we need to find broad overarching principles, not solutions to single cases. We do this by reducing variables.

@^ "Would you prefer more people died or less?" is almost exactly the question being asked here. The only extra stipulation is, would you be willing to actively kill the 'less' to save the 'more' or would you by inaction kill the 'more'.


What you're saying, about how this doesn't apply to real life, is like saying that because we won't need to work with perfect spheres in real life, it's useless to study the maths and physics applicable to them.

[noparlpf]

I figure the right answer to people poking holes into hypothetical scenarios is not to add detail but to substract it.

As in, "Imagine there's a situation where, if a person does nothing, five people will die, and if he flips a switch, one person will die. He can't do anything else. Which would be the moral thing to do?"

Then, answer every complaint about the scenario with "Magic."

I wave my hands in the air and jump up and down. I didn't do nothing and I didn't flip the switch. Really, what's stopping me from doing that?

This isn't responsibility. There is no responsibility in the choice.

The responsibility is with the person who arranged this twisted choice to begin with.

I pick the 5 because, on such an abstract level, the only question I am answering is "would you prefer more people died or less?" The easy answer to this trivial question is "less".

But such a question and answer has basically nothing to do with the real world or solving actual moral questions.

Exactly. It's the ass who tied the people to the train tracks who's responsible.
Oh yeah and what happened to the train's emergency brakes? I wouldn't build something that big without at least one redundancy in the emergency brakes, and I know that real trains do have normal brakes as well as the emergency brakes.
And sure, most people would say that without further information, choosing to let the lone person die is the right thing to do.
I say, give me a real-world situation where that's really the only choice.

[Tyndmyr]

@^ "Would you prefer more people died or less?" is almost exactly the question being asked here. The only extra stipulation is, would you be willing to actively kill the 'less' to save the 'more' or would you by inaction kill the 'more'.

I reject that extra stipulation. You are not actively killing anyone. The only active thing you are doing is selecting from two options.

This is essentially a villain asking who you want to die, and saying that if you don't choose, he'll kill them both. Regardless of who you point at, he's the one doing the actual killing, he's the one constructing the situation.

What you're saying, about how this doesn't apply to real life, is like saying that because we won't need to work with perfect spheres in real life, it's useless to study the maths and physics applicable to them.

Spherical objects are frequently quite useful in real life. Artificial scenarios in which someone has build an unlikely death trap solely to force a decision...not so much.

[Murska]

I wave my hands in the air and jump up and down. I didn't do nothing and I didn't flip the switch. Really, what's stopping me from doing that?

Magic.

Spherical objects are frequently quite useful in real life. Artificial scenarios in which someone has build an unlikely death trap solely to force a decision...not so much.

However, they're only 'spherical' not 'perfectly spherical'. We still do maths based on perfectly spherical objects because trying to calculate in advance every possible form of roughly spherical object would be ridiculous and impossible. Same as why trying to figure out how morality works in a situation distilled to having as few variables as possible, our 'perfect sphere' so to speak, is useful in the attempt to understand how morality works in roughly similar cases with third options and strange circumstances and whatnot.

We already know that generally people would avoid killing anyone if that were possible, we also know that people would aim for the least number of casualties if possible. There's still questions like "can we give a value to a person's life, and how much is it worth" and "are some people worth more than others" and "is the worth of a person subjective" and so on that we have to answer.

[noparlpf]

Magic.

Magic doesn't exist in my world. I'm not buying it.

[Mono Vertigo]

Magic doesn't exist in my world. I'm not buying it.

Science, then.




I'll fetch my coat.

[Murska]

Not that anyone said it was your world, or you for that matter.

[Tyndmyr]

Magic.

Then my answer to your scenario is "Magic".

If you can set up everything in this word with magic, I can fix it all with magic. All seven of us have a magical tea party on the trolley as we travel backward through time and space.

However, they're only 'spherical' not 'perfectly spherical'. We still do maths based on perfectly spherical objects because trying to calculate in advance every possible form of roughly spherical object would be ridiculous and impossible. Same as why trying to figure out how morality works in a situation distilled to having as few variables as possible, our 'perfect sphere' so to speak, is useful in the attempt to understand how morality works in roughly similar cases with third options and strange circumstances and whatnot.

We already know that generally people would avoid killing anyone if that were possible, we also know that people would aim for the least number of casualties if possible. There's still questions like "can we give a value to a person's life, and how much is it worth" and "are some people worth more than others" and "is the worth of a person subjective" and so on that we have to answer.

But this highly abstracted, undetailed scenario does not answer any of those. How can I answer if one person's life is worth more than five's if I have no details about those lives? My assumption is that the five most likely have more value than the one, but I have no way to know that for certain.

So, all this scenario is telling us is...the trivial fact we already know. That's not very useful. It certainly doesn't match up well against the comparison to physics.

[Murska]

I'm the GM, you can't because magic.



I wouldn't say it's trivial. Your response already says that you don't think every life has a certain, fixed value that is equal. This means not everyone is equally worthy to live. To exaggerate, you'd rather save an innocent child than a serial killer.

But does everyone think that way and how do people value other people's lives? Would you save your mother rather than five complete strangers? What about your mother or an innocent child? We'll of course need to put several unknowing people through these scenarios to get enough of a sample to gain statistical significance.

[noparlpf]

I'm the GM, you can't because magic.



I wouldn't say it's trivial. Your response already says that you don't think every life has a certain, fixed value that is equal. This means not everyone is equally worthy to live. To exaggerate, you'd rather save an innocent child than a serial killer.

But does everyone think that way and how do people value other people's lives? Would you save your mother rather than five complete strangers? What about your mother or an innocent child? We'll of course need to put several unknowing people through these scenarios to get enough of a sample to gain statistical significance.

I would probably put somebody I'm close to ahead of a stranger, or even five strangers. It's irrational and unfair, but then, so are those silly human emotions I keep trying to ditch.

[Zen Monkey]

For weapons, get yourself a nice auto-shotgun. The impact means that the ones you don't kill outright will at least be knocked back or knocked down. The spread means you don't have to be super-precise. The auto means you don't have the usual reloading drawbacks of a shotgun. Just spend a little time in the gym so you don't dislocate your shoulder.

Watch Caesar's big scene in The Expendables. That guy in a zombie scenario would rack up more kills than Kratos on Red Bull.

Of course, if you have a friend to team up with and access to a base, a nice truck-mounted .50 cal would be good for rounding up and eliminating herds.

[Maxios]

I just have a couple questions about these hypothetical zombies:
#1: Are these Fast or Slow zombies?
#2: Can these zombies only be killed by a headshot?
#3: Are you turned into a zombie by getting bit by one?
#4: Are there numerous variants of these zombies, like L4D?

[Coidzor]

I figure the right answer to people poking holes into hypothetical scenarios is not to add detail but to substract it.

As in, "Imagine there's a situation where, if a person does nothing, five people will die, and if he flips a switch, one person will die. He can't do anything else. Which would be the moral thing to do?"

Then, answer every complaint about the scenario with "Magic."

I find that the Trolley Problem generally makes discussions worse, unfortunately.

[CynicalAvocado]

the guy who watched his family become zombies and talks to his machete

[Solaris]

What temperature would that be?

-67, light snow (you really don't get much precipitation at that temp, I think it was mostly just blowing), approximately 15 knot winds. I went out in shorts and t-shirt on a dare after someone said you couldn't survive it and 'the charts' backed it up. Didn't even get frostbite. Shivered a lot, though.
I was, of course, acclimated to arctic conditions. I acclimate very well to temperature extremes, apparently, though I much prefer cold to heat.

You sir, win the thread.

Me and pretty much any other combat arms Joe.

In your professional opinion, what is the actual viability of flamethrowers in this situation? Particularly in urban zones?
I personally don't plan to use one as I don't enjoy walking around with a bomb strapped to my back where a single stray round can blast me to bits/burn me to a crisp, and the resource usage (hard to acquire petrolium product/s) I just can't justify. But, say the resource problem wasn't an issue. Thoughts?

As Tyndmyr and Traab said, not. Read what Sun Tzu has to say about incendiaries in war.

[SDF]

I'm assuming Fahrenheit with wind chill? I've never been to the arctic and that temp should never be a problem unless you seek it out.

For weapons, get yourself a nice auto-shotgun. The impact means that the ones you don't kill outright will at least be knocked back or knocked down. The spread means you don't have to be super-precise. The auto means you don't have the usual reloading drawbacks of a shotgun. Just spend a little time in the gym so you don't dislocate your shoulder.

Shotgun ammo is heavier, has penetration problems in most loads, and you have to aim about as well as you would with a rifle. The "cone of death" notion is pretty bad conventional wisdom. The shoulder fatigue is going to be much worse than with just about any other gun. Shotguns are a pretty bad choice for anti-personnel and long term use situations.