In a zombie apocalpyse

[Story Time]

...good to know that they will be safe in Siam?

There are public zoos with elephants all across most major nations. True, the numbers are small, but it is something. The lions and the tigers, if they chose to be, could be just as dangerous to the zombies as they would be to sapient humans. Trading the presence of five to fifteen zombies for the price of one tiger? Each living creature is precious, but it would be...inspiring to watch the great cats if they chose to fight.

A large pack of wolves could run down and kill a frighteningly large number of zombies, depending on the zombie type and their species.

So, yes, a squadron of elephants makes little sense in an urbanite nation, but training one to fight and trample might be worth the effort.

[Murska]

Head-Line:
Roman Style War Dogs Save World From Zombies


Really, it would never work. The transmission of the zombie contagion from one species to another would simply mean killing the dogs after a victory. The reason why is because the dogs' primary weapon would be their jaws and teeth. This would allow the infection to spread to the dogs if they were used in a combat capacity. It is not cost effective for a military unit to train a militant and then kill it after the first battle. Even more, there is no guarantee that an animal could be made to fight a zombie. Bears might considering their natural size advantage. As mentioned earlier, they could use paws as opposed to teeth. But even disciplined horses trained to trample humans would think twice about approaching a creature that could bite it and transform it into something else.

If a human can detect and reason out that a zombie could transform a victim into a zombie most animals could reason this by instinct.

Dogs would be useful for scouting and guard duty in World War Zed, but not active field combat. Explosive-packed pigs have a better chance.

You're assuming dogs can get infected, here, the opposite of which was the premise of the discussion.

And I'm pretty sure dogs can be trained to kill zombies. They've been trained to kill armed horsemen and bears, for example.

[Story Time]

You're assuming dogs can get infected, here, the opposite of which was the premise of the discussion.

And I'm pretty sure dogs can be trained to kill zombies. They've been trained to kill armed horsemen and bears, for example.

...I wonder if the person above bothered to read the opening post or Tyndmyr's other posts in the thread. There was zero mention of animals in the original post. It may be Murska's personal opinion about the thread that the zombie contagion would not jump species, but the citations do not support Murska's claims.

No offense meant, of course. ......

The reality is that there is only one type of life truly safe from a zombie contagion. That would be sea life which is surrounded by salt-water. A brine which might kill the organism responsible for the zombie-ism. Anything else is science fiction.


Addendum:
In theory it is plausible that high nutritional value inside a human being or an animal could prevent zombie infection. Since dogs do not eat junk foods and sweeteners ( drugs ) they might have a better immune system than common humans of urbanite nations. Still, the point stands.

[Cobra_Ikari]

It may be Murska's personal opinion about the thread that the zombie contagion would not jump species, but the citations do not support Murska's claims.

...umm, what exactly is the citation you're speaking of? Zombies as a contagion would be less likely to be transmittable across species than other forms, I would think...

[dehro]

. Anything else is science fiction.

because zombies aren't??

[Murska]

Even if biting a zombie wouldn't kill the animal

If you would read this part of my post right above yours, as an example, the discussion about animal usage basically quickly came to the conclusion by most people involved that if zombieism can infect and/or kill animals on contact, using animals to do battle would not work, so any further discussion on the matter would be based on the assumption that it doesn't, as otherwise talking about it would be rather futile, a final conclusion already having been reached.

That was what I was referring to.

[Mutant Sheep]

Relying on The Zombie Survival Guide for all your zombie information needs isn't the greatest of plans. Similar zombie, silly canon. (Max Brooks is fun to read though.)

[dehro]

great..now I'm picturing zombies reading through that same book to outsmart us

[noparlpf]

Then we'll be fine, because that's a terrible book.

[Story Time]

Relying on The Zombie Survival Guide for all your zombie information needs isn't the greatest of plans. Similar zombie, silly canon. (Max Brooks is fun to read though.)

The Zombie Survival Guide is like the poisoned marijuana of literature. If one rolls it up and smokes it, they become stupid and sick.

---

1
Honestly, the book has to be taken as a comedic farce. It has no redeeming value as a guide founded with any verisimilitude.

[Mathis]

What makes the survival guide bad though? Terrible? When I read it, it struck me as a pretty decent guide for general preparedness and how to handle survival after things hit the fan. Just interested in what you guys think is it's downsides.

[Story Time]

What makes the survival guide bad though? Terrible? When I read it, it struck me as a pretty decent guide for general preparedness and how to handle survival after things hit the fan. Just interested in what you guys think is it's downsides.

Many ridiculous, bad, and / or silly suggestions due to...

...Inaccurate understanding of infectious organisms. Inaccurate understanding of logistical concerns including transportation, ammunition, home defense, weapon systems, armor, medicine, and food. Inaccurate understanding of basic strategy for a survival situation.

It...really is a long list. A comedic book about a zombie scenario, maybe, but not something serious.

[dehro]

isn't that the way it's supposed to be read? as a comedy rather than a real guide?
now, I haven't read it, but every time I see people piling the hate on this book I can't help thinking that somebody along the line has failed his spot sarcasm check..
I mean..seriously.. the author is the son of Mel Brooks.. what bigger clue does one need?
...not to mention..it's about zombies!

[Story Time]

Here is the official review from the official web-site. There's no mention of satire or humor beyond intentional anecdotes. It is not intended as a spoof book and there-in lies the problem.

[Mathis]

It...really is a long list. A comedic book about a zombie scenario, maybe, but not something serious.

Of course, I hope I didn't give the impression of actually thinking it's anything other than a comedic book. I doubt anyone reading this honestly belives it's written without a certain degree of tongue in cheek.It's just that nothing in the book struck me as glaringly wrong. Could you point out specifics, it's hard for me to find the parts of the book you think are bad when all I have to go on are "Inaccuracies about everything the book writes about".

However I don't think we should be speculating on the author's intent, like you do when you claim it's not written as a spoof book. We can't possibly know without a statement from the author.

[Ravens_cry]

Well, given its nature as a guide to something that, hopefully, will never happen and is pretty close to physically impossible, it can be taken as spoof of guide books to surviving dangerous circumstances in general.

[Coidzor]

Well, given its nature as a guide to something that, hopefully, will never happen and is pretty close to physically impossible, it can be taken as spoof of guide books to surviving dangerous circumstances in general.

Yes, but it needs to be either more clear or more accurate about where it actually does intersect with reality, otherwise it's too muddled to be effective.

[Story Time]

Could you point out specifics, it's hard for me to find the parts of the book you think are bad when all I have to go on are "Inaccuracies about everything the book writes about".

Primary Example: The recommended load-out for zombie survival / hunting is an insignificant seventy-five rounds for Max Brooks's zombie apocalypse. Fifty rounds for the primary weapon and twenty-five for the pistol. The primary weapon recommendation is the M16A1 ( which has its own list of in-combat problems) and a pistol chambered for the .22LR caliber.

These bullet sizes are too small and too few for effective combat purposes. Also, the weapons section lists shuriken ( throwing stars ) as an effective weapon against zombies.

Secondary Example: The strategy recommended for survival is for the survivor to travel on foot into an inner city area and avoid suburbs if at all possible. The zombie virus ( which has an incubation period of one day; Ebola and Bubonic require two to six days, minimum ) then has some kind of...science fiction power to preserve walking corpses for three to five years after infection.

Conclusion: Calculate how long a lone individual would last in an inner city area surrounded by decomposition-resistant zombies armed with only seventy-five rounds, a hand-axe, and no body armor.

However I don't think we should be speculating on the author's intent, like you do when you claim it's not written as a spoof book. We can't possibly know without a statement from the author.

...I'll admit that. I shouldn't be so liberal with my claims. What I should say is that, "A significant number of the assumptions and recommendations in the Zombie Survival Guide would not suffice for the subject which it supposedly covers."

Thank you, Mathis, for your input.

[dehro]

whatever the stated intent of the book, and even more so if it isn't stated, the moment it's clear it's talking about zombies, I'm not going to treat it as anything other than entertainment and funny/comedy... despite itself, if I have to.
otherwise it would be a perfect waste of time.

[Solaris]

Primary Example: The recommended load-out for zombie survival / hunting is an insignificant seventy-five rounds for Max Brooks's zombie apocalypse. Fifty rounds for the primary weapon and twenty-five for the pistol. The primary weapon recommendation is the M16A1 ( which has its own list of in-combat problems) and a pistol chambered for the .22LR caliber.

These bullet sizes are too small and too few for effective combat purposes. Also, the weapons section lists shuriken ( throwing stars ) as an effective weapon against zombies.

Secondary Example: The strategy recommended for survival is for the survivor to travel on foot into an inner city area and avoid suburbs if at all possible. The zombie virus ( which has an incubation period of one day; Ebola and Bubonic require two to six days, minimum ) then has some kind of...science fiction power to preserve walking corpses for three to five years after infection.

Conclusion: Calculate how long a lone individual would last in an inner city area surrounded by decomposition-resistant zombies armed with only seventy-five rounds, a hand-axe, and no body armor.

I've bolded inaccurate references. He actually suggests the AK-47 family instead of the M16/M4-series, and mentions shuriken only as a 'don't use these unless you're an expert already'. I disagree with him there - crossbows are much better and require less practice. Shuriken are like throwing knives, only less punch.
He says about urban areas, "... areas of high population density should be avoided at all costs when on the run." I can't find mention of avoiding suburbs and heading straight for the urban area, but I'm not re-reading it all the way through just to prove a point.

My point being this: While it is in many places shoddy, pick out things that actually are wrong with the Zombie Survival Guide rather than... well, calling him out for things he doesn't actually say.

I wouldn't recommend body armor against an opponent who doesn't use firearms, either. I'd only wear it for ops where we're expecting combatants - at most I'd wear the flak vest and helmet, leaving the plates behind save for assaults on fortified positions. I certainly wouldn't recommend it for Joe Civilian, who's spent most of his life on his backside and thinks fifty pounds of gear is a lot to carry. The ammo count of fifty rounds, thirty if in a group, is really, really low - we bring out 210 rounds as a standard combat load (okay, okay, 196 'cause I only put 28 rounds per mag to preserve the spring), and there are hundreds more in the truck. We're also, to be blunt, better at shooting in combat than Joe Civilian - he's gonna want more.

My favorite, though, is that looking at it realistically... there's no way in God's green Earth that the zombies he described would reach outbreak proportions in the armed societies of most of North America.

[noparlpf]

What makes the survival guide bad though? Terrible? When I read it, it struck me as a pretty decent guide for general preparedness and how to handle survival after things hit the fan. Just interested in what you guys think is it's downsides.

Well, as far as I could tell it was only meant to be humorous by being about an imaginary situation. Unless there were further layers of humor added by being very terribly written about a poorly-designed imaginary situation.

It describes a virus-type zombie. But they're dead. Unlike most other infection-type zombies I've seen, which are just maddened, cannibalistic and sometimes mutated humans, these ones are killed and then reanimated by the virus, which doesn't actually make any biological sense I can figure. (Not that the weirder mutations make much sense either, but I suppose it could be possible for a living body to rebuild itself if given new directives.) Oh, and conveniently, animals can't catch it, and it apparently can't survive outside of the human body; otherwise it would get into the water pretty quickly and then everyone would be screwed, which isn't a situation he considers.

The section on weapons makes absolutely no real suggestions. He covers a variety of options, weighs the pros and cons of each, and doesn't actually propose anything as the best choice. And he wastes time talking about throwing stars. I can only assume he was joking there. Even a crossbow isn't a great idea; they're harder to use, less lethal (especially to headshot-only zombies), and less available than guns.

The section on where to go doesn't make much sense either. He says that they can't climb ladders and have trouble with stairs, but then says to be careful about zombies climbing your anchor rope if you're on a boat. And here in the real world, climbing a rope is harder than climbing a ladder.

Honestly, with shamblers like he's describing, a nice bludgeoning weapon and a leather jacket and gloves is basically all you need. They don't coordinate with each other, they're clumsy, they're stupid. If you do happen on a crowd of them, just don't get surrounded. Problem not.

Edit: Also, just get out of sight. I don't expect something with a barely-functioning brain to have much of a memory. But he doesn't cover that, despite talking about research being done on these zombies.

[dehro]

meh...shuriken.. I was always told that unless you take an eye out or coat them in poison, all they're good for is a distraction

[noparlpf]

meh...shuriken.. I was always told that unless you take an eye out or coat them in poison, all they're good for is a distraction

Well, something sharp going into you does tend to hurt and cause a little damage. Neither of which is at all useful against a zombie.

[Traab]

I think the ammo loadout was meant more for those times when you cant avoid shooting at zombies than to go rambo on the apocalypse. Unlike in the military where you will face intelligent squads or more of equally armed enemies, these are zombies, and in most cases should be avoidable. So basically, the recommended ammo was more so you would have enough to handle a bad situation while you move from point a to point b for those times when you cant avoid it. Not meant for a zombie eradication force.

The .22 rounds I cant speak on for actual use, but the theory behind using them is a) you can find them anywhere. B) its lightweight. and C) since only head shots really matter, you shouldnt waste space carrying deer slugs or other large ammo around because incidental damage really doesnt help much unless you are prepared to waste several wounds just to weaken a zombie, not kill it. Now, is a .22 round sufficient to penetrate a human skull at a reasonable distance? If so then I may be set. My high school had a rifle club and held a dozen rifles and tons of .22 ammo for target shooting iirc. I could equip me and a few buddies and give us enough ammo to cut down on the local zombie population by a reasonable amount.

As far as ammo goes, aside from gloves and arm protection if I ever have to physically fend off zombies, armor isnt really high on my list of needful things.

[noparlpf]

I'm sure a .22 would work for me. If I ever used a gun, it would be in melee range.

[Mathis]

Thank you, Mathis, for your input.

No, thank you! I have to agree with Solaris however, the specifics you pointed out aren't quite accurate. I agree with the amount of ammunition being a bit low, but his list just mentions the very basic things you should bring in your equipment. So the ammunition amount is just the bare minimum you should bring in a hurry.

Brooks does not in any way mention the M16A1 as a good firearm of choice. In fact he absolutely slaughters it as a viable option, and here's a few quotes just to put an end to that right away. From the guide, printed 2010, page 43-44:

"The US Army M16A1 is considered by many to be the worst assault rifle ever invented. Its overcomplicated mechanicism is both diffuclt to clean and prone to jamming. Adjusting the sight, something that must be done every time a target shifts its range, requires the use of a nail, ballpoint pen, or similar device. What if you didn't have one, or lost it as several dozen zombies shambled steadily toward you? The delicate plastic stock of the M16A1 obviates bayonet use, and by attempting to use it as such you would rish shattering the hollow, spring-loaded stock. This is a critical flaw."

On the use of a .22 pistol, I have no idea about its penetrating abilities, but the reason Brooks mentions it as an option is because he at least thinks its capable of going through a human skull at close range. Whether this is true or not I can't verify, but I feel like I should mention is that the reason he suggests it is because of; the availability of the ammunition type; the weight of the ammunition type being low, allowing for a greater number of rounds to be carried. Seemed like good common sense suggestions to me, now if they can't penetrate a skull all that goes out the window.

On Shurikens. He does actually say they are an effective weapon against zombies. In fact, he even goes so far as to say they "could easily bring down a zombie." This is on page 39. However, the entire section reads as this, "These small, multi-point devices were used in feudal japan to pierce a human skull. In appearance they resemble a steel, two-dimensional replica of a shining star, hence the nick-name, "throwing stars." In expert hands, they could easily bring down a zombie. However, as with many weapons discussed, the throwing star requires great expertise. Unless you are one of the few masters of this art (only a handful can still claim this title), refrain from such an exotic method." Hope that clarified a few things.

You further go on to mention that you think he suggest going into urban areas for survival. This is as false a statement as can be, and makes me doubt you have read the same book I have. As Solaris already mentioned he heavily suggests staying away from urban areas. On page 100 you find a pagelong paragraph with this subject title in large all-caps bolded text: "AVOID URBAN AREAS". Point made.

It's perfectly fine to critize a text for inaccuracies. But when the criticism devolves into inaccuracies themselves and outright falsehoods one can not be expected to be taken seriously.

[noparlpf]

Mathis, you have the "t" and "h" in "Cthulhu" swapped in your sig.

[Ravens_cry]

Mathis, you have the "t" and "h" in "Cthulhu" swapped in your sig.

off topic:
No one can spell, or even say, Cthulhu correctly.
Not only are our vocal cords and ears not made for it, but if we could it would result in madness.
From a Doylist perspective, even in the texts it is spelled in a variety of different ways.
On topic: I think we are getting rather over worked up about book intended as a 'guide' to a rather fictional situation.

[noparlpf]

off topic:
No one can spell, or even say, Cthulhu correctly.
Not only are our vocal cords and ears not made for it, but if we could it would result in madness.
From a Doylist perspective, even in the texts it is spelled in a variety of different ways.
On topic: I think we are getting rather over worked up about book intended as a 'guide' to a rather fictional situation.

I've only ever seen it spelled "Cthulhu", and Wikipedia spells it that way.

[Ravens_cry]

I've only ever seen it spelled "Cthulhu", and Wikipedia spells it that way.

It also mentions that many spellings are used in the works themselves.