Jim Hague said:Except that those explosive shells don't utterly annihilate a soft target, assuming they hit it at all. Incineration mostly kills by shock and organ failure, and often results in massive property damage - napalm is nice, but are you going to use it in a city? Retreat only works as long as the troops are supplied. You discount the psychological wear and tear of fighting an enemy that simply does not stop to eat, sleep or feel fear. Sorry, but the military forces of the world are neither omnipotent nor omnipresent.
You really, really need to read WWZ and bone up on epidemiology. Seriously - the problem is the societal damage caused, not that zombies destroy everything in their path. Without getting political, consider recent US responses to local disasters and the utter lack of control there, then consider that in the face of an unknown but rapidly spreading outbreak.
Feeling shock doesn't kill you. Its the fact that shock turns certain organs to liquid (your brain, liver and lungs specifically), the typical zombie is slain by trauma to the head. HE and AP shells actually do liquify flesh in a very significant radius. A .50 cal machine gun bullet can take your arm off, even if it misses. This isn't even beginning to describe what modern weapons can do.
You are argueing that high density concentrations of zombies will kill off the military. Civilians? In the big cities? yep, the zombies would be to dense and the civilians to poorly armed. In small towns? There are enough guns and ammo to pick off the shambling dead and render their lesser numbers moot. The military would be able to handle the large crowds in the cities with ease.
Last edited by a moderator: