Howdy You personally, if you had to choose between a zombie apocalypse and a nuclear war, what would it be? Would you rather start a nuclear war to end a zombie apocalypse or you'll just let the zombies loot, pillage, rape, murder, insult, humiliate, sodomize good citizens and each other? Why? Please, elaborate.
Since "zombie apocalypse" is fictional and only exists on tv, whereas, nuclear war is real, I chose the zombies. I'd rather be terrified while eating popcorn on my sofa, than irradiated.
Yeah? Remember hurricane Catrina and New Orleans? That was just a hurricane. Now imagine something much bigger and civil order braking down... National Geographic had some fictional videos about a world without power for a couple of weeks. It was called "The Blackout" or something. Perhaps you should watch them. Nuclear war? we haven't seen a nuclear war either, just the taste of it in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
i'll take it that 'zombies' is a metaphor for crazed looters... i'd say bring 'em on but your poll question is troublesome: so, you're not asking a choice between a nuclear war or a 'zombie' apocalypse, but rather to choose either the zombies or 'nuking' the zombies... wierd
Even in nuclear war there are places to escape to. In a zombie apocalypse there will be billions of zombies. Nuclear war it is. Would I support a nuclear war to end a zombie apocalypse, yes I would.
OIC - "Zombies" are actually desperate and/or opportunistic people.... not really zombies. I have written about this before. I live in a rural area, but very nearby is a large "habitat for humanity" neighborhood, and within 30 minutes are the two largest metropolitan areas in my state, one to the east, and one to the west. In the event of a prolonged disaster where power is out for weeks or months, I have absolute confidence I can support my family indefinitely on the land I own. I, however, have zero confidence I would be able to defend my land from the hordes of urban dwelling liberals and democrats that will pour into the countryside in search of food and water. Still, I'll take zombies over nukes.
Zombies for sure. Even if they are fast zombies. With zombies, I at least feel I have some agency as far as survival and self defense. With nukes, not so much.
Bunkers are the only reliable way to survive large scale nuclear war. Zombies can be fought with fences and common tools.
Zombie apocalypse. Nuclear war really sucks. You can't do anything about getting blown up, and even if you survive that you're stuck with trying to find food on an irradiated planet forever. In practice it means having the choice between starvation and cancer. A zombie invasion is like a war except the enemy army is super slow and has no guns. Not very scary.
Don't be so literal - a "zombie" is a figure of speech and it means "brain/heart dead person". The kind of person who would kill you for a can of baked beans, would rape your wife or daughter, would steal everything worth stealing, burn your house and whatnot. What do you think would happen if there is no electricity for a month, no grocery delivery for a month, no tap water for a month, no Internet and no smartphones for a month, no TV for a month, etc, etc? Have you seen a starving mob? Have you seen children who have not had a meal for a week? Crying mothers? People who have not slept for days? Angry, scared or furious people? Such people would do anything, since they have lost their mind. That's why they are called "zombies" in popular culture.
Zombies all the way, I dont have the time to wait for the land to no longer be radioactive. You can fight or hide from most types of zombies. Then it becomes human intellect vs overwhelming force.
