Why Do We Always Lose the Zombie Apocalypse?

So, I was watching AMC's "The Walking Dead" when an important question hit me: How in the world did we lose to the zombie horde?

I mean, I get that there would be significant losses at the beginning. There would be initial losses of doctors and first responders before it got figured out. Then we'd all have warning. From that point a bunch of zombies stumbling along at one mile per hour should be pretty easy to handle.¹

Of course, there will be greater casualties among liberals. Liberals would not have firearms to shoot the zombies in their heads as they closed in. As well, I figure San Francisco is just to be written off. As soon as the government starts to shoot zombies there will be massive demonstrations and rallies in San Fran in support of Zombie-Americans. Thousands upon thousands of tree hugging, tie-dye wearing, hippy types will throng the streets with signs decrying imperialistic capitalism oppressing our zombie comrades. Then, as the zombies start to encircle them, they won't run away because they want to show solidarity. Thus, there will be massive casualties and a ton of people who got away after just being bitten will turn and the zombie army will be too large for San Fran to be held. In the end the military will at least have to napalm the city to destroy the masses of zombies occupying the streets. The military's first instinct would probably be to nuke San Fran (just on general principals), but I figure some admirals may lobby to save the naval facilities.²

Beyond the liberals there would also be those who were just too sentimental to throw Aunt May out after she was bit. So, we'll lose a fair number of people just because they are compassionate.

And, while the police, firemen, gang-members and suburban NRA members are fighting the zombies in the cities, there won't be much of a problem in the rural areas and mountains because out there firearms aren't considered an option, they're considered an appendage. Your basic zombie starts walking down the street in Honaker, Virginia and I'm sure somebody is going to take care of it pretty quick. Heck, even without firearms a guy who works on a farm or in a mine is probably going to be proficient enough with hand held tools to run up on a zombie and kill it with a pick or axe or shovel or whatever else is handy.

And, then there's the military reaction. You know, I was a REMF, M.I. guy and I was a good enough shot with my M-16 that I could have stood at the end of a street and shot a couple dozen zombies in the head (for some reason that's the only way to kill them) as they shuffled down the street toward me. I'm pretty sure soldiers in the combat units would do extremely serious damage to the zombies. Heck, with slow moving, easy shots, you might even be able to train sailors - and maybe even possibly airmen - to fight as though they are actually in the military. I give it six months, a year at the most, before the military has the situation entirely in hand.

Now, some of you are going think that a zombie apocalypse might not be such a terrible idea. There would be a huge drop in moonbats in the world (see San Francisco supra). However, this would leave us with no balance for the wingnuts. After all, the wingnuts are going to be the people out in compounds in the middle of Colorado with 10 firearms each and enough stocked food to last ten years (y'know, the ones the ATF & FBI haven't raided yet). Not sure I want to live in a world that unbalanced. Maybe if we could just contain the zombie outbreak to San Fran and NYC . . .


¹ Yes, I realize there are some outlier movies wherein the zombies move fast, but that's just silliness. In any event, fast zombies would probably result in greater casualties, but not zombie victory.

² This is not to say that all of California will be lost. I figure that L.A. will do pretty well. Heck, between police who aren't afraid to use force when they can and gangs which have kids holding territory on every street corner the zombies won't stand a chance.