Over the last few days I’ve asked myself a question. If a zombie apocalypse was to strike the whole world at the same time. Which countries would fall first? Now I think it would be almost impossible to say which individual country would fall first, but unfortunately I’ve come to the sad conclusion that my homeland of Britain would be one of the first to fall.
When the zeds start showing up countries will have three basic lines of defense:
1. The police: these are the poor bastards who will have to deal with the beginning of the outbreak. Meaning most of them will end up dead or worse infected due to confusion and not knowing what the fuck is going on.
2. The military: After the majority of the police have been decimated, and people begin to realize that there’s some serious shit hitting the fan the military will be called in. The military with a better understanding of the situation, higher powered weaponry, greater numbers, and all the equipment in the world. With larger numbers of zeds, and lots of frightened, confused civilians to deal with they might be overwhelmed.
3. The individual citizen: Yes that means you, and this brings us to the major difference between countries like America and Britain.
Many Americans see it as their job to protect their families, their property, and whatever else they own. The police may very well be there to “serve and protect” but a lot of Americans won’t just rely on them. Many own guns which they have for home protection (or zed protection) and train with regularly. They’ve grown up with them. They’re used to them. Guns are just part of the American way of life. Britain however is very different. In this country guns are seen as the work of the Devil, and as such getting hold of one LEGALLY is quite tricky. (Illegally now that’s a different story) All hand guns like Glock 17′s, and Sig Sauers p226′s are very ILLEGAL whether you’ve got a FAC (firearms certificate) or not.
When the zeds show up most British people will run around panicking, not knowing what to do, Some of the reasons for this are, we see it as the police’s job to come and save us from anything and everything (and if you do happen to defend yourself you’ll be the one in trouble). From birth we’re told that someone will always be there to save us and that we should be terrified of EVERYTHING. So meanwhile American citizens are checking their supplies, and cleaning their guns. British citizens will be crying in a corner wondering why they can’t get through to their saviour on the phone.
Now I’m not saying barricading yourself in a room and calling for help isn’t the right thing to do. (Maybe not in the zompocs though) But wouldn’t you feel better in your barricaded room if you had a 12 gauge shotgun that you knew how to use properly?
“I’ll be back!” >Arnie<
Related Posts
Subscribe for Best & Free Resources
I disagree with msot of this, I live in a city called norwich in britain which has a high population, and from experience none of us rely on the police as they are mostly useless, but the mojority of us know how to handle weapons including knifes, machettes, bats, guns etc…just because they are illegal to own here doesnt mean we cant get our hands on them e.g my cadet unit has several weapons there and in the event of an apocalypse it would provide a great stronghold, 8ft, 4inch thick fences….ration packs weapons, riot shields etc…so even though america does have a good advantage over owning guns and space….we have advantage of strongholds with much ammo, food and protection…so I wouldnt count england out too fast….
I have to agree with you about England being able to defend itself 1st off it has a large body of people and is a island country so the british military would be able to cut off a section of the country 2nd the Europian winters would also help freeze the rotting corpses so all in all i think britian would fall as fast as america would before it was just you the individual a crawling pace
This is a tough call. As an American, the author is correct in that we might have a slight cultural advantage, but there are plenty, a healthy majority in fact, who are just as helpless. Another disadvantage we have is the immense amount of national and international travel we have. It almost guarantees several epicenters of an outbreak. Britain is certainly much easier to lock down if needed. Finally, our culture tends to reject or rebel against authority so a large chunk of American society would ignore government instructions which would make any effort to slow the spread almost pointless. Plus, since our country relies more on technology rather than large numbers of people in the armed forces, our military would have no choice but to use massive firepower that is deaigned to clear things on an area basis.
Where I think we do have an advantage is our geography and vast expanse. It’s quite easy to get far away from population centers here, assuming you can make it out in the first place. That said, there is great terrain here that would serve to hide in or defend from with plenty of water and wildlife.
See here in britain it is legal to posess such weapons like bow and arrows, cross bows etc for strict hunting purposes which I think would also give an advantage with guns blazing will just draw all the zombies towards you, whereas if you take a silent approach only when neccesary I think we have that to our advantage not to mention allt he wildlife in our woods and fish… I suppose really we are just as matched as each other making us once again the superior countries
Again, I fall to geography. Mountains and rivers are natural zombie barriers. The Mississippi river would force bottlenecks or halt movement altogether. We have mountain ranges on both coasts which keeps many of the large pockets contained as well. Natural chokepoints like that give us a fighting chance for pockets of survival. Our north and northwest are simply vast with very few people in many areas. You’d be lucky to come ac
ross one or two zeds a month up there.
Beyond that, its pretty much a given that guns don’t do much good in the zombpocolypse so personal arms takes one of our major advantages away. I think it comes down to chokepoints and nukes.
There is a crucial question that must be answered here. Nukes are basically a given when it goes down. As survivors we won’t be able to traverse a radioactive wasteland. Does radiation affect zombies though? If not, they’ll have a clear advantage if they can move through areas that we can’t. That’s actually a pretty huge advantage if they can.
Governments/NATO/UN, wouldnt result in wiping out countries with nuclear arms anyway, a) would onyl be last resort and b)risk of nuclear contamination in other countries e.g. nuclear winter….funnily enough we talk bout some of these subjects in RAF, and weve already had breifing and protocols set up in the event of an infection (zombie alike) spreads throughout britain
NATO, UN, none of that matters when it goes down. Governments and people will do what they must. I’m pretty sure we would nuke ourselves tho.
All memebers of nato and other high security personel are evactuated to undergroung bases in the events of emergency, which also have the control over nuclear weapons etc, they will not be used unless the security base which controls the nuclear weapons is at threat of being comprised, you consider how many nukes it would take to clear every city/town/forest in britain…let alone america..which means nuclear winter then threatens other countries which may not be infected…then could threaten other security bases over the world…so like I said nukes/hydrogen bombs etc would not be deployed unless at a last resort…I wouldnt say this unless i knew what i was talking about
I believe you know what the RAF would do. Not questioning that. Here though, kiss the major cities goodbye. This thing would get ahead of the military faster than it could react. Protocols, treaties, etc. would all go out the window once that happens. Nukes would be the only chance to get ahead of it again. You might have to write half the country to save the other half, but thats how apocalypses go.
If nato and the other security personel go then the nukes cant be deployed, password/encryptions and in some places voice verificationa re required to deploy nuclear…and its not only the raf im talking about…its the UN which includes america, thats why all this is set up so nuclear bombs cant just be set off by and tom dick or harry, so basically we wouldnt have any nukes co off until last resort and even thats a slim chance, because without any security personel with the codes, the nukes cant go off….and even if they are saved…they wont set them off unless the bases become comprimised which is rather difficult as they are under ground with multiple 12 inch thick blast doors
If, and only if, those who possess the codes and/or the command centers are lost then you’re probably right. Nukes wouldn’t be used. But I think this is the cultural difference the author was referring to. As much as I cringe to say it, the US would “go it alone” if necessary. We’ve already shown that we’ll ignore the authority of the UN when we want or need to. Nor do we have the same concern for nuclear winters with neighbors. protocols are out the window in a zombpocolypse.
Then it shows how little you know your own country, basically in the last resort of using nukes it would only be on ourselves so we all have our security personel buried in each country basicallly, what the un has dictated is that in the event of a world wide epidemic or disaster the use of nuclear arms will be refused as even though it may destroy the infection on the country itself it risks harming other countries or progressing the disater and risking the wellbeing of humanity…so in other words the use of nuclear arms isnt even in the contingency as its futile and risks making the disater worse. As youve stated it all changes in an apolcolyptic state, but when it comes around everyone unites not as a world but as an endangered spiecies in which we dont want to chuck petrol on the fire.
You win dan. You’ve seen the UN zombie nuclear protocols for the entire western world. I can’t argue with that. Have a good day/night.
Nothing about zombies really as far as most governments go they think its all fiction, its just a precaution set up in the event of world disaster, most likley some nukes will go off like in major cities, but not nationwide to many risks, e.g. risking other countries, ozone layer etc…im just thankful im licenced to carry a firearm!, i do admit I will enjoy the day it comes, got a good bet on with my men within raf…although it wont matter much come the time haha but you have a good day/night too
But instead of zombies what if its robots or bio computers that jam radars and all that we use to contact each other?
I think China or Japan would be the first to go
Good point about the weapons however we here in Britain actually have a few things in our favour.
! Most of our towns and city’s have remnants of medieval defences such as city walls and/or castles that with a little work would be hard to overcome. Thick stone walls do not run out of ammunition or jam
2 We have in our museums and in private collections stocks of tried and tested weapons that do not rely on ammunition and are also quiet
3 Being an Island if you can seal off the channel tunnel we can seal ourselves off
4 Despite what you may think there are still areas of wilderness such as the scottish highlands or the welsh mountains to hide in
It’s not the nuclear missiles that we have to worry about. As Dan said they’re all buried underground with blast doors and can’t be fired without the launch codes. It’s all of the nuclear reactors that could be left un-manned in the event of a major infectious outbreak (ZomPoc), that are going to fuck things up for everybody if and when they go critical.
Dan, I hope the protocols you mentioned include ways to quickly and SAFELY shut down the reactors, so there isn’t a threat of a meltdown in the event of a major infectious outbreak. A loss of power is better than a dozen possible Chernobyl’s going off in the middle of a medical crisis. (I’d rather have them all shut down, than rely on computer failsafe’s in the event we lose the trained personnel to fix’s anything that goes wrong)
Now to answer the original question of: Which country would fall first in the zombie apocalypse?
To answer this you need to take a few things into consideration:
1.The size of the country (political borders/physical borders [islands]), and it’s geography
2.The population density (how fast it could spread)
3.Medical Facilities and the quality there of
4.The ability to communicate and share information quickly and clearly
5.The availability and/or attainability of weapons, be they low tech(bows & arrows, crossbows, bladed weapons), or medium tech (pistols, rifles, machine guns)
Fortified locations would be the hardest to factor in, do to those that are already pre-existing, those locations that can be modified, and those that can be built with found materials (stacked steel shipping containers). Then there is the ability to supply clean drinking water and food. As well as being able to prevent any outbreaks of more common illnesses and diseases. And any infighting that might happen in these locations.
My guess is between India and Japan.
India – based on population density and the likely hood that the medical facilities would be over run, and that the communication systems would breakdown.
Japan – based on the physical boundaries and population density.
In both cases I think the high population densities would override any availability of weapons. I am not saying that there won’t be ANY survivors; just that the country as a whole won’t.
Yeah… I was going to say either Japan (with Tokyo quickly turning) or India spreading like fire through the slums…. but it looks like Eric already mentioned it first.