Zombie-related question: What is a better choice?

[CheertheSecond]

The setting is like this. There are two sides.

One side has a big machine that can alter dead corpses into zombies. The machine and the zombified procedure are complex and can not be deployed on site. The zombies' saliva is venomous. When it enters the victim, it will slowly kill the victim. There is no cure, but antibiotic and nutrition supplement can prolong the life of the victim to a maximum of six months.

The other side has developed a special termination substance. This substance has a duration of one week. When injected into a living human, the substance will trigger a dead effect on the human if they are bitten. This will end the human life in under one hour.

Thus, the higher-ups went into a debate, they want to reach a consensus on whether to use the termination substance on soldiers or not.

If the soldiers aren't injected, they can still keep on living and fighting for days given they aren't killed immediately by the injury.
If the soldiers are injected, they are likely to die instantly but will spawn no zombie.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

Can the zombies be controlled? That’s the main question.

in a large scale war, honestly, zombies mostly will affect logistics rather than the front lines. Logistics meaning the people who produce the food, industry etc.

on the front lines in a modern war the zombies would be nothing more than fodder. Plus they need the machine to process it.

it’d be stupid to inject soldiers, unless the zombies have some sort of super powers that even one of them is incredibly dangerous.

If it were a melee war it might be a different story.

 

[Whiteface]

From my experience the first one

 

[Snusmumriken]

I will give you two answers:

1. if these are the only two options available, I would expect troops to carry individual injections on themselves which they can administer personally if they consider their situation as hopeless. For example they have been already bitten and there is no rescue coming so they know it will be a matter of time until they will join enemy ranks. Something like a cyanide pill.


2. If I were to give a serious answer from a strategical POV -- both solutions are outright terrible as they accept being bit as a starting position. You aren't arguing how to win with those -- you are bargaining your surrender. Both work safety and military defence state that the first thing you do to avoid danger is eliminate the possibility of it occurring altogether. So unmanned drones, long-range attacks, and many other strategies that intentionally remove troops from where they could be potentially bitten. Then you would have protection for the times when troops have to be deployed (after artillery barrage, magical bombardment, flaming barrel catapult salvo) to clean up the area. Thick stitched clothing that dog trainers use, chain mail would all make good sense to wear without causing too much encumbrance. And only then you would consider whether provide them with injections or not.

 

[Domoviye]

I will give you two answers:

1. if these are the only two options available, I would expect troops to carry individual injections on themselves which they can administer personally if they consider their situation as hopeless. For example they have been already bitten and there is no rescue coming so they know it will be a matter of time until they will join enemy ranks. Something like a cyanide pill.


2. If I were to give a serious answer from a strategical POV -- both solutions are outright terrible as they accept being bit as a starting position. You aren't arguing how to win with those -- you are bargaining your surrender. Both work safety and military defence state that the first thing you do to avoid danger is eliminate the possibility of it occurring altogether.
...

Completely agree with this.
The injection could be useful for some front line troops. Offer it as an option for scouts and recon, as well as any group that is going behind enemy lines for sabotage or spying, where getting cut off and surrounded is a possibility.
Keeping a supply of the drug for medics and field hospitals would also be a good idea. It will keep the defeatist mindset at bay, while keeping zombies from spreading, or having soldiers witness their injured comrades getting shot in the head which would destroy morale.

Ultimately a more proactive approach is the best option, with the injection being kept as a last resort.

 

[Alyxx]

I'll just let the soldiers carry the substance, if they think they're going to die they can take the substance at the last minute

 

[CheertheSecond]

OK then.

 

[StrongArm]

Troops will 1000% turn on their commanders in this situation.

This will definitely cause mutiny/rebellion. I can list you some interesting real-life stories about that if any of yall are interested.

But if we are choosing soulless military applications for zombies then... The quick one, it gives you a bunch of zombies on command to cause mayhem.

The long-term one is only useful for killing your own men so you dont have to pay your men's wages/pension (this happens in real life more often than people realize)

 

[CupcakeNinja]

The setting is like this. There are two sides.

One side has a big machine that can alter dead corpses into zombies. The machine and the zombified procedure are complex and can not be deployed on site. The zombies' saliva is venomous. When it enters the victim, it will slowly kill the victim. There is no cure, but antibiotic and nutrition supplement can prolong the life of the victim to a maximum of six months.

The other side has developed a special termination substance. This substance has a duration of one week. When injected into a living human, the substance will trigger a dead effect on the human if they are bitten. This will end the human life in under one hour.

Thus, the higher-ups went into a debate, they want to reach a consensus on whether to use the termination substance on soldiers or not.

If the soldiers aren't injected, they can still keep on living and fighting for days given they aren't killed immediately by the injury.
If the soldiers are injected, they are likely to die instantly but will spawn no zombie.

the zombies can still be killed, but the soldiers cant be replaced so easily. Its better not to inject them. Zombies are easy to kill in most stories, one soldier can easily kill ten or more even if they are in a swarm. And the zombies would NEED to be in a swarm to actually make any impact.

 

[BearlyAlive]

Wait, zombies as a real threat are still a thing? I thought there was a reason they're the goblin-tier undeads in RPGs...

Wouldn't it be easier for the military to have used that money instead to create superhuman mutant soldiers or cyborgs? I mean who even thought the idea of a zombifier would be enough to get a raise?

The whole zombie apocalypse trope will only ever work by rule of stupid and murricans disability to built functioning fences and moats.

 

[DiscoDream]

Inject them. Religious people would love it, as it retains 'purity'. Commanders would love it, since it means 'they' don't have to execute anyone. Soliders would love it since they don't have to be paranoid about whether their battle brothers are secret traitors.
The sheer ease of mind outweighs any moral dilemnas that could be put out. Also, if a modern soldier got bitten by a zombie, they clearly weren't helpful enough to justify a bit more time to waste bullets.

 

[ThrillingHuman]

The setting is like this. There are two sides.

One side has a big machine that can alter dead corpses into zombies. The machine and the zombified procedure are complex and can not be deployed on site. The zombies' saliva is venomous. When it enters the victim, it will slowly kill the victim. There is no cure, but antibiotic and nutrition supplement can prolong the life of the victim to a maximum of six months.

The other side has developed a special termination substance. This substance has a duration of one week. When injected into a living human, the substance will trigger a dead effect on the human if they are bitten. This will end the human life in under one hour.

Thus, the higher-ups went into a debate, they want to reach a consensus on whether to use the termination substance on soldiers or not.

If the soldiers aren't injected, they can still keep on living and fighting for days given they aren't killed immediately by the injury.
If the soldiers are injected, they are likely to die instantly but will spawn no zombie.

Kill them, too expensive to keep them, and after they are poisoned they aren't as effective. Why are you even using soldiers you moron? Just give guns to civillians. It will kill two birds with one stone.

 

[TheEldritchGod]

Why would I want to make corpses into Zombies at all? I mean, someone is doing this, he's got the machine. Why? I need combat stats of the zombies. We talking Romero Zombies? Dawn of the dead Zombies? 28 day later Zombies? Voodoo Zombies? People who use Twitter Zombies?

 

[Ai-chan]

What is the choice?

From what Ai-chan understands, it's just an action and reaction. The action is one side created a machine to make zombies. The reaction is the other side creating a poison to kill said zombies the moment they're turned. These can exist at the same time.

Oh, the choice is whether to use the injection or not?

If you have the technology to make a person unable to be zombified, you'd have the option to make the person a supersoldier. Instead of a pure poison, give the soldiers a mutation drug. It will give them enhanced ability to fight off zombies, but the side effect is that it will kill them an hour later if they fail to reach treatment before muscle fatigue. A lot of people would rather take that chance of dying in a blaze of glory rather than straight up poison themselves.

 

[RepresentingCaution]

Let the soldiers choose. Use the buddy system for soldiers who don't get injected to prevent corpses from falling into enemy hands.