What is your role in post-zombie apocalypse?

Paddy Cow

We spend a great deal of time discussing how we would survive initially, what weapons we would need, where to hide etc but what happens post apocalypse? Lets give a time frame for survival of at most 2 years. I'm assuming a few things here.......If you haven't seen all the episodes of The Walking Dead, don't read the first one!

1 This is not a Walking Dead apocalypse. If you are not bitten, you are not infected.

2 Zombies can't live forever. Because of their lack of hygiene/poor eating and drinking habits/not taking care of their bodies etc, eventually an infected person will become too broken to be able to move and will no longer be a threat.

3 Given the time frame, all infected people are dead. All that is left are the living.

What type of society would we form and what would be your role? Would we hold onto civilisation or would we revert to our basic and more brutal ways of life? Equality is a construct of the last century. Humans have been on the planet for thousands of years but it's only in the past hundred or so that women were considered people in their own right who weren't just hysterical creatures who needed the protection of their male relatives and were actually allowed to vote. Not long before that, a males' standing in society depended upon his material worth. Then there is the slave issue. Didn't matter if you were man, woman or child, you were considered property if bought at an auction or won as a "prize" if taken in a raid.

So what do you think. Given complete lawlessness and anarchy, how would the survivors regroup? Realistically cities would not be able to be repopulated as they would contain a ratio of decay that the survivors (what with dead bodies and general risk of infection etc) couldn't remove in a safe way. This leaves pockets of rural settlements. Would that set us back into medieval times and a feudal system?

History has shown us that until recently the "strong" have survived. In an apocalypse situation, would you hold onto your humanity and treat everyone as equals and want to restore democracy, or would you be so jaded from surviving two years of hell that you would be capable of doing (by nowadays standards) deplorable acts?

Tl:dr In a post zombie apocalypse world,if there were no laws and no repercussions so you lived in a world where "bad" behaviour was rewarded, would you still be a "good" person?

Kromdar

The balance between the smart and the strong is needed.

smart = restore previous technology, increase the quality of life [drinkable water, electricity]
strong = brute force will win a fight, but up until a point where it can be replaced with tech [think a load of lads with sticks and small arms vs a few people with missiles or a helo or something].

so, yes, the strong will survive initially. but the smart will be required to make them prosper.

the fallout series are a good comparison, you have raiders that are good at killing and don't hesitate to mutilate people, but its simply to steal their tech and supplies. The opposite, the "good" people, are generally survivors. communities are run by people trying to help each other, and its at these places you will find the smart people trying to rebuild society.

then you have the neutral, mercenaries etc. who will fight on behalf of whoever is paying them the most.

there are plenty of other examples from the media, albeit somewhat skewed in favour of one or the other ; but ultimately i think that after a brief period of territorial disputes and skirmishes, society will become what it once was. it may evolve along the path of our own history, i.e. regional kings to provincial leaders then to a national council, and so on

in a personal capacity i'd be pro-survivor, and aim at restoring tech/rebuilding or acting as a medic.

Tzar Chasm

well I'm not really a good person to start, apocalypse or not, however I do think I would be a Useful person in a post apocalyptic scenario, what with my physics degree and practical knowledge on a range of subjects. and thats what will earn people positions in a post apocalypse society.

I dont think we would be all that barbaric, at least not within our own groups, a certain element of tribalisim may return, but at the heart of it humans are pragmatic creatures, we would ultimatley see the sense in cooperation and trade over war and plunder.

sure I could murder you all and steal your crops tomorrow, but who would harvest those crops next year? ultimatley it is in our best interest to cooperate.

also I would see the issue of equality being a minor one, when all hands equally useful in picking spuds, its hard to argue that they are no equal in all other aspects.

ScumLord

Paddy Cow wrote: »

What type of society would we form and what would be your role? Would we hold onto civilisation or would we revert to our basic and more brutal ways of life? Equality is a construct of the last century.

I don't think you're giving a very fair assessment of ancient and prehistoric peoples. The ideal of equality has been around, tried and tested for thousands of years (humans have been around for at least 70,000 years as modern thinking humans. You have to remember we had to go from an animal to civilised by trial and error, we had no clue what we were doing and that takes a long time to work out.

humans are social animals, in a crisis we will herd and cling to other people, we won't want to be alone. While there will be people looking to take advantage of the panic, I believe the vast majority will pull together and try and help eachother out as much as possible. If we look at humans in disaster situations that's always what happens. Typhoons, earthquakes and so on always get the entire planet on the move to help. It'll be no different in a zombie outbreak which will unfortunately be our downfall in many respects.

Even if the disease forces people to avoid strangers they will inevitably end up trading. Trade is one of the most fundamental parts of human society.

Humans have been on the planet for thousands of years but it's only in the past hundred or so that women were considered people in their own right who weren't just hysterical creatures who needed the protection of their male relatives and were actually allowed to vote.

Again not really fair on the people around back then. Democracy was first thought up over 2000 years ago and that's just the first recorded version of it. We were exactly the same animal back then we just didn't have the information, we weren't irrational or hysterical.


Even on slaves, which would you rather, being alone out in the countryside with no protection, or being someones slave? Which means being looked after, feed and doing work you'd probably have to do as a free man anyway. While slavery seems bad under current circumstance in a chaotic world it means shelter and food.


I don't see us slipping back to much to be honest, we have the information, we're socialised in the sense we grew up and adapted to living in a fair society, it's not so easy to just erase all your programing and start killing people for apples.

There will be small scale battles and rampant thievery, rape, murder but those will be on the outskirts of human society like today. The vast majority of people are parents providing for their children, what parents have always wanted throughout history was stability. We keep focusing on that bad things humans do, like war not realising that the vast majority of people have always lead quiet lives on their farms or workshops providing resources for their neighbours.

laoch na mona

we would the opportunity to build a new system so id go for creating an anarchist society

Tzar Chasm

honestly I would see a rise in National Socialisim as the dominating ethos, the ability to bind people together in fervent support of a simplistic message and a few wishy washy promises of things being better would be sufficent, throw in the threat of Z's and you have a justification for militarisim.

once you get the people swept up in the whole energy of it you have a steamroller of progress, or death and destruction depending on the route you take

ScumLord

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

honestly I would see a rise in National Socialisim as the dominating ethos,

I could see it too, democracy is too slow a process for troubled times. Although there are examples of people defaulting to democracy under new circumstances (Iceland and the Vikings). The benefit of democracy is the blame isn't lumped on one person and there's a distinct lack of leadership in Ireland.

Kromdar

would a barter / trading based society emerge first? people need supplies and the scavengers willing to go and get them, or travellling traders would surely prosper with this kind of demand?

ScumLord

Kromdar wrote: »

would a barter / trading based society emerge first? people need supplies and the scavengers willing to go and get them, or travellling traders would surely prosper with this kind of demand?

There would only be barter, money is completely worthless unless people agree it has worth. I could actually see travellers being the main trading group in the country, they would know where a lot of stuff is and would probably be willing to travel all over the place trading it. Travellers were always welcomed into town in the past, the name tinker comes from the fact they were excellent blacksmiths and could do all sorts of repair work.

RiderOnTheStorm

Interesting topic.

I always thought I would be some sort of solo survivor (small farm or fishing), or maybe join a small community in the later years. Never considered being a wandering trader. That could be the best of both worlds. Me and a few (armed) mates, going from town to town 'buying' up whats plentyful in one place and 'selling' it in another ..... It would be a hard job in the longterm (no place to call home, and always living on your wits with a target on your back)....... mmmmm, might have talked myself out of it.

Would not see myself as a raider type. Would def earn my way morally, but would have no problem doing a preemptive strike if raider were in the area ;-)

jonnyalways

Lone wolf type in my dreams, always liked the idea of been the Postman (from the book not the movie)

ScumLord

RiderOnTheStorm wrote: »

Never considered being a wandering trader. That could be the best of both worlds. Me and a few (armed) mates, going from town to town 'buying' up whats plentyful in one place and 'selling' it in another ..... It would be a hard job in the longterm (no place to call home, and always living on your wits with a target on your back)....... mmmmm, might have talked myself out of it.

It would be extremely dangerous too, you'd have to be a hard bastard to be trading in that type of environment. All we have to do is look to Somalia for some idea of what trading in a lawless area is like. Even the buying and selling would lead to a lot of moralistic grey areas. Ripping off struggling families, not able to show mercy in case people think you're weak and target your convoys. People would have to be very afraid of you so they don't go stealing from you or selling you crap, which is why travellers would be great at it. Regardless of the facts people are scared of travellers but also know travellers as traders already.


I wouldn't be a lone raider, I'd want to be part of a community. You lose out on so much by going it alone.

Paddy Cow

ScumLord wrote: »

I wouldn't be a lone raider, I'd want to be part of a community. You lose out on so much by going it alone.

More likely to die too. Something as simple as a sprained ankle would hinder you to the point of being life threatening.

jonnyalways

that would be my luck, survive the zombie apocalypse and die from some innocuous infection.

Kromdar

the fallout caravan template: 2 gunners / mercs and a trader. gotta have a frontman who can make that sales pitch.

Tzar Chasm

come on down to tzars bargain barrow, we got all your post apoca.lyptic needs, reasonable rates, open to offers.

the trader would need to be proficient with defence too, so really need 3 gunners, one of whom can handle the trading

tomh903

Paddy Cow wrote: »

We spend a great deal of time discussing how we would survive initially, what weapons we would need, where to hide etc but what happens post apocalypse? Lets give a time frame for survival of at most 2 years. I'm assuming a few things here.......If you haven't seen all the episodes of The Walking Dead, don't read the first one!

1 This is not a Walking Dead apocalypse. If you are not bitten, you are not infected.

2 Zombies can't live forever. Because of their lack of hygiene/poor eating and drinking habits/not taking care of their bodies etc, eventually an infected person will become too broken to be able to move and will no longer be a threat.

3 Given the time frame, all infected people are dead. All that is left are the living.

What type of society would we form and what would be your role? Would we hold onto civilisation or would we revert to our basic and more brutal ways of life? Equality is a construct of the last century. Humans have been on the planet for thousands of years but it's only in the past hundred or so that women were considered people in their own right who weren't just hysterical creatures who needed the protection of their male relatives and were actually allowed to vote. Not long before that, a males' standing in society depended upon his material worth. Then there is the slave issue. Didn't matter if you were man, woman or child, you were considered property if bought at an auction or won as a "prize" if taken in a raid.

So what do you think. Given complete lawlessness and anarchy, how would the survivors regroup? Realistically cities would not be able to be repopulated as they would contain a ratio of decay that the survivors (what with dead bodies and general risk of infection etc) couldn't remove in a safe way. This leaves pockets of rural settlements. Would that set us back into medieval times and a feudal system?

History has shown us that until recently the "strong" have survived. In an apocalypse situation, would you hold onto your humanity and treat everyone as equals and want to restore democracy, or would you be so jaded from surviving two years of hell that you would be capable of doing (by nowadays standards) deplorable acts?

Tl:dr In a post zombie apocalypse world,if there were no laws and no repercussions so you lived in a world where "bad" behaviour was rewarded, would you still be a "good" person?

Well most likely we would return to walling off our settlements and leaving massive swaths of the country in bandits hands. In terms of government, the rule of one person (i.e a king) would have to return as democracy would leave the people too divided in such an extreme scenario. The initial years after the outbreak would be focused on consolidating the defence of your settlement and ensuring a stable food supply. After something closely resembling a society has been formed, settlements would start trying to gain influence over the surrounding areas. All in all, it would be like medieval feudal times.

riffmongous

Mad Max style motorcycle raider gang anyone? I guess in Ireland it mightn't work so well what with the lack of good roads, plus there isnt really the climate for assless chaps :P But how would the principle of a small mobile group like that work? I dont think fuel supply would really be a problem for quite some time to be honest

Tzar Chasm

Fuel degradation would start becoming an issue in as little as a month.

realistically biodiesel is go7ng to be the only real option by about 6 months.

picture your roving gang on quads

Sulla Felix

ScumLord wrote: »

It would be extremely dangerous too, you'd have to be a hard bastard to be trading in that type of environment. All we have to do is look to Somalia for some idea of what trading in a lawless area is like. Even the buying and selling would lead to a lot of moralistic grey areas. Ripping off struggling families, not able to show mercy in case people think you're weak and target your convoys. People would have to be very afraid of you so they don't go stealing from you or selling you crap, which is why travellers would be great at it. Regardless of the facts people are scared of travellers but also know travellers as traders already.


I wouldn't be a lone raider, I'd want to be part of a community. You lose out on so much by going it alone.

So part of a community of raiders?

Max001

I'd suggest that your ability to make choices on a role would be over-ridden by what skills and experience you possess, which would dictate your role in the short-term.

I reckon Walking Dead is a reasonable approximation of what life would be like in the short to medium term.

Anyone with access to firearms and lots of ammunition, plus the training to use and maintain them would have a big advantage, given such weapons are tightly controlled here. By firearms I mean pistols, revolvers, H&K MP5 etc for use within buildings and assault weapons for outdoors.

Food and fuel will be exhausted very quickly, given that supermarkets and petrol stations only stock for a few days.

Priorities will be: Weapons, food and water, fuel, medicine and a secure location that can be defended by a small group.

Key roles will be: Armed forager/guard, mechanic, medic, leader to build a cohesive group.

There's a quote about society only ever being two meals away from anarchy / revolution. That might give you some sense of how quickly things would unravel.

If you recall the riots that occurred in a few English cities following the police shooting of an unarmed suspect in summer 2011. Many areas became no-go for the police / emergency services and it took a few days at least to restore order. I imagine that in some Cobra meetings, consideration was given to putting the army on the streets, because the police couldn't respond fast enough. What occurred in 2011, only happened in a few cities but it effected stock markets around the world. In western democracies we have policing by consent. Once that consent disappears, its anarchy.

Lets hope it never happens.

ScumLord

Max001 wrote: »

I'd suggest that your ability to make choices on a role would be over-ridden by what skills and experience you possess, which would dictate your role in the short-term.

That's true, if you're good at something you'll be forced into doing it. Otherwise you're an expendable grunt.

By firearms I mean pistols, revolvers, H&K MP5 etc for use within buildings and assault weapons for outdoors.

They're much rarer in this country, only really the guards, military, paramilitaries (although I'd say a lot of their guns are being sold on the black market) and drug dealers have access to those kinds of weapons. I don't think we'll see our defense forces coming out armed with weapons, the weapons will be mostly ineffective meaning the lose of any forces that try to engage zombies using guns, they won't leave much behind either, expect guns to be emptied with no easy access to ammunition for them.

Food and fuel will be exhausted very quickly, given that supermarkets and petrol stations only stock for a few days.

There are stockpiles of food in the likes of farmers Co-ops, growing food is pretty easy here too, there will be tons of food in the ground depending on the time of year. Country folk will be able to find food, they probably already buy things like eggs off a local farmer.

Priorities will be: Weapons, food and water, fuel, medicine and a secure location that can be defended by a small group.

The priorities for most people will be water, food, shelter. In that order, I think we'll have to construct weapons or use tools as weapons. I think there will be people that see being armed as dangerous and that being armed could attract more danger. Most people will just run from danger and zombies, we just don't have the stomach for fighting.

Key roles will be: Armed forager/guard, mechanic, medic, leader to build a cohesive group.

I think we'll go right back to a pagan, celtic type of group, mostly groups of 2 - 4 families, all men will be expected to fight but leadership would be an issue.

riffmongous

Interesting idea about going back to an earlier style settlement, I wonder could the crannog and dún (with secret escapetunnel) work?

laoch na mona

who needs a leader id say it would be the perfect time to put revolutionary theory in practice, liberal democracy needs modernity once that's gone democracy as we perceive it collapses so id say communism or anarchism would be the way to go to avoid fascism coming to the fore

Kromdar

loving all the banter about guns. i was asked earlier in the thread bout their implications in the post-z world. this isn't america, and like scumlord said they're gonna be in specific hands. i recognise that the odd farmer might have one, but still.

the only real use for guns in a post-z environment is to enforce rule over other survivors.
what use is a 2 barrel or a single clip of ammo against a horde?

fyi, and i know it should merit its own thread, but i've come across a game, "Banished", it plays like a Age of Empires style game but the only enemy is pure survival. taking into consideration farming, materials, warmth, shelter and sustainability during winter months. there's no zombies to combat, but on the other hand there's no looting or weapons to worry about.

games like dayz or rust, which are survival based, seem to have quickly devolved into banditry and shenanigans, rather than survival. this game emphasizes survival and community welfare over a number of years, through the seasons.

also noteworthy are project zomboid and that other one, 7 days to die.

i must start a new thread for the latest z games...

degrassinoel

I've played banished, great little game, not as good as civ in that respect but you nailed it, it's about making your settlers survive and flourish. And it's not even remotely as easy as it sounds.

Max001

laoch na mona wrote: »

who needs a leader id say it would be the perfect time to put revolutionary theory in practice, liberal democracy needs modernity once that's gone democracy as we perceive it collapses so id say communism or anarchism would be the way to go to avoid fascism coming to the fore

Yeh. Because communism has been proven to work so well, hasn't it

Max001

ScumLord wrote: »

There are stockpiles of food in the likes of farmers Co-ops, growing food is pretty easy here too, there will be tons of food in the ground depending on the time of year. Country folk will be able to find food, they probably already buy things like eggs off a local farmer.

The priorities for most people will be water, food, shelter. In that order, I think we'll have to construct weapons or use tools as weapons. I think there will be people that see being armed as dangerous and that being armed could attract more danger. Most people will just run from danger and zombies, we just don't have the stomach for fighting.

The vast majority of the population are urban / suburban dwellers, with few ties to the countryside and little to no farming skills. Unless whatever location is settled includes a farm and the expertise to run it and defend it, we're going to be reliant on food we can scavenge until such times as sustainable food sources are developed.

Anyone who views being armed as dangerous, in the context of a zombie filled world is very quickly going to become lunch. Personally, I'd rather have a Glock on my hip and an H&K G36 assault rifle in my hands, plus a few hundred rounds of ammunition; than attempting to fight off the un-dead with a Bob the Builder tool set plus happy thoughts

degrassinoel

The point which i think you missed is that, if this were America or somewhere with less strict firearm laws which don't prohibit the ownership of pistols and their ammunition from the general populace, your point might hold some sway, but it's Ireland in general that the scenario is taking place in.

There are many issues with guns in the P-ZA, noise being a dinnerbell, ammunition being limited, marksmanship, maintenance, and a whole host of others. I takes a lot of effort for such a small piece of lethal equipment to be viable on a large scale. Worth noting that the scenario takes place after the apocalypse which would leave you in a situation where you have little or no ammunition left (if you had any to begin with) anyway.

Also, guys and dolls, sidetracking the topic into a gun law or political debate isn't what the topic is about.

laoch na mona

Max001 wrote: »

Yeh. Because communism has been proven to work so well, hasn't it

if you understood political theory you would know Stalinist russia was not communist. and as I said we would be building from scratch there would no no capitalist system or governments opposing communism, also anarchism is human nature we naturally like to work together

Kromdar

going back to the original topic of the thread, which is "what would your role be after the z's have sod off" [i'm paraphrasing there]...

scumlord, through his many posts in this forum, always points out that rural settlements will fare better due to remote location and access to farms, and more importantly the knowledge of farming.

others have pointed out the caravan option, travelling the country, buying and selling the goods.

i propose a 3rd option

i personally, in a post-apoc society, would like to start up a warehouse of scavenged parts. i would set up shop in a large industrial building, preferably with some sort of generator/welder, some tools, and a whole load of barbed wire. something akin to this [ah do you remember that game ].

anyway i would set up just outside a city, have a few scavengers looting the city. build some complicated defenses to act more of a deterrant than anything [we're keeping people out, not zombies, so the likes of barbed wire would actually deter them]. after that i would deal with the local traders and sell machinery parts, and buy food/seeds/etc. essentailly start a trade hub.

obviously the possibility of being attacked is an issue, but we'd be scavenging metal and parts mostly. unless some sort of mad-max-esque biker gang rolls around, we wont have a large supply of anything too valuable.

it has long been seen that trade hubs like that, be it in medieval times, post-cyberpunk space, or zombie apocalypse, always seem to thrive, because bandit or no, it has, or can get, the stuff you need. in pop culture they often develop into a neutral zone where people can get what they want and even get a decent nights sleep. and who says today's society isnt based on pop culture?!

thoughts?

degrassinoel

ultimately with something like that you'll end up having a "bartertown" (thanks Tina Turner) type hub where various groups will set up a trading market.

who run bartertown?

Ideally, everyone, in reality, probably just one person with a lot of power and fingers in many pies. Those pies being a cut/percentage of sales.

Thinking of the series Jericho. The town of Jericho had a saltmine which was immensely helpful for keeping food fresh (meat particularly) as well as have a multitude of other uses. Anyway, they traded the salt for other necessities at a very well armed and fenced-in (complete with guard towers) community trading hub.
They also had some very strict rules on trading and a penalty of death could be imposed for breaching said rules.

ScumLord

Max001 wrote: »

The vast majority of the population are urban / suburban dwellers, with few ties to the countryside and little to no farming skills.

That's true but that population will be the first to be heavily affected by the situation. A lot will become infected, a lot will die from lack of food or in the chaos of food riots, a lot will die fleeing the cities.

Unless whatever location is settled includes a farm and the expertise to run it and defend it, we're going to be reliant on food we can scavenge until such times as sustainable food sources are developed.

Once you leave Dublin, or any city pretty much every field you see is a farm of some sort. In the east and south where the land is good there's a lot of crop farming, out here in the west where the land isn't as suitable it's all animal farming, lots of cattle and sheep. Even unmanaged the domestic farm animals will be a dependable source of food.

After that you can forage quite a bit, nettles make good food and they're everywhere, berries in the autumn grow everywhere, with the industrial world gone the rivers and seas should be over run with fish in short time.

Anyone who views being armed as dangerous, in the context of a zombie filled world is very quickly going to become lunch.

Think of it this way, imagine the worst estate in Ireland full of all the criminal lowlife families you can think of. Which do you think would be the safest way to move through that estate? Head down, hood up, walk through unarmed? Or strolling down the street with a baseball bat? I'm not saying you should be unarmed but make sure not to draw attention to yourself as carrying valuable weapons. If a group of armed men surrounded you the guns basically useless, you'll have to surrender it. If you look pathetic and barely able to scrape food together you'll be less of a target for people.

Kromdar wrote: »

i propose a 3rd option

i personally, in a post-apoc society, would like to start up a warehouse of scavenged parts. i would set up shop in a large industrial building, preferably with some sort of generator/welder, some tools, and a whole load of barbed wire.

anyway i would set up just outside a city, have a few scavengers looting the city.

It's a good idea, what would make you most valuable, even more so than having the store is a knowledge of the city and where to get things. You wouldn't even have to bring everything back to the store, when you find something useful hide it in the city and tell people you know where to find it. People can steal your stuff but they need to be on your good side to get your information.

Max001

laoch na mona wrote: »

if you understood political theory you would know Stalinist russia was not communist. and as I said we would be building from scratch there would no no capitalist system or governments opposing communism, also anarchism is human nature we naturally like to work together

Who mentioned Russia? What's with this making stuff up as you go along thing?

Max001

ScumLord wrote: »

Think of it this way, imagine the worst estate in Ireland full of all the criminal lowlife families you can think of. Which do you think would be the safest way to move through that estate? Head down, hood up, walk through unarmed? Or strolling down the street with a baseball bat? I'm not saying you should be unarmed but make sure not to draw attention to yourself as carrying valuable weapons. If a group of armed men surrounded you the guns basically useless, you'll have to surrender it. If you look pathetic and barely able to scrape food together you'll be less of a target for people.

It's a good idea, what would make you most valuable, even more so than having the store is a knowledge of the city and where to get things. You wouldn't even have to bring everything back to the store, when you find something useful hide it in the city and tell people you know where to find it. People can steal your stuff but they need to be on your good side to get your information.

Who do you think will get their hands on firearms, immediately after the military and police? The criminals of course. If they don't have them already.

By employing military tactics, you lessen the risk of getting surrounded.
By planning first, you avoid areas full of lowlifes or other threats.
Should the worst happen and you do find yourself in a tight spot, I'd be much happier with an automatic weapon than relying on my acting abilities. Saying you're surrounded, thus a firearm is useless, is no sort of logic at all. Also, it doesn't take much effort, to keep even the most complicated of firearms serviceable. They are built for battlefield conditions. Whether its other people, or zombies, its a lot easier to kill at a distance, than up close. That's the purpose of assault weapons. To keep the threat at a distance.

Hope for the best by all means. But, prepare for the worst.

laoch na mona

Max001 wrote: »

Who mentioned Russia? What's with this making stuff up as you go along thing?

the communism has failed thing is a clear reference to the USSR, come z day the modern system collapse if history thought us anything its when **** goes bad that fascists pop up so i say we build post apocalyptic anarch communism

degrassinoel

Last warning folks, cut the political debate down to a minimum - you're both derailing the thread and sapping the fun from the topic with it. If you really really have to discuss the pro's and con's of communism, try the politics forum.

laoch na mona

degrassinoel wrote: »

Last warning folks, cut the political debate down to a minimum - you're both derailing the thread and sapping the fun from the topic with it. If you really really have to discuss the pro's and con's of communism, try the politics forum.

my last post was in no way supporting political argument I kept in related to the thread, thats simply my opinion on what post z day society would look like. I see it being a kinda of reset with small communities which farm for the most part. I leave the macro social stuff out of it from here on

riffmongous

I honestly don't know how in Ireland you would have a chance of securing a weapon more powerful than a farmer's rifle and I would doubt the risk would be worth it. I would assume the best weapons to be in the most dangerous locations, as that's where the previous owners would have been deployed.

Ireland is rural enough to make avoidance a far more efficient strategy I think.

Although in my case I don't live in Ireland and there is a gun shop on the street that I work, so if the first signs of trouble occur while I am in work I would head there straight away to buy a rifle if I hadn't bought one already, then I would flee to the countryside location I also work and try to apply my technical knowledge in my new role :-)

laoch na mona

riffmongous wrote: »

I honestly don't know how in Ireland you would have a chance of securing a weapon more powerful than a farmer's rifle

I could see so army weapons becoming available as **** goes bad also there are a few arms dumps around Ireland,

realistically anything better the a .308 would be no use to most people, (having an AK but no practice is not a good thing) plenty hunting rifles and old enfields about

pompeyboi

If ur trying to find something with a little more firepower during the apoc then Perhaps a raid on a local Garda armoury? I know it's a long shot but if u got there early enough into the outbreak and new exactly where to go once inside the building then you should get yourself something handy with a good amount of ammo. Getting weapons from the army would be near impossible unless u stole from them which would prove extremely difficult, if there was less of them then u and a few of u had guns then you could maybe force them to hand over their shiny Steyrs but thats unlikely. As far as firearms go, you'd have to make-do with ur .22's and shotguns from ur nearest gun shop or farmer. Unless u get lucky or try one of the above ^

ScumLord

pompeyboi wrote: »

If ur trying to find something with a little more firepower during the apoc then Perhaps a raid on a local Garda armoury?

Armed guards are few and far between, There's only a handful in Galway from what I know but I doubt they'd have a huge stock of ammo seeing as they don't get to see much action.

Sulla Felix

Plus, the idea of wresting arms from the guards or the army is kind of naive.

Either they're going to be holed up, with their guns, bugged out, with their guns and everything else they can carry, or fallen to infection, in an urban area, which I for one won't be going near in the kind of force needed to secure a location for long enough to break into an armoury.

Kromdar

you have more chance of getting weapons from the army than the gardai. afaik the armed gardai have their weapons on them or in the car for the most part, and yes, you can bet on day one they'll gear up and bring what they can with them. you also run across the difficulty of having them locked up in a safe.

i can't say what the army might have but i would guess that they would have more guns than people in their bases, and a large quantity of ammo.

i dont suppose army lads who might frequent here could shed some light on it? though i suppose its against some army code to tell civvys where they keep the guns.

i wonder how welcoming the army would be if you approached their camp with supplies? the irish army that is.

Witcher

Anything the DF have would be locked up tight, they don't just throw them in a press.

The average person here would be incapable of using anything the DF/Gardai have anyway, firearms aren't just point and shoot. Unless the person can actually use a firearm correctly they would just piss away the limited amount ammo they would have.

BigDuffman

Kromdar wrote: »

i dont suppose army lads who might frequent here could shed some light on it? though i suppose its against some army code to tell civvys where they keep the guns.

i wonder how welcoming the army would be if you approached their camp with supplies? the irish army that is.

Nope you won't find any info on storage of army equipment online or from anyone in the army. But needless to say, along with Garda armouries you won't just stroll into to any secure building and find guns in lockers. If not being used they'll be locked away.

So if you want a steyr or an MP7 you'll have to pick it up off a zombified soldier (bastards would be hard to kill) as will more than likely be wearing body armour.

The Irish army would more than likely be very accommodating based on the character of the organization. Also most barracks bar the ones smack bang in the middle of cities are in ideal locations for defence and survival. Only problem that may happen is that inevitably soldiers would want to get home to protect their families. I'd imagine that authorities would counter this by establishing safe zones that families could move to.

The films always paint a dire picture in post apocalyptic scenario, the military would have a secure zones established quite quickly. There is very little that will stop an 18 tonne APC from getting to where it needs to go. In reality for a country like Ireland the establishment and security of a "safe zone" would not be a big issue. A well established and disciplined force could effectively defend an area that has been prepped and thought through quite easily for as long as supplies could be maintained.

Sulla Felix

I think all of that really depends on transmission rates. Pulling this out of my ass here but I'd imagine the armed forces, particularly in places like Ireland where they can be used for civil purposes without any major controversy, would be hit earlier and harder than the gen pop. They'd be part of the front line, along with the emergency services and medical personnel.

That could be a whole other thread though, what kind of percentage death/reanimation rates would bring about the complete breakdown of society. Virulence, method of spreading, would all feed into that.

I think it was Spanish flu that killed 50m in 1916 or so? That had a relatively low transmission rate but a high fatality rate. Most of the movies/comics etc seem to aiming much higher. Higher transmission and 100% fatality but I'm not sure if that'd be realistic from just manual transmission bites scratches etc.

degrassinoel

If 'Plague Inc.' taught me anything it's that high fatality rates make a virus burn itself out much quicker than it can transmit to a new host. The scare factor also comes into play with a high fatality rate, people take extra precautions to prevent infection and can stop it in it's tracks through isolation.

helimachoptor

i would say leader... but who knows.

My in-laws have a farm out west with cattle, so i would say i'd bring my family there, the FIL is well armed though i'd need to learn without using too much ammo.


My wife is one of 6 daughters so defence would primarily be myself and the FIL who's getting on a bit and probably my brother if he came along. the only other boyfriend/husband couldnt peel a potato so he'd be useless.

laoch na mona

helimachoptor wrote: »

i would say leader... but who knows.

My in-laws have a farm out west with cattle, so i would say i'd bring my family there, the FIL is well armed though i'd need to learn without using too much ammo.


My wife is one of 6 daughters so defence would primarily be myself and the FIL who's getting on a bit and probably my brother if he came along. the only other boyfriend/husband couldnt peel a potato so he'd be useless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko

helimachoptor

laoch na mona wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko

you've havent seen my SIL's, unfortunately the fact that they wont be near somewhere that serves fast food will likely mean they'll all become babbling and incoherent shells.