No one thinks Israel really? The vast majority of the people living there have been in the armed forces so they all have weapons training and survival training, harsh environment, sand storms have to kill or at least cripple zombies and they're used to being attacked all the time from random places. Personally, I cannot think of one other place that has the combat readiness needed to survive and keep the peace.
I tried to answer yesterday, but it seems that the forum doesn't want to keep my message. Let me remember what I was saying ... hum ... I was saying that I live in France and that I won't vote for France, no.
Not a good idea to stay here in a ZA, in my opinion.
Why ?
Few points:
. Basically, really hard to found real weapons (guns, shotguns, so on) as we are not allowed legally to have guns
. In some places, high density of population
. In some places, in the "normal life", very bad "spirit"; so I won't trust any survivors from some areas / regions / cities as they could be more dangerous than a zombie
. Nobody is prepared to any kind of "disaster", only the professional ones (like police, militaries, and so one, but not the civilians)
. At the very beginning of the ZA (or infection, or whatever), the government may act as for the Chernobyl accident, and say "don't worry, don't move, there's no risk, everything is under control"... imagine the high number of "infected".
However, some good points:
. Easy to find food everywhere
. Houses have good equipments, so you may find anything you may need, until there's no zombies in it; and frenchies have the bad reputation to buy a lot of medicines, more than they need, and store it at home; could be useful it this case, no ? ...
. Globally, there is a good climate (compare to some places on earth); at least stable. And I think that it is an important point if you have to survive somewhere. I don't believe those who say Greenland (for example, but it is true for other countries) is nice, and so on: I don't think the climate here is easy enough to survive, excepted if you're a real native from there.
. I forget the most important: easy to find good wines ! It could be useful for those who are depressed....
Well, what would I do, then ?
Even if I live near the sea, in a small country, far from big cities, I think that there are too many people here, so a big risk to stay.
I think I would try to take a boat, as fast as possible, and try to go to the small island in from of our coast here (40 minutes by boat).
It is a small island with only few people, some houses, one some hotel and a restaurant, some equipments and so on (a lighthouse,etc). They are always storing things, food, gasoline, etc ... and if I remember correctly a wind turbine, etc. Plus a lot of things for fishing. The sea is full of things to eat there...
The best would be to find some guys who are hunting, as they have guns (and there are a lot in this kind of regions), but ...
Who comes with me ?
One of my biggest question is, and it is true for other countries than France, what would happen for critical things like nuclear centers ?
In France, we have a lot of nuclear things to produce electricity, and I don't believe than in a ZA people will stay quietly to their jobs and take care to these engines... they will die or run away; and even if some places are protected by the army, not sure it will last long.
So, the "zombie problem" could be solved in France quickly: no survivors at all, but not due to zombies, due to defection / failure of nuclear centers if the people involved in are dead or are giving up.
Iceland, or one of the Scandinavian countries. Low pop. density and walkers freeze up in the winter months, and these countries have cold and longer winters. It'd be a do-able task for the survivors to clear large areas of walkers. They wouldn't necessarily want for food because with the rapid human depopulation the fish stocks would quickly rebound and they could have North Sea cod once again.
I'm a Canadian expat living near Melbourne, and I'd have to say that Australia would stand a good chance. The problem for us is that the population is all clustered on the coasts where all the food is grown. The ones who would have the best chance of surviving would be the Aborigines, with their knowledge of where to find food, and they are nomadic by nature in any case. The other plus is that Australians by nature band together in times of crisis. That would help.
Basically, any continent that uses nuclear power would be royally screwed. All or most would probably melt down with no people to run them.
They are also trained with it as part of the military service/hunting goes. The country supported this for a long while to have a population being able to defend itself which would, in combination with ideal mountaneous defensible/guerilla terrain make any invasion very costly.
has a pretty good combo of terrain/low population/high weaponry/disciplined population
only downside could be food (hunting) might get a little less scarce cause of non ideal weather conditions there.
anyway, any country which has low population with a disciplined culture with access to plenty of weapons and survival skills and the wildlife and crops to provide abundance of food is a good pick. Im thinking maybe Finland, Norway, or countries like afghanistan etc.
South Korea. Strong military and their only border is heavily guarded and filled with landmines.
1: A lot of that military power is because of the US presence...and they will be loyal to themselves in such a situation.
2: You have a high population with very low weapons per population (1 on a 100), and a population with low survival skill/training due to their comfortable lifestyle.
3: Borders dont mean much when the dead pop up all around you inside the country....
4: Military is ok, but stuck mostly to the border...tied against the North Korean dictatorship...and how will North Korea act? Hell in all the chaos or in an effort to remain in power after the apocalypse they might start to open up their artillery on South korea even..what about North korean nukes? They might blame the plague on US/South korea biological weaponry....
you still think its the best country to hole up in?
No one thinks Israel really? The vast majority of the people living there have been in the armed forces so they all have weapons training and survival training, harsh environment, sand storms have to kill or at least cripple zombies and they're used to being attacked all the time from random places. Personally, I cannot think of one other place that has the combat readiness needed to survive and keep the peace.
Absolutely no.
I don't think it is a good idea to be in a country surrounded by people who are absolutely hating Israel ... in the "normal life", it is a dangerous situation, with a "ZA", you won't get any help from the outside.
Or worse...
Hi,
This study is nice but strange ... In some parts of Europe (East, near countries like Serbia, Bosnia, etc), there are some places where the number of guns/weapons is higher than the number of people living there.
They are also trained with it as part of the military service/hunting goes. The country supported this for a long while to have a population being able to defend itself which would, in combination with ideal mountaneous defensible/guerilla terrain make any invasion very costly. ...
Oh, sorry, being from Germany myself I felt that one weapon each is quite a lot.
Swiss soldiers are given their service weapon for life and keep them at home even after their service has ended, the idea being that every citizen is armed at once in case of an invasion.
There have been a few changes recently though as far as I know, such as the soldiers not keeping ammuniton at home anymore, making the weapons rather useless in a ZA.
Saudi Arabia. I saw a video last night of a guy that had trained a Leopard or Cheetah to hunt for him plus from what I know weapon laws aren't so tight over there
You are all wrong. Mongolia would be the country most likely to survive, it has the lowest population density in the world, so if a group become infected, they would die of starvation. Mongolia is also huge, it's flat, and it's not got a lot of cities, just a lot of flat land.
- Cold weather climates. The human body would break down and a mindless zombie wouldn't take the proper measures to avoid exposure from the weather. People mentioned gas etc running out but that isn't required to survive. The modern world runs off gas, electricity etc but basic survival doesn't. Don't need to keep relocating or feed generators. Hunt off the land, build huts or use pre-exiting structures, create fire like we did a 100 years ago for heat and cooking.
- Mountain regions. Hard to navigate the terrain and even more so when your a mindless shell.
- Low population regions have the benefit of low human contact. The catch 22 is that with less population means decreased resource supplies to tap. Not all is bad, learn to survive like we did before the age of technology and grocery stores.
Reduced chances of survival
- Highly populated areas such as China, Europe, and America. Infection spreads fast, regardless of how many guns you have!
- Locations with warm climate. Such it is nice to not worry about bad weather (the cold) but neither do the undead. Exposure isn't too much of an issue for the wandering dead like it would be in cold weather that slows and breaks down the body.
- Islands. Supplies run out eventually and you will be forced to move inland to resupply. You would have to travel quite far inland because most people around the shore probably thought of leaving for open water. If infection hits the island, you are confined. Some islands, such as Hawaii, have hurricanes and tsunamis that is just another unnecessary battle.
You are all wrong. Mongolia would be the country most likely to survive, it has the lowest population density in the world, so if a group become infected, they would die of starvation. Mongolia is also huge, it's flat, and it's not got a lot of cities, just a lot of flat land.
well there is a HUGE problem, which lives on mongolian southern borders, aka China. In case of ZA, gigantic hordes will travel across asia from china and zombies do not die from starvation in kirkman's world.
I believe a zombie apocalypse can only lasts for a little over a year. Climate ultimately kills the zombies, not people. While many like to think of the cold as a natural deterrent, I think a hot and humid climate would kill 90% of zombies in 30 days. A lot depends on what season it occurs in.
I don't think any government will survive, which makes this tough and even the most geographically isolated countries have busy international airports, so contamination is guaranteed. So I have to go with Australia then Afghanistan as natural climate and terrain help the most. May God help the Irish if the ZA occurs during the winter months there.
Well I come from Denmark and as a contry its divided into 3 "main parts".
Jylland or Jutland, Fyn (Funen) and Sjælland (Zealand).
Jylland is the only part of the contry thats not an island, and this it would be possible to even nuke the bridges that connect the diffrent parts of the land.
Any how, I think Denmark could nuke the bridges that connect it to other contries (Norway and Sweden), and focus all the military on the Danish-German border.
If the army and home guard and even the police are taken out, then its still posible to disable the bridges that connects Jutland and Zealand (the two biggest parts of Denmark).
The only problem I can see with that, is if the population is traped at an island... thus not being able to escape if/when the next zombies come.
No one thinks Israel really? The vast majority of the people living there have been in the armed forces so they all have weapons training and survival training, harsh environment, sand storms have to kill or at least cripple zombies and they're used to being attacked all the time from random places. Personally, I cannot think of one other place that has the combat readiness needed to survive and keep the peace.
I instinctively want want to agree with you, here, but you have to acknowledge the difference between Israel's defensive capabilities in normal society and what would happen in a complete and total social and economical breakdown such as a ZA. Not to mention the fact that in a country where almost 100% of the population has at least SOME kind of military training, a Zombie Apocalypse would quickly create a "too many chiefs, not enough indians" scenario. Lots of guns and everybody knows how how to shoot? I'd put my money on them imploding before the zombies even got em.
I'd have to go with the cold weather folks on this one - probably putting my money on Russia. Cold, mountainous terrain = slow zombies. Zombies would do WAY better in the desert than in sub-zero temperatures. Greenland/Iceland isn't a bad idea either, although I'm not sure they are economically / agriculturally sound enough to actually sustain their populations once international commerce breaks down. I'm willing to bet Russia has hundreds of millions of pounds of foodstuffs stored away, and have since the end of WWII. They learn their lessons the hard way, but when they learn em, they don't tend to forget em.
North Korea is one of the strictest countries in all of the world, having a better lock-down then almost any other dictatorship in the world. Massive military installations have been mined out of the mountainous terrain of the land, and the people are conditioned to respond to their leader with military like precision. It's a horrible place, but if push came to shove, they're the only warm country that would have a real chance...
well there is a HUGE problem, which lives on mongolian southern borders, aka China. In case of ZA, gigantic hordes will travel across asia from china and zombies do not die from starvation in kirkman's world.
That may be true, but in the REAL world you have to put bodily effects in the picture. The whole reason zombies even walk is because of rigamortis. And if rigamortis can happen i'm sure starvation can. Bodily organs are not meant to last under those harsh conditions, and won't last. The fact that zombies eat suggest they're trying to satisfy hunger, which suggest that they can starve.
Of course I'm going to go for my own country; Ireland. Mainly because it's an island with a fairly small population. We're more than capable of growing our own food.
I think you're making guns too big of a factor. We've learned that's not the only thing that's capable of saving your life in a ZA.
The Aborigines of Australia. They've adapted to the harsh environments for thousands of years. and are one of the few remaining native crowds today. Some can live very far from eastern Australia.
Of course I'm going to go for my own country; Ireland. Mainly because it's an island with a fairly small population. We're more than capable of growing our own food.
I think you're making guns too big of a factor. We've learned that's not the only thing that's capable of saving your life in a ZA.
Imagine a ZA without guns. The survival rate would drop faster than the virus would spread
Of course I'm going to go for my own country; Ireland. Mainly because it's an island with a fairly small population. We're more than capable of growing our own food.
I think you're making guns too big of a factor. We've learned that's not the only thing that's capable of saving your life in a ZA.
Sorry but I bet loads of us Brits (infected or not) will flee to Ireland if things go wrong. We will realise it has a low pop and food, and overrun it leading to its collapse.
North Korea is one of the strictest countries in all of the world, having a better lock-down then almost any other dictatorship in the world. Massive military installations have been mined out of the mountainous terrain of the land, and the people are conditioned to respond to their leader with military like precision. It's a horrible place, but if push came to shove, they're the only warm country that would have a real chance...
My initial thought was North Korea, mainly because there are very few international flights in and out of there. Unfortunately, its starving population, and it's unstable government, undermine any benefits of its closed borders. North Korea also has a large land border with China which I don't believe is designed to keep the Chinese out, but the North Koreans in.
South Korea has a much better shot if they could close all airports early enough. North Korea would make a great buffer zone between them and the potential billions of Chinese zombies.
Any tropical country. It should be hot and moist. The Zombies would rot away faster than actually zombify or being eaten by various tropical bugs very fast.
Very cold countries could also be beneficial. I guess zombies do not generate body heat, since they don't need to eat. They would just deep freeze and you could smash their heads.
But this means you could also freeze a zombie and then thaw him up again and he would "live".
So any country with low population density and extreme temperatures - one way or the other.
Most european countries and the whole mediterranean region would be pretty fucked though, better prepare to be tasty.
Sorry but I bet loads of us Brits (infected or not) will flee to Ireland if things go wrong. We will realise it has a low pop and food, and overrun it leading to its collapse.
Sorry in advance.
pfft always ruining ireland one way or the other eh. why cant you go infect the french
thestalkinghead land (formerly known as the UK) after i mastermind a country saving plan while hiding in my attic making as little sound as possible, either that happens or i go insane and think that happens......
:eek: has it happened ???
humm i must have been channeling a certain person, but maybe it should be called walter-land
As an Australian, (so, perhaps with bias) I feel the same way. Not sharing a border with a different country is a very useful defense. Also our natural wildlife (snakes, spiders) might help to delay the zombies. Otherwise, I'm sure the flies will be useful for distraction! :P
I think our main concern would be military power and available guns. (According to Wikipedia we have 81,000 people in the military to protect 22 million people. Can't find statistics on police numbers at the moment.) But I think with the way our cities are planned, it shouldn't be too difficult to distribute the 81,000 people for protection.
Comments
I tried to answer yesterday, but it seems that the forum doesn't want to keep my message. Let me remember what I was saying ... hum ... I was saying that I live in France and that I won't vote for France, no.
Not a good idea to stay here in a ZA, in my opinion.
Why ?
Few points:
. Basically, really hard to found real weapons (guns, shotguns, so on) as we are not allowed legally to have guns
. In some places, high density of population
. In some places, in the "normal life", very bad "spirit"; so I won't trust any survivors from some areas / regions / cities as they could be more dangerous than a zombie
. Nobody is prepared to any kind of "disaster", only the professional ones (like police, militaries, and so one, but not the civilians)
. At the very beginning of the ZA (or infection, or whatever), the government may act as for the Chernobyl accident, and say "don't worry, don't move, there's no risk, everything is under control"... imagine the high number of "infected".
However, some good points:
. Easy to find food everywhere
. Houses have good equipments, so you may find anything you may need, until there's no zombies in it; and frenchies have the bad reputation to buy a lot of medicines, more than they need, and store it at home; could be useful it this case, no ? ...
. Globally, there is a good climate (compare to some places on earth); at least stable. And I think that it is an important point if you have to survive somewhere. I don't believe those who say Greenland (for example, but it is true for other countries) is nice, and so on: I don't think the climate here is easy enough to survive, excepted if you're a real native from there.
. I forget the most important: easy to find good wines !
Well, what would I do, then ?
Even if I live near the sea, in a small country, far from big cities, I think that there are too many people here, so a big risk to stay.
I think I would try to take a boat, as fast as possible, and try to go to the small island in from of our coast here (40 minutes by boat).
It is a small island with only few people, some houses, one some hotel and a restaurant, some equipments and so on (a lighthouse,etc). They are always storing things, food, gasoline, etc ... and if I remember correctly a wind turbine, etc. Plus a lot of things for fishing. The sea is full of things to eat there...
The best would be to find some guys who are hunting, as they have guns (and there are a lot in this kind of regions), but ...
Who comes with me ?
One of my biggest question is, and it is true for other countries than France, what would happen for critical things like nuclear centers ?
In France, we have a lot of nuclear things to produce electricity, and I don't believe than in a ZA people will stay quietly to their jobs and take care to these engines... they will die or run away; and even if some places are protected by the army, not sure it will last long.
So, the "zombie problem" could be solved in France quickly: no survivors at all, but not due to zombies, due to defection / failure of nuclear centers if the people involved in are dead or are giving up.
I'm a Canadian expat living near Melbourne, and I'd have to say that Australia would stand a good chance. The problem for us is that the population is all clustered on the coasts where all the food is grown. The ones who would have the best chance of surviving would be the Aborigines, with their knowledge of where to find food, and they are nomadic by nature in any case. The other plus is that Australians by nature band together in times of crisis. That would help.
Basically, any continent that uses nuclear power would be royally screwed. All or most would probably melt down with no people to run them.
The joke
Your head.
ehmmm guns are a plenty there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
They are also trained with it as part of the military service/hunting goes. The country supported this for a long while to have a population being able to defend itself which would, in combination with ideal mountaneous defensible/guerilla terrain make any invasion very costly.
has a pretty good combo of terrain/low population/high weaponry/disciplined population
only downside could be food (hunting) might get a little less scarce cause of non ideal weather conditions there.
anyway, any country which has low population with a disciplined culture with access to plenty of weapons and survival skills and the wildlife and crops to provide abundance of food is a good pick. Im thinking maybe Finland, Norway, or countries like afghanistan etc.
1: A lot of that military power is because of the US presence...and they will be loyal to themselves in such a situation.
2: You have a high population with very low weapons per population (1 on a 100), and a population with low survival skill/training due to their comfortable lifestyle.
3: Borders dont mean much when the dead pop up all around you inside the country....
4: Military is ok, but stuck mostly to the border...tied against the North Korean dictatorship...and how will North Korea act? Hell in all the chaos or in an effort to remain in power after the apocalypse they might start to open up their artillery on South korea even..what about North korean nukes? They might blame the plague on US/South korea biological weaponry....
you still think its the best country to hole up in?
Absolutely no.
I don't think it is a good idea to be in a country surrounded by people who are absolutely hating Israel ... in the "normal life", it is a dangerous situation, with a "ZA", you won't get any help from the outside.
Or worse...
Hi,
This study is nice but strange ... In some parts of Europe (East, near countries like Serbia, Bosnia, etc), there are some places where the number of guns/weapons is higher than the number of people living there.
Swiss soldiers are given their service weapon for life and keep them at home even after their service has ended, the idea being that every citizen is armed at once in case of an invasion.
There have been a few changes recently though as far as I know, such as the soldiers not keeping ammuniton at home anymore, making the weapons rather useless in a ZA.
and I want to echo 8bit and also add Russia to that question. How are they extremist?
If anything USA would be the best place to live. Alot of guns and alot of hate.
tis all you need.
Damn Madagascar and their closing of everything. ಠ_ಠ
- Mountain regions. Hard to navigate the terrain and even more so when your a mindless shell.
- Low population regions have the benefit of low human contact. The catch 22 is that with less population means decreased resource supplies to tap. Not all is bad, learn to survive like we did before the age of technology and grocery stores.
Reduced chances of survival
- Highly populated areas such as China, Europe, and America. Infection spreads fast, regardless of how many guns you have!
- Locations with warm climate. Such it is nice to not worry about bad weather (the cold) but neither do the undead. Exposure isn't too much of an issue for the wandering dead like it would be in cold weather that slows and breaks down the body.
- Islands. Supplies run out eventually and you will be forced to move inland to resupply. You would have to travel quite far inland because most people around the shore probably thought of leaving for open water. If infection hits the island, you are confined. Some islands, such as Hawaii, have hurricanes and tsunamis that is just another unnecessary battle.
well there is a HUGE problem, which lives on mongolian southern borders, aka China. In case of ZA, gigantic hordes will travel across asia from china and zombies do not die from starvation in kirkman's world.
I don't think any government will survive, which makes this tough and even the most geographically isolated countries have busy international airports, so contamination is guaranteed. So I have to go with Australia then Afghanistan as natural climate and terrain help the most. May God help the Irish if the ZA occurs during the winter months there.
Jylland or Jutland, Fyn (Funen) and Sjælland (Zealand).
Jylland is the only part of the contry thats not an island, and this it would be possible to even nuke the bridges that connect the diffrent parts of the land.
Any how, I think Denmark could nuke the bridges that connect it to other contries (Norway and Sweden), and focus all the military on the Danish-German border.
If the army and home guard and even the police are taken out, then its still posible to disable the bridges that connects Jutland and Zealand (the two biggest parts of Denmark).
The only problem I can see with that, is if the population is traped at an island... thus not being able to escape if/when the next zombies come.
I instinctively want want to agree with you, here, but you have to acknowledge the difference between Israel's defensive capabilities in normal society and what would happen in a complete and total social and economical breakdown such as a ZA. Not to mention the fact that in a country where almost 100% of the population has at least SOME kind of military training, a Zombie Apocalypse would quickly create a "too many chiefs, not enough indians" scenario. Lots of guns and everybody knows how how to shoot? I'd put my money on them imploding before the zombies even got em.
I'd have to go with the cold weather folks on this one - probably putting my money on Russia. Cold, mountainous terrain = slow zombies. Zombies would do WAY better in the desert than in sub-zero temperatures. Greenland/Iceland isn't a bad idea either, although I'm not sure they are economically / agriculturally sound enough to actually sustain their populations once international commerce breaks down. I'm willing to bet Russia has hundreds of millions of pounds of foodstuffs stored away, and have since the end of WWII. They learn their lessons the hard way, but when they learn em, they don't tend to forget em.
North Korea is one of the strictest countries in all of the world, having a better lock-down then almost any other dictatorship in the world. Massive military installations have been mined out of the mountainous terrain of the land, and the people are conditioned to respond to their leader with military like precision. It's a horrible place, but if push came to shove, they're the only warm country that would have a real chance...
That may be true, but in the REAL world you have to put bodily effects in the picture. The whole reason zombies even walk is because of rigamortis. And if rigamortis can happen i'm sure starvation can. Bodily organs are not meant to last under those harsh conditions, and won't last. The fact that zombies eat suggest they're trying to satisfy hunger, which suggest that they can starve.
I think you're making guns too big of a factor. We've learned that's not the only thing that's capable of saving your life in a ZA.
Imagine a ZA without guns. The survival rate would drop faster than the virus would spread
Uhh, no. We've clearly seen people can handle themselves without guns.
Sorry but I bet loads of us Brits (infected or not) will flee to Ireland if things go wrong. We will realise it has a low pop and food, and overrun it leading to its collapse.
Sorry in advance.
My initial thought was North Korea, mainly because there are very few international flights in and out of there. Unfortunately, its starving population, and it's unstable government, undermine any benefits of its closed borders. North Korea also has a large land border with China which I don't believe is designed to keep the Chinese out, but the North Koreans in.
South Korea has a much better shot if they could close all airports early enough. North Korea would make a great buffer zone between them and the potential billions of Chinese zombies.
Very cold countries could also be beneficial. I guess zombies do not generate body heat, since they don't need to eat. They would just deep freeze and you could smash their heads.
But this means you could also freeze a zombie and then thaw him up again and he would "live".
So any country with low population density and extreme temperatures - one way or the other.
Most european countries and the whole mediterranean region would be pretty fucked though, better prepare to be tasty.
pfft always ruining ireland one way or the other eh. why cant you go infect the french
I came in just to say this. The instant news of a zombie outbreak surfaces, they'll close that seaport in a heartbeat.
France gets the people from South England, Ireland gets all the other refugees. Like us friendly Scots
humm i must have been channeling a certain person, but maybe it should be called walter-land
Damn Madagascar... Foiling my plans...
-Anna-, you are too much awesome sometimes.