Sign in or 
Location: User Survival Plans
Discussion: After the apocolypse
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this
Showing 10 posts
gallio |
After the apocolypse
Apr 30 2011, 9:35 PM EDT
Being the cynical person I am, I believe as soon as the zombie horde dies off we are going to eat each other. Not literally. Odds are that there will be several "clans" or groups that control whatever would be left. The world will be in shambles, millions dead and many more injured. People will kill each other over food and slaves will probably exist. That is Option 1, Option 2 is the UN will launch nukes all around the world at major cities like New York and Beijing. If a zombie apocalypse is anything like a natural disaster, we will be screwed. More so than before. Not to mention that the dead bodies will litter many rivers and lakes making it dangerous to drink water from such a source due to contamination. So basically, if the zombies don't get you, everything else will. Do you agree?
0
out of
5 found this valuable.
Do you?
Keyword tags:
After
Apocolypse
Survival
|
BigLoki |
|
|
gallio |
2. RE: After the apocolypse
Apr 30 2011, 10:03 PM EDT
"No."Yes 0 out of 5 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
BigLoki |
3. RE: After the apocolypse
Apr 30 2011, 10:09 PM EDT
Option 1: People are a$holes now, I have no doubts that many will remain that way after SHTF. In that respect I do agree. On the other side of that coin, more tend to band together, and put petty bullshlt aside. There will be scuffles over resources, but that happens now also. I don't think that all our resources will be contaminated by dead bodies... around 80% of the water people drink is from reservoirs, and natural springs... the springs are accessed by wells, most of which are at least 20 feet deep. I guess it could happen, but not really likely.Option 2: Why? Why would the UN launch nukes all around the world? Why destroy your main sources of trade and commerce if you anticipate that the incident can be stopped, and normal life can resume? If you think that it can't be stopped, and normal life will not resume, why bother dropping nukes instead of containing the area? 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
theman838 |
4. RE: After the apocolypse
Apr 30 2011, 10:20 PM EDT
" Option 2 is the UN will launch nukes all around the world at major cities "Since when has the UN done anything? 6 out of 6 found this valuable. Do you? |
SasquatchJim |
5. RE: After the apocolypse
Apr 30 2011, 10:34 PM EDT
Why would the UN still be around AND launch nukes after the horde has died off? Seems kinda pointless to blow up crap if the threat is gone.
Do you find this valuable?
|
Carnack |
6. RE: After the apocolypse
May 1 2011, 12:03 AM EDT
| Post edited: May 1 2011, 12:04 AM EDT
"Since when has the UN done anything?Damn straight brother. Sure there will be A-Holes but humanity has survived them before. We can do it now and we can do it later. So my opinion on this can be summed up in 2 sentences spoken in all caps to convey a scream. BRING ON THE RAID SQUADS YOU *******! MY RAIDER SKIN COAT NEEDS REPLACING! 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
VagabondVance |
7. RE: After the apocolypse
May 1 2011, 12:29 AM EDT
"Yes"Really, no. 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
Sharpie41 |
|
chitoryu12 |
9. RE: After the apocolypse
May 1 2011, 1:17 AM EDT
"Since when has the UN done anything?Since when did the UN have a stock of nukes? 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
