I'm not objecting to the book. It is a work of fiction and its job is to entertain. And apparently it is sufficiently entertaining that it will soon become a movie. I'm objecting to the people who puff up and assert that "No that wouldn't work because this book says so!" Get real. And a life. Be entertained by the book but also recognize that it is a work of fiction and as such just because something didn't work in the book doesn't mean it wouldn't work in real life, and don't go around shooting people down who are having fun actually bothering to think through the implications of actual real world military technology to an enemy that is invulnerable to anything short of physical destruction or a brain shot.

Of course its just a book, and damned fun as well.   Here's someone who Does take his Zombie military seriously:

 

 

www.home.earthlink.net/~shouseman/eastsidegamers/id2.html

 

 

swhitebull- not to mention that there are several Zombie Role Playing games out there. BTw -  Ving Rhames is filming his second zombie film remake following the remake of Dawn of the Dead - he's doing the Day of the Dead remake, but as a different character from his first one.

I agree that I wouldn't expect detailed insight into Newtonian physics from Star Trek, because that is not the primary focus of the story*. However, with Arthur C. Clarke, when dealing with near-future spacecraft, I expect a more accurate approach. Bear in mind that Arthur C. Clarke has suggested numerous features of space travel that obey Newtonian physics and have since come into being as technology catches up with hypothesis.

One can hardly expect to discuss a book on a military sci-fi board and not cast an extremely critical eye over the science aspects of it.

What makes it worse is that there are many believable, scientifically sound devices that could be used to defeat a modern military.

1) The virus can be transmitted by the aerosol created by attacking the creatures with heavy weapons. Therefore the use of such weaponry worsens the situation by creating a new set of zombies who would otherwise not be.

2) Or, the belief of the military/scientist is that the former point is the case (whether it is or not need not be established) therefore resulting in a morotorium on the use of such weapons.

3) The virus has an initial  dormant stage, meaning that the method of transmission is not clear and that large sections of seemingly healthy populance suddenly turn into zombies, thus coming at the military from unexpected angles (Resident Evil-style).

4) The virus has a secondary dormant phase, meaning that he bodies cease activity (fall over, seem dead, again) in order to preserve energy/fuel/food - a sort of fugue state. When nearby movement is sensed, the zombie re-animates, which gets them up close with a military used to fighting at a distance.

5) The virus allows movement through otherwise impassable terrain, such as water, and this aspect is not known to the military. Therefore a seemingly safe natural barrier, like a river, is suddenly breached, threatening rear-echelon units like artillery, logistics and supply and cutting off forward troops from fire-support and ammunition. 

6) Indirect support is intedicted by one or more of the above factors at airbases, pockets of unexpected zombies etc.

7) Zombification affects other creatures, and can be spread by them. Birds especially would be dangerous, being small and airborne.

8) The military is heavily involved elsewhere, leaving only small, less well trained and equipped scratch forces to confront the zombie threat.

9) Zombies move quickly. (28 days later)

10) Troops move into an urban area where artillery cannot be bought to bear (crest restrictions) before being attacked.

So, there are ten options, all of which make more sense than magical ineffectivenes of HE.

*The original series is far closer to science fiction that later efforts. Less technobabble and more focus on the issues involved when dealing with sentient life vastly separated on the technology spectrum.

I enjoyed "the zombie survival guide."  I think people are almost speeking different languages here.  Maybe the author wanted to say that their is "no military solution" or that our military has fatal flaws in it's thinking.  People also have the bad habit of thinking that if you are good at one thing you must fail at another.  Like the idea that blind people have great hearing in reverse.  People like to believe in "game balance."  It is not true.  Being great at one thing tends to make you better at other things.  (Would you rather play chess against the Olympic marathon winner or a random human if you had to win.)  People see how unfairly good the US military is at technical war fair (ships plains )and believe that we must be bad at moral/athletic war fair (hactets and handgrandes).  Bad thinking but sadly common.  The Japanese were so in love with their fighting spirit advantage that they slow walked weapon development.  US forces had fighting spirit.

 

It may be a surprise to some here but most readers don't find tables of the burst radius of shells compelling reading.  I do.  You do.  Other people not so much.  They want to recognize a theme in the store and are happy to see misrepresentations of weapons effects as a nice tool for the writer use in service of larger truths. 

 

I was under the impression that crossing a river undetected was not a mechanism used in the book to explain a defeat of the military. The book, AFAICT, just makes a bunch of random arrse up based on a fundamental misunderstanding of modern military weapons or basic science.

I make it about ten miles.

Couple that with the idea that any halfway competant officer isn't going to hold his position when the artillery has fired so much that it has run out of ammunition. He'll be sorting a disengagement plan out by the time they get into support weapon range, if not earlier.

Outflanked underwater makes sense.

Artillery suddenly not being the premier killer of the battlefield is ridiculous, and the idea that a military force going in to one of their own cities with MLRS is "underprepared" is pretty bonkers.

There are so many different ways that Armed forces can issue brain wounds to Zombies that it is not plausable for them to advance threw a choke point! Think of the Chinese "Human Wave Attacks" in Korea! Even given the lack of fire power compaired to today's Army, the good guys slaughtered the Chinks by the MILLIONS!

Modern weapons are at least two if not three orders of magnatude more effective and danderious than the weapons of WW-II and Korea! If they just aim at the head of the front row of Zombies, 5.56 will go threw at least two skuls and 7.62 will go threw four to five! That makes enfilade very dangerious to massed Zombies who do not duck and tend to pack up at choke points. Then Tank and SP Guns firing HE ammo will have 100% effectivness at all points close to the detonation point! The blast kills those close by, by concussing the brain with the shock wave. This works on real people too! Then there are ICMs that generate many tens of thousands of leathal fragments from each round! ( 80-100K per round!) Each weapon is capable of killing hundreds if not thousands only counting brain wounds. Then as the range closes, the muzzel blast from Tank main guns and SP Howitzers will kill ALL with in a dozzen or so meters in front of the guns.

Finaly there are the indavidual soldiers them selves. Each caries at least 600 rounds and from ~10 feet away, it is hard to miss brain shots at a rate that the zombies can not out race. Then there is air power and all that it entails! A 500 pounder will kill every brain with in 80-100M even if no fragment hit them by concussing their brains! Fragments are possable dangerious to over 900M!

 

No, the author did not have a clue how powerfull modern weapons are!