Would you rather survive in a nuclear holocaust or a zombie apocalypse?

[Alienslayer2406]

I live in a rural community, so a zombie infection won't be too big of a deal for us, at least not initially. The idea of getting bit makes me quite anxious, though.

Oh the other hand, the only thing you have to worry about in a nuclear holocaust is radiation (if you're not immediately atomized), but the radiation would affect a lot of different things such as crops and wildlife. Plus, there's a lot of nuclear power plants near me, so I have a feeling it wouldn't end well.

[Alienslayer2406]

Ganger님이 먼저 게시:

I choose Zombie because it's only it's make believe. As for a nuclear holocaust, this crap is real and can become real at anytime.

Dang. That's deep.

Anyway, for those who chose zombie, what do you think a realistic zombie virus would be like?Like, the actual disease itself. I think the Cordyceps from The Last of Us would be the most realistic.

[RRW359]

Alienslayer2406님이 먼저 게시:

Ganger님이 먼저 게시:

I choose Zombie because it's only it's make believe. As for a nuclear holocaust, this crap is real and can become real at anytime.

Dang. That's deep.

Anyway, for those who chose zombie, what do you think a realistic zombie virus would be like?Like, the actual disease itself. I think the Cordyceps from The Last of Us would be the most realistic.

Airborne rabies.

[Ganger]

Alienslayer2406님이 먼저 게시:

Dang. That's deep.

Anyway, for those who chose zombie, what do you think a realistic zombie virus would be like?Like, the actual disease itself. I think the Cordyceps from The Last of Us would be the most realistic.

I have no doubts they could be some kind of virus created that turns humans into crazed zombies. Look at crystal meth drug users at the moment, their like zombies but zombie people who eat brains is very unlikely.

Skip to 0:10 and see

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvPVJug3OWs

[Fumo Bnnuy n Frends]

Alienslayer2406님이 먼저 게시:

I live in a rural community, so a zombie infection won't be too big of a deal for us, at least not initially. The idea of getting bit makes me quite anxious, though.

Oh the other hand, the only thing you have to worry about in a nuclear holocaust is radiation (if you're not immediately atomized), but the radiation would affect a lot of different things such as crops and wildlife. Plus, there's a lot of nuclear power plants near me, so I have a feeling it wouldn't end well.

both are ♥♥♥♥♥♥ because of people

if i had to choose though i'd probably pick nuclear apocalypse for several reasons:

1. zombies are always on the hunt

2. you can actually make a makeshift anti-radiation clothing with ♥♥♥♥ like borax and amonia

3. radiation won't destroy your greenhouses physically

4. radiation contrary to popular beliefs settles into deposits and sediments. Look at the john wayne incident where they all died from rad poisoning it was all from nuclear testings and it stayed in place

5. nuclear annihilation will more than likely hit cities and important military areas / strategic locations. Meaning anyone in rural areas will be mostly relatively safe.

6. Believe it or not crops will survive. You use pesticides and ♥♥♥♥ all the time and you turn out fine. Just clean them or grow them underground / in greenhouses and you'll be fine.

7. only the top soil layer will be contaminated. The bottom areas will be good. Just get rid of that ♥♥♥♥ and dig to the bottom and you can easily get potable non-nuclear tainted soil

8. nuclear winter would equal out with global warming.

9. if nuclear winter does happen back to hunting. People near the equator would be safest (i.e. i'm good)

10. literal reset. Unlike zombie apocalypse nuclear mutual destruction would reset the world.

11. believe it or not nuclear waste can be cleaned fast and easily with special fungi or mushrooms that absorb it. Just like certain algae can clean up oil spills so can they nuclear material

12. zombie apocalypses are ♥♥♥♥♥♥ b/c people want to take control. With nuclear aftermath you got less people and more a okay you do this i do this etc.



basically it's a never sleeping always on the move enemy vs a dormant pocketed invisible enemy.

[Sir Seanicus, Esq.]

It's pronounced Newclear.

[HypersleepyNaputunia]

ill take the zombies, radiation scarier than smelly dead bodies but not by much

[Medified]

I want to know which is worse:

1 - Dying of radiation poisoning

2 - Being bitten and transformed into a zombie

[Fumo Bnnuy n Frends]

HypersleepyNaputunia님이 먼저 게시:

ill take the zombies, radiation scarier than smelly dead bodies but not by much

oh that's a good one

zombies decay and carry diseases aside from z virus/ bacteria / microphages / fungi

they walk towards you may as well take chances with pockets of radiation

[Dracoco OwO]

Medified님이 먼저 게시:

I want to know which is worse:

1 - Dying of radiation poisoning

2 - Being bitten and transformed into a zombie

Probably the first scenario if severe enough.

[Adversary]

Depending on who you ask and what definition you use we already have at least two or three different kinds of zombie. As for nuclear war, that's probably how MAD will eventually end.

Granted, it's already been subverted in numerous ways. But someone somewhere is going to probably be voted out and get real petty about it at one point. And that someone is going to be in a nuclear state.

Course that's provided it's not Israel invoking the Samson Option or some other state invoking their equivalent option.

[Q-T_3.14.exe]

Dracoco OwO님이 먼저 게시:

Medified님이 먼저 게시:

I want to know which is worse:

1 - Dying of radiation poisoning

2 - Being bitten and transformed into a zombie

Probably the first scenario if severe enough.

Hisashi Ouchi can confirm.

[Alienslayer2406]

Erik Orlok님이 먼저 게시:

Which option has the most "sitting around a campfire, playing a guitar" chance? I'll take the opposite of that

Both options, I guess. Except in one you'll have cancer and the other you'll turn into a living corpse. Which, in hindsight, isn't much of a difference.

ᚨᛞᚡᛖᚱᛋᚨᚱᛃ님이 먼저 게시:

Depending on who you ask and what definition you use we already have at least two or three different kinds of zombie. As for nuclear war, that's probably how MAD will eventually end.

Granted, it's already been subverted in numerous ways. But someone somewhere is going to probably be voted out and get real petty about it at one point. And that someone is going to be in a nuclear state.

Course that's provided it's not Israel invoking the Samson Option or some other state invoking their equivalent option.

I guess what kind of zombie would be up to personal preference. I was thinking something more akin to the Cordyceps virus from The Last of Us.

What's MAD? Is it something I should panic about now, or later?

Q-T_3.14.exe님이 먼저 게시:

Dracoco OwO님이 먼저 게시:

Probably the first scenario if severe enough.

Hisashi Ouchi can confirm.

Whose that? Is he the guy who was on the outskirts of Hiroshima when the bomb hit?

[Alienslayer2406]

Rupika님이 먼저 게시:

Zombie apocalypse has better girls.

Well, realistically speaking, a zombie apocalypse would have significantly less atomized girls than a nuclear holocaust.

[Q-T_3.14.exe]

Alienslayer2406님이 먼저 게시:

Q-T_3.14.exe님이 먼저 게시:

Hisashi Ouchi can confirm.

Whose that? Is he the guy who was on the outskirts of Hiroshima when the bomb hit?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokaimura_nuclear_accidents
1999 accident
Impact on technicians

There are photos too. Look for them if you dare. Don't say I didn't warn you.

[Alienslayer2406]

Rupika님이 먼저 게시:

Did you hear about the russian guy who put his head in a particle accelerator.

Didn't it like, improve his vision or hearing or something like that?