War or Defeat

We have won the war! Listen. That has a ring, a motivational power to it. Pride is coupled with the statement; “surviving an epidemic” reminds one of desperate times. Make no mistake: the conflict with the zombies is indeed a war. They are out to destroy humanity, even if it is not a conscious decision. Labelling the Zombie War as anything else diminishes many heroes’ sacrifices, fails to contextualize the tough decisions made, and completely disregards the unity needed to defeat the virus. To win a war, one needs to attack. As the leader of a country, this is why I would vote to attack during the Honolulu Conference.

This call to attack is more than just demagoguery. It provides the best solution to the zombie apocalypse in multiple areas. Tactically, the alternative to not attacking is “remain[ing] safe and sedentary while our enemy simply rot[s] away” (Brooks 265), but General D’Ambrosia states, “[l]ock a hundred of them in a room and three years later they’ll come out just as deadly” (272). Attacking really is the only choice because the threat will remain if nothing is done. The War started with only a few zombies; not attacking now would allow the process to start much more rapidly than before because people would undoubtedly become infected due to the many zombies present. Moreover, militaries can only be content with a stalemate for so long. A lack of a clear goal (such as reclaiming a particular city) would soon develop into a distrust of leadership. If our military gives up, then even the safe zones will be in jeopardy.

There are many social and political benefits, as well. For example, reclaiming entire cities and allowing people to return back to their homes gives people hope. Victories like these–even if some defeats are present–would fix the problem of ADS (Asymptomatic Demise Syndrome). Without noticeable progress, people will “simply go to sleep one night and not wake up the next morning…because…it could only bring more suffering” (159). Politically, this would also set the stage for future governments because people will have faith in their leaders. They will see their government as an entity that actually brought positive change instead of one that cowered in the face of danger. If the world stays on the defensive, then people will always have a lingering question about why their governments have not yet done anything about the situation. Stagnation is simply not an option for a country either.

Perhaps a criticism of attacking the zombies is that we “risk even more lives, suffer even more [casualties]” (265). War has a price, however, and the people fighting in the fields understand the consequences. They are willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of humanity, and by going on the offensive, we are valuing their sacrifice. The offensive will not be a reckless charge into danger, however. It will take the form of the “Reinforced Square” (280) formation that Todd describes in great detail. It is effective, deadly, and replicable. Labeling an offensive as dangerous and foolish is misguided. Perhaps the old way of fighting could be described as such, but the new offensive will be calculated. A loss of life would be tragic in this strategy, not just the norm.

Seeing that going on the offensive makes sense tactically, socially, and politically, I would undoubtedly endorse this plan as a country’s leader. Even the moral arguments against this strategy are limited. There’s only one thing to do now. Let’s go win a war.


4 thoughts on “War or Defeat

  1. I agree that going to war is an overall positive for the society. It makes sense for all the reasons you stated, but especially for the intangible reasons such as giving people hope and a reason to continue. Additionally, progress must be made because “stagnation is simply not an option” as you stated aptly. Our species has been used to thousands of years of progress in every dimension of life; it is our pride and our confidence. While people may question the reasons for this necessity and the impact it has had on other species and the environment, this need for advancement is physically necessary. Our brains are hardwired for advancement and when we fail to do so, we are subject to chemical reactions that produce despair and hopelessness. Thus, it is impossible to circumvent this important detail.

    However, I disagree in the vigor with which you said you would “undoubtedly endorse this plan” because there are many causes of doubt. What if the offensive fails and worsens the situation? What if they lose the small sense of safety they have already earned? These are all important questions to be asked and considered. However, I believe that regardless, the best option for the human species and humanity itself is to go on the offensive and claim victory against the enemy that has caused all this suffering.


  2. I enjoyed how you made this seem so much like a personal account, or an interview. The first paragraph seemed as though you were one of the interviewees of the narrator.

    I also found myself agreeing with the logic of your second paragraph- I don’t think there was enough evidence to prove that the zombies would rot away. I think that to believe so would be a mistake in that they might not rot away, as D’Ambrosia states. To depend on their decay is not the smartest choice. Can you think of any other tactical reasons besides this for pursuing war? And why is military content with stalemates for only finite period of time? Is this a stalemate?

    Also, do you think that this war would be able to stop ADS? Or would it create more mental health problems as more people have to battle the zombies head on?

    Also, as we discussed in class, what does winning the war look like to you? What is the value of the ideological points worth saving that you have brought up? For example, what is the value of hope?
    I think your blog post was very well thought out overall, and it definitely brought up arguments that I had neglected in my own. But I also find a that there could have been more consideration of human kind’s physical limits at the time. I think that you focused more on ideological issues than physical issues.


    • What is interesting to me about the decay argument is that generally a human body decays relatively quickly. Just days after the body rapidly decays. After a month the liquidification process starts. Since it appears that zombies last longer than this period of time it is impossible to predict the decay of these altered creatures. It’s surprising that bacteria haven’t eaten up the zombies already. It doesn’t appear as though this is a problem that is going away any time soon.

      In agreement with the blog post I think that a specific, targeted culling of the zombies is necessary. However, I consider this to be more a response to an epidemic rather than a war. Perhaps it is a war in the metaphorical sense, but tactically this plays out like a disease control effort.


  3. Hi!
    I agree that there is a need to go onto the offensive for the better of the country. However, how exactly do you know that the victory will cause ADS to be cured? What specifically about the victory will cause ADS to be cured?
    Also, I feel that the reclaiming of their cities may not necessarily allow people to give people hope. Some people may feel no return of hope as they see how much destruction is around them. It may be too difficult for them to begin to even recover and if they do, I feel that it would take a very long time for them to return to a similar environment to which they were once used to. Like in the book, people can change dramatically that time can not even change. Some people can become addicted to bloodlust and killing that time does not necessarily fix so some may continue to feel despondent.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s