Would you rather a Zombie Apocalypse or a Nuclear Fallout?

[Raritas 6,820]

Yes, I know this is a bit of a strange and perhaps odd question, but I was playing Fallout 3 earlier, after watching The Walking Dead (Which is amazing). This question popped into my head, which would be better for chances of survival?
 
Zombie Apocalypse: While you may initially be safe, if most of the population becomes infected, there's no going back. Maybe a cure would be found, maybe not. Plus, being eaten doesn't sound nice.
 
Nuclear Fallout: While yes, most of the population would probably be killed, those who survive may have a chance to rebuild. That's if radiation doesn't affect anything, and the world would be a much harsher place.

 

Personally, I find it difficult to choose. If I had to, I'd probably go for Zombie Apocalypse. At least the world doesn't blow up...

[Scootalove 10,689]

I'd rather have a zombie apocalypse because, surviving a nuclear fallout is sometimes unlikely so I'll go with the zombies instead.

[Metemponychosis 1,262]

I'll go with zombies... The world is already full of people I want to shoot in the head but I can't because of my own morals and the law...

 

A zombie apocalypse solves this problem for me.

[Hive King 2,001]

Zombie apocalypse for reasons in this article.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18683_7-scientific-reasons-zombie-outbreak-would-fail-quickly.html

A hillbilly with a shotgun can take out a huge amount of zombies, never mind the military cluster bombing everything

[LittleRawr 679]

Zombie apocalypse.

 

It would take a very, very long time for the Earth to heal if it was a nuclear fallout. And it would damage other species as well, not only humans.

 

At least in a zombie apocalypse other animals could still survive.  

[Fluttershyfan94 5,746]

The zombie apocalypse, there is a simple reason why. Asthma, I couldn't handle a nuclear fallout. I could just as well just die in the blast. At least when it comes to the zombie apocalypse I have a chance, I have good stamina, fast runner, agile and just pretty athletic for size. I know what I can do to survive the zombie apocalypse, so I would very likely survive.

 

It would help if I had the knight XV:

 

Bring it on zombies..

[Suitaloo 743]

I vote zombies for a few reasons:

 

1. I know what to do in a zombie apocalypse. Ever play Left 4 Dead 1? And read the Sacrifice Comic? I'm basically Zoey. I know all about different kinds of zombies and how to dispatch them.

 

2. You can still re-populate the earth after a zombie apocalypse without significant mutations happening to the offspring, if not sterilizing everyone altogether.

 

3. A zombie apocalypse would be more fun. Blame it on video games if you want, but I'd love to have a horde to just slaughter with no ethical repercussions because they are monsters at that point, it's carries the same ethical weight as killing Nazis, you are doing the world a service.

 

4. I'm more prepared for a zombie apocalypse. I have escape routes planned out, I have weapons ready, all melee weapons so as to not have to worry about ammunition. Plus if you get bit, you're done. I don't know how to treat radiation sickness, but a cure for zombiism is swift decapitation.

 

And that's pretty much it. Unless the zombies are radically different than any kind that media has ever portrayed, I'm prepared. Be it the Romero zombies that are slow and undead, or the Left 4 Dead zombies that are mutated, infected humans, or the 28 days later zombies that are really fast, they all share a common weakness, removal of the head.

[GhostPony750 959]

Zombies, because they are epic.

 

And I have way more chances to survive than a nuclear thing. Also, if we succesfully kill every zombies, I could go in houses and take stuff for free.

 

Also, everyone is prepared for this, so we could easily get rid of them.

[~Sole~ 852]

There was already a topic very similar to this one... But anyways, definitely zombies. I know this'll sound messed up, but I think surviving a zombie apocalypse would be fun! I've already got a plan, a prepared weapon, and a destination just in case I'm not crazy!

[Life Giver 1,063]

I would like to go with a Fallout. To me it sounds more fun and more likely would happen... not for a long time hopefully. So a fallout for me i say.

[Vertigo_95 572]

A Zombie Apocalypse would be fun. I never played Fallout, or any post-apocalyptic game, but some of the zombies games make it seem so cool.

[Mars Caramel 319]

I haven't played Fallout or many zombie survivals, but I'm leaning more toward a zombie apocalypse. If a zombie apocalypse were to happen, let's face it; killing the infected would be fun, and one of our top priorities for survival. However, I would rather not kill anyone unless they are known for a fact that they are beyond saving until a cure is eventually found. It would also be upsetting to see our friends and family fall victim.

 

As for a nuclear fallout, it would possibly depend on the number of nukes, how much of an area they would consume, and where they are dropped. However, a single nuclear bomb is also capable of causing a lot of damage to the planet's atmosphere, and who knows what would happen if multiple happen to go off at once, even if large groups of people remain unaffected by the blasts themselves? Actually, I'm not even sure if the planet can even take one more nuke.

Edited October 25, 2013 by Mars Brownie

[ReverseFaller 2,484]

Zombies. There's a really good chance within the first week I'd be one of the zombies. I mean the odds of being a zombie as opposed to a survivor are huge. I'd rather be a zombie than die slowly of cancer in a hellish world.

 

Now if the US government build some good old fashioned vaults for the general public to use, I'd be all for a Nuclear apocalypse. However I doubt this would ever happen in a million years. Even if they do have some nuclear proof bunker the only people who would be allowed in would be all of the greedy-ass people with power from DC.

 

I love Fallout, and Left 4 dead but both would kind of suck to live through in real life. I'd have to go with Fallout as I'm sure my chances of survival would be higher. I mean what if I'm alone and a Smoker gets me? Uh oh!

Edited October 25, 2013 by Seibutsu Akuma

[Pomfritter 165]

Mutual Assured Destruction pretty much makes it so having anything with nukes happen would be too devastating to return from. At least with zombies it could (possibly) be dealt with or at the very least controlled.

[Koelath 445]

Neither. I'll take an alien invasion ala Falling Skies. Just get me a ragtag gang of gun-toting bandits and I'd be as merry as a motherfucker in Alabama.

 

But strictly choosing between the two presented here is impossible because you haven't given any information on the zombies. Are these Romero zombies or L4D Special Infected sorts...Maybe Zombieland-style fast ones, or slow but loud noises (alarms and such) will attract speedy hordes (ala L4D)?

 

And I already collect bottle caps, so I'd be a rich man in a nuclear wasteland.

Edited October 25, 2013 by Koelath

[GrauWitz 1,010]

Definetly the zombie apocalypse. I'd have a better chance of survival being chased by a mob of the dead than to be vapourised by a M.O.A.B.

[Lunas Husband 2,777]

I know every pony is going with zombie... and I'm too...

 

Zombies would be a bit easier, because well the undead take on hit to the head and we are golden, food could be hard to find but! there is no chance of any of the food being infected with radiation. Top of all that I kind of like zombies..