Pallab Ghosh of the BBC reports that researchers in Canada have done a mathematical model of a widespread zombie outbreak and evaluated possible counter-strategies. Dan Drezner has done excellent work in postulating what various systemic international relations theories would predict about the outcome of such an undead crisis [Update: link fixed]. Inspired by his analysis, below is my attempt at providing an in character explanation of how advocates of different U.S. military doctrines would suggest we face the zombie peril. This analysis is in good part a response to the work of premier writer on this topic, Max Brooks, with particularly attention paid to the excellent fictional social history World War Z.
Conventional warfare: Some elements of conventional warfare have been widely derided even before facing a threat that can neither shocked nor awed. Similarly, against zombies decapitation strikes are no longer in any sense a game-changing euphemism but are instead a constant operation requirement. However, while weapons and munitions must be modified, the solution to a zombie outbreak falls is still a matter of properly applying force on a massive scale. Proper use of the Weinberger-Powell doctrine would ensure that the zombie menace is met with overwhelming force rather than the sort of half measures that could get U.S. soldiers killed or worse zombified,
It is the job of the military to secure borders and when going abroad clear territory of zombies and then implementing an exit strategy rather than getting sucked into a quagmire of nation building. As a side note, while the A-10 and AC-130s may be the most useful platform against the zombie, it is vital that we restore funding to the F-22 to deter hostile nations from exploiting the outbreak and U.S. distraction to expand their territory.
Counter-Insurgency: Critics of COIN doctrine argue that zombies lack hearts and minds, they only possess brains that must be splattered. However, this facile argument overlooks the fact that counter-insurgency has always understood that zombies; the ultimate irreconcilables, cannot be won over. What conventional warfare advocates fail to understand is that zombies, much like violent extremism, cannot simply be cleared via overwhelming force.
Vectors for reemergence will always be prevalent, the undead are nothing if not patient, and long-term defeat of ghouls requires the cooperation of local populations abroad or heaven-forbid at home. If a local has seen the military apply indiscriminate force they will be unwilling to report if their neighbors, let alone friends or family, have shown signs of infection. We may have to occupy failed states that have become persistent sources of zombies, but we will largely act in a supportive role by training and equipping local anti-zombie forces. Ultimately, resources must be put towards putting skull-crushing boots on the ground although there is a also a role for national guard troops and civilian agencies rebuilding communities ravaged by the zombie plague.
Net-Centric Warfare: World War Z was pointedly skeptical about the use of technology deeming the Landwarrior system as good for little more than watching the death of comrades from their point of view. The book’s faith in simple rifles, lines of soldiers, and even melee weapons overly romanticizes earlier periods of warfare. Cutting edge technology is expensive, but in the event of a mass-casualty zombie outbreak, the lives of survivors are all the more precious.
Ingenuity and invention can substitute for manpower by using sensors to detect precursors of outbreaks in populated areas or to keep an unblinking eye on wilderness, abandoned settlements, and even the oceans. Anti-zombie squads can use unmanned ground vehicles to scout out urban areas and perhaps even to target ghouls remotely. Unlike humans, robots cannot be added to the ranks of the enemy. This technology can also save lives, infrared scopes can be used to differentiate between the heat signatures of living creatures and the undead. Best of all, the against zombies net-centric systems of systems do not have to worry about enemy eavesdropping, cyber-terrorism, or anti-satellite strikes.
Intervention-Skeptic: The flaw of all the above perspectives is that they view the military as the solution to a zombie outbreak. The ultimate solution to a zombie outbreak is a cure or at a bare minimum a vaccine. As we work to develop such a solution, our first priority must be securing the United States, although many suspect that the actual risk to developed nations is overstated in the first place.
Yes, some violence may be necessary, but there is a reason most military anti-zombie sorties result in disaster. Taking the fight to the zombie ultimately only depletes our resources while adding to their ranks. Even the less violent counter insurgency approach is delusional. Do we honestly expect citizens of other countries to accept a U.S. soldier killing their mother, even if said ghoulish mother was craving brains a few moments earlier? We are not capable of effectively developing other nations under peacetime conditions, how can we expect to do so during a zombie outbreak?
I wouldn’t spoil the actual doctrine used in WWZ, but it makes more sense than the above while and still is quite horrifying. If you enjoyed this, or if you thought you might have enjoyed this were I a better writer, I’d strongly recommend the book.
Recent Comments