Doctrine and the Zombie Wars

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.

Comments

[Matt]

Whenever I read discussions of zombie-apocalypse scenarios, especially on military-oriented websites (Wired's Danger Room had one a year or so ago, I think, and I've seen others), I am surprised that everyone seems to miss an ideal zombie-fighting weapon. Even Max Brooks, in World War Z, seems to have overlooked this entirely (which is odd, given his anachronistic appropriation of other historical military technologies/techniques).

What is missing? A mine flail tank, like those used in World War II to clear minefields. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_flail) The rapidly-spinning steel balls and chains carried in front of the vehicle, formerly used to detonate mines, could be raised and used to bludgeon apart a zombie swarm with remarkable efficiency. The remainder of the vehicle could be simply an armor shell, to protect the crew, or could serve as a moving platform for anti-zombie marksmen. Several mutually-supporting mine flails could advance and retreat, systematically demolishing the core of a zombie horde, leaving only scattered clumps of Zack for the footsloggers to clean up.

In this analysis, it'd work best for Conventional or Net-Centric warfare, but could be effective against large swarms of zombies no matter what system you used. Best of all, it'd be a fancy piece of equipment that the military-industrial complex would love to produce at exorbitant prices. Everybody wins! (Except the zombies.)

[mike]

@ Greg,
Excellent addition to this discussion about containing the zombie menace.

@ Matt,
The only problem with flail tanks is the mess. In some situations the mess could be a biohazardous nightmare to clean up.

What I find interesting is that no one talks about the basic use of fire. If we go back to the original Night of the Living Dead, fire is a good deterrent against zombies. And in Brooks' book we see fire used to destroy the zombie bodies. What we need then would be flame-thrower tanks and a hell of a lot of napalm. It wouls stop, destroy, and cleanup the zombie hordes in one fell swoop.

[Greg Sanders]

@ Matt
Interesting idea, I wasn't aware of such a thing. Would have fit pretty well into WWZ particularly since it may have been invented by a South African.

@ Mike
Thanks!

One argument I've seen against use of fire is that it works but that it takes time. This is less of an issue when you are in a tank or the like, but if on foot you may have to deal with zombies that are still chasing after you and are now on fire.

That said, you do make a good point about the biohazard, mitigating that risk would be a definite benefit of using flame.

[Yours Truly]

I was just teachin’ my English class last week the followin’ words: zombie, living dead, undead. All to describe the pricks in a neighborin’ state as they get off to work in the mornin’ & this comes out. LOL!

[Morrigan Graham]

having not read WWZ, I don't know if this sort of a weapon is mentioned, but an obvious solution to me (after I recovered from facepalm followed by repeated headdesk) is a modified version of the WWII bouncing betty. An artillery delivered bouncing mine system that goes off at about 4.5 feet off the ground, while not 100% effective would likely reverse decimate the attacking hordes, thus making it easier to deal with the rest. Then post attack, foogas or cropdusting with an antibactirial agent to decon the area.

Of course this will imediately result in a pushback by the EU (assumeing any of those nuts survive long enough to push back) and the followers of the dead royal princess on the very posibility of useing (gasp) mines for any purpose. "Don't you know that these are inhumaine and a violation of multiple treaties?"
Followed too by the pushback from the environmental lobby at the very concept of useing a wide spread antibiotic/sterilization agent, and or the use of burning, thus adding to the carbon footprint. "What about Gia? You would distroy the Earth our Mother just to save your poor pitiful lives???"
It is suspected however that this protest will not ever make it to court, due to the backlog of court cases and the fact that by the time you read this the protesters/litigants and indeed the court themselves have changed sides as it were, and are now members of the zombie plauge, thus becomeing enemies of humanity dejure instead of just defacto.

[new balance]

It is no use doing what you like,you have got to like what you do.Do you think so?