The zombie apocalypse would be a serious threat

Final Argument My opponent still makes the assumption that most or even many towns or cities even have morgues, funeral homes, or even hospitals nearby. He then goes on to make the assumption that the towns and cities that do happen to have morgues, funeral homes and hospitals even have a significant number of dead bodies able to be reanimated. For example if a funeral home only has 2-3 bodies that begin to rise up and chase people, passing by policemen can pick them off and thus eliminate the zombie attack in that town. Regardless, in order for the zombie outbreak to leave no town safe from the initial attack my opponent needed to show that there was a good amount of dead able to be reanimated in a majority of towns and cities. Concerning FireI will cite the scene in Night of the Living Dead where the main character simply lights a sofa on fire forcing the hordes of zombies to retreat for quite some time. An enemy that retreats when you light objects on fire CANNOT be considered a difficult military threat to deal with and certainly not an enemy hard to defend against. I've also provided a source that the United Kingdom, in their desperation to fend of a Nazi invasion during the Second World War, ran fuel lines along the beach heads with nozzles that would spit out walls of fire and then be shut off again. [1] This is 70 year old technology and can be easily mimicked on a wider scale when the military takes control of towns and/or sets up bases to protect civilians. The same concept can be used and bases can easily fend off zombies from approaching. Also Napalm bombs, incendiary tank, mortar, and artillery rounds, as well as flares are all in the military's possession to unleash on areas that need to be ridden of zombies. An artillery barrage of white phosphorus rounds or flares in a city and/or sections of a city can effectively scare zombies away from the area making it simple to occupy for civilian and military forces. As of 2006, the United States has in reserves: 21,760,000,000 barrels of oil. [2] Even assuming that NO oil whatsoever is produced from then on, there is more than enough oil to fuel fire traps for centuries to come. Self Spreading Epidemic Regarding the Katrina Hurricane Disaster, the U. S. military did respond adequately and without their assistance, many more lives would have been lost. The contributions of the military were: [3] Delivering enough food to feed 15,000 for 3 days before the hurricane struck Distributing generators Providing medical care The USS Bataan’s helicopters performed countless search and rescue missions Sending convoys of emergency supplies to refugee centers. The U. S Navy sent 1 Aircraft Carrier, 2 Amphibious Assault Ships, 1 Amphibious transport dock, 2 Dock Landing ships, etc to the Gulf during the disaster The U. S. Air Force evacuated 25,000 in need of medical care, is running Emergency Rapid Medical Response in the city, and airlifted 9 million meals to the Gulf The Coast guard evacuated 33,500 people So despite the fact that the U. S. military has military bases housing its forces all over the world[4] and is fighting 2 wars in the middle East, the U. S. military had to deal with a natural disaster at home. A hurricane isn’t something you can shoot in the head, or light objects on fire to scare away. And look at the rescue numbers, they number in the several tens of thousands just counting the military. 1,800 were lost, but had it not been for the military the toll could be as much as 15 times higher. I agree with my opponent that it is very unlikely that the U. S. will be able to secure most of the cities especially the densely populated ones such as Manhattan, Boston, etc. But I have to disagree that it would be very difficult for the military to mobilize and effectively to respond to an enemy that stumbles and bites to kill. Perhaps millions will die total from within the cities in close quarters encounters with the zombies, but within a quick matter of time with people frantically running and driving away, the vast majority of people would survive. They merely have to outrun slow rotting bags of flesh. I ask my opponent and anyone who thinks the zombie "biting" method is effective, to perform an experiment, just for a day, go out stumble around, make groaning noises, and approach absolute strangers on the streets. Proceeded to try and bite them. See how many people you get. I’d be willing to bet that it won’t be many if any at all, due to a combo of people punching you in the face/pushing you away and then running away. The point I’m trying to make is that the zombie’s only offensive attack, biting, is extremely obsolete and ridiculous. The reason why zombies bring about the extinction of mankind in movies is because they are too ridiculous to be anywhere near as effective in the real world. When the military does become mobilized, it will easily be able to destroy the zombie threat. Killing millions of unarmed and physically incapacitated individuals is something the United States can easily accomplish. The full force of the U. S. will be brought to bear on zombies and weapons such as tactical nukes, incendiary rounds such as napalm and white phosphorous, and antipersonnel rounds such as flechette and tungsten pellets all being fired from ships, tanks, artillery, and aircraft can easily annihilate an army that wanders around aimlessly and stumbling towards passing by people in a vain and hilarious attempt to try and bite them. With the military’s superiority in the air and land, sections of cities, towns, factories, farmland, airports, etc can all be taken and used as bases while simultanously contributing to the anti-zombie campaign. Never SafeMy opponent has no argument explaining how the military will experience difficulty when attempting to establish these shelters and mentioning nothing more than the delay to inhibit their efforts. Like my opponent said people become very weak when bitten anywhere by a zombie. In the Night of Living Dead, we all knew that the young girl was automatically bitten and destined to become a zombie when her parents said she was sick. In the state of emergency that we will experience the sick will be turned away from the sanctuaries and/or summarily executed in order to cease further outbreaks as a cruel but necessary act of eradication. Conclusion I agree that 3rd world nations would have higher death rates as well but those nations aren’t as key to survival of mankind as say the U. S. or Europe. My opponent also constantly assumes that the military needs to save every city to accomplish its objectives of saving the country. This is not true. The multi million man military only needs to secure and hold a good number of vital cities and towns as well as major centers of production, transportation, and agriculture. With the military being resupplied constantly by various strategic sanctuaries/supply centers and actively attacking zombies in cities, rural areas, etc, the zombie outbreak will be inevitably put down. To argue that the military is incapable of taking factories and establishing bases capable of defending against zombies is ludicrous and nonsensical. The military will be able to eradicate the zombies eventually and mankind will not be pushed to brink of extinction like it is in the Romero films. Since mankind will survive and thrive again surely and since the Romero films show the zombies all but annihilating the human race, the resolution is negated. Vote Con Sources [1] . http://bit.ly...(World War 2 British Fire traps)[2] . http://bit.ly...(Oil Reserves of the U. S. ) [3] . http://bit.ly...;(U.S. Military Relief efforts during the Katrina Disaster) [4] . http://bit.ly...; (U. S. military bases directory. Many are in the U. S. but many are in Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Central America, Arabian Peninsula, Middle East, Pacific Islands, Japan, South East Asia, etc)