Home / Uncategorized / WORST COUNTRY FOR ZOMBIE SURVIVAL
WORST COUNTRY FOR ZOMBIE SURVIVAL

WORST COUNTRY FOR ZOMBIE SURVIVAL

When comparing the outcomes of a zombie plague to other more common natural and man-made disasters, we find that the worst places are likely to be poorer countries with dense populations. Authoritarian regimes often fail miserably under the weight of these large-scale stresses, too.

So which countries rank lowest globally in the case of a catastrophic undead pandemic? All available data clearly point to two that are dead last.

With 1.35 billion people living on 3.7 million square miles of land, China has a population density lower than that of Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. However, its paltry gun-ownership rate of just 3.5 percent means that the People’s Republic has a fraction of the number of armed citizens that reside in the United States. Add into the mix a notoriously secretive government that rules with an iron fist, and China ranks near the bottom in global zombie survivability.

But another country is even worse off than China.

Without a doubt, India is the last place you want to be in a zombie pandemic. It packs in 944 people per square mile, making it an ideal recruiting ground for new undead conscripts. And of a total population of 1.3 billion, less than 4 percent own firearms. Furthermore, India still lags behind the industrialized world in terms of public health infrastructure and sanitation. And its military is substantially smaller and more poorly equipped than that of either China or the United States.

This is something to think about the next time you feel like planning that vacation to Calcutta about which you’ve always dreamed..

10 comments

  1. I don’t think India is worst country of zombie apocalypse because India in a few country who still have old way going like we mostly don’t use cold storage we know how to store food for long without electricity and we know what to store and every Indian family store atleast 2 or 3 month food and most important we are vegetarian and we how to farms so we don’t need to hunt so in India their no shortage of food there are lots of construction material so you can build anything of fortified I admit in terms of firearms we don’t have luxury like other country but if claver enough then you where to find like police station army depot don’t forget india has large army so you find weapon their but any other country india is not perfect in india travelling is too dangerous

  2. Wrong, India is not the worst cuz India is very big. Bangladesh is much worse than India to be in during Zombie Apocalypse, but I think the worst country would be the small Island countries if you’re trapped their without boats, like Cyprus or Mauritius may be ?

  3. Surely the sheer size of the Chinese military would be able to contain whole sections of china, perhaps even invading india to contain the undead threat? I mean, when India falls from the zombie plague china and pakistan will just claim the land they have wanted for years….. The huge armies will walk in and if they cant beat the zombies then they could just secure the indian sub-continent?

  4. China is a huge country so the chances of pockets of the population not even getting infected are high. The amount of available guns is likely to lower the survival rates as people shoot each other in an increasingly lawless world with decreasing food stocks.

    As with all statistics, you have to be sure what you’re measuring before you can infer anything. I agree that population density will be a major issue so survival chances should be calculated by city rather than by country. Factors should include routes out of the city and how far you need to travel to reach open country. In which case New York is one of the worst places you can be.

    • “The amount of available guns is likely to lower the survival rates as people shoot each other…”

      Firearm availability to the general public is nowhere as high as it is in the United States. Despite a higher percentage of violent crime involving a firearm, total violent crime rates are on par with most other (but not all) developed countries. In other words, if someone is going to kill you they will do so regardless of the availability of firearms. The availability of a firearms has never shown itself to be a motivation to kill. Likewise, if your intention is to defend yourself, you will do so with whatever tool is available.

      Since we’re talking about the zombie apocalypse here, I believe the benefit of abundant firearms in the hands of survivors will far outweigh the risk of defending yourself from armed criminals. You have to survive the zombies, first, and *they* won’t have firearms. This gives a significant advantage to survivors with firearms compared to those without. Those who are unable or unwilling to take up effective arms to defend themselves may be some of the first to succumb.

      I’d also like to point out that high availability of firearms and ammunition in a zombie apocalypse will ensure an abundance of scavenged items to choose from. I’m betting that survivors will quickly obtain the most effective anti-zombie firearms. Even if someone is inclined to attack a survivor or group of survivors thus armed it would be a pretty dicey proposition. Criminals tend to be cowardly bullies and hate opposition. Effective defense at every turn would be a huge disincentive to prey on others.

      Movies and video games in no way represent how people will behave in an apocalyptic scenario. While you and I are enthused about attacking each other in a multi-player shooter, in reality it is very difficult for rationally thinking individuals to kill each other.

      One last thought. If a zombie infection is passed by blood-born pathogens, then you will maximize your survival by killing zombies at a distance where their blood will not get into your eyes, nose and mouth. You can only do this effectively with firearms. Otherwise, it’s nose-to-nose combat with a melee weapon.

  5. I’m glad I don’t live there. I thought China would be the worst country to live in, guess I was wrong.

  6. and here I thought Japan would be on there. It’s certainly gotta rank pretty low. Trapped, on an island, with HOW many people?? (to lazy to look it up, sorry)

  7. I would be interested to know what the stats are for the UK. 68million people in a land mass 800 miles long and 400 wide. Guns are essentially banned so ownership would be low, and don’t forget we are an island.

    To me its less about the high population in itself, its more about the population density per sq mile.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Scroll To Top