5 ms·

Indeed. Even SOPs for a zombie apocalypse. Now, before you downvote, I'm being totally serious, even if the SOPs aren't.

thephyber 9y ago
A potential Zombie Apocalypse is not a bad thing to plan for. Sure, a disease outbreak might not turn people into the exact kind of zombie planned (there are as many zombie "rulesets" in movies as there are time travel "rulesets"), but it's an exercise which probably doesn't veer far from an actual worst-case scenario of disease outbreak. Remember that the Spanish Flu outbreak killed 3%-5% of the world population in 3 years[1]. It's not even a bad thing for the CDC to plan for[2]. I have a conservative cousin who is in the Marine reserves and is an FBI special agent. He complained to no end that the CDC was "wasting" our taxpayer dollars on the zombie outbreak preparedness marketing campaign. But he also failed to see that as a marketing campaign, it went viral because of unassuming hosts like him (very meta) and, ironically, it was an extremely efficient use of taxpayer dollars. A false flag attack which attacks US or allied property is just a justification to lie to the American voter and to co-opt American tax dollars. If anything, the author who suggested it for such a purpose is part of the Pentagon "swamp" (in Trump terminology) and is part of the reason the US is currently waning in power (soft, hard, economic, etc). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/why-did-the-cdc-develop-a-plan-for-a-zombie-apocalypse/239246/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/why-did...
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  The CDC may use zombie apocalypse as a lighthearted framework for training (and, even more, public preparedness) for a generic disease outbreak, but with the military, if they actually use it at all, I expect it is more as an emotionally convenient framework for preparing for the potentiality of widespread domestic counterinsurgency. > A false flag attack which attacks US or allied property is just a justification to lie to the American voter and to co-opt American tax dollars. If anything, the author who suggested it for such a purpose The false flag use wasn't a prominent suggestion, and the highlighted false flag uses started with a false flag attack on a Soviet-allied threat. Elevating a secondary variation of what is itself one of many possible uses for acquired MiGs as if it was a standalone or primary justification for the exercise is dishonest.
  - thephyber 9y ago
    > as an emotionally convenient framework for preparing for the potentiality of widespread domestic counterinsurgency I haven't read the specific docs, so I don't have a frame of reference. Seems like perfectly valid reasoning. > Elevating a secondary variation ... Fair enough
    - fapjacks 9y ago
      Just to be clear, the other guy has no idea what he's talking about and is some kind of wacko conspiracy theorist.
  - fapjacks 9y ago
    You have no idea what you are talking about. I think you are talking about the "zombie riot" civic emergency drills conducted in recent years, but I'm talking about specifically something my army unit did (develop SOPs for a zombie apocalypse) as coordination training. Additionally, you should know that you are a conspiracy theorist and completely out of touch with reality if you think that regular US army units will fire on American citizens in some kind of "widespread domestic counterinsurgency". You truly have no idea what you're talking about.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > but I'm talking about specifically something my army unit did (develop SOPs for a zombie apocalypse) as coordination training Developing SOPs as a training exercise (SOPs developed in such contexts are, IME, throwaways) and having standing SOPs are a different thing. That certainly makes sense. > Additionally, you should know that you are a conspiracy theorist and completely out of touch with reality if you think that regular US army units will fire on American citizens in some kind of "widespread domestic counterinsurgency". Actually, I think that that's one of the major problems command authorities would face in such a situation even if there was legitimate reason to bring the Army into such a situation, and even overt preparation for the distant possibility would be problematic and disruptive, which is why any such preparation would not be overt.

thephyber 9y ago

A potential Zombie Apocalypse is not a bad thing to plan for. Sure, a disease outbreak might not turn people into the exact kind of zombie planned (there are as many zombie "rulesets" in movies as there are time travel "rulesets"), but it's an exercise which probably doesn't veer far from an actual worst-case scenario of disease outbreak. Remember that the Spanish Flu outbreak killed 3%-5% of the world population in 3 years[1]. It's not even a bad thing for the CDC to plan for[2]. I have a conservative cousin who is in the Marine reserves and is an FBI special agent. He complained to no end that the CDC was "wasting" our taxpayer dollars on the zombie outbreak preparedness marketing campaign. But he also failed to see that as a marketing campaign, it went viral because of unassuming hosts like him (very meta) and, ironically, it was an extremely efficient use of taxpayer dollars. A false flag attack which attacks US or allied property is just a justification to lie to the American voter and to co-opt American tax dollars. If anything, the author who suggested it for such a purpose is part of the Pentagon "swamp" (in Trump terminology) and is part of the reason the US is currently waning in power (soft, hard, economic, etc). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/why-did-the-cdc-develop-a-plan-for-a-zombie-apocalypse/239246/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/why-did...

dragonwriter 9y ago
The CDC may use zombie apocalypse as a lighthearted framework for training (and, even more, public preparedness) for a generic disease outbreak, but with the military, if they actually use it at all, I expect it is more as an emotionally convenient framework for preparing for the potentiality of widespread domestic counterinsurgency. > A false flag attack which attacks US or allied property is just a justification to lie to the American voter and to co-opt American tax dollars. If anything, the author who suggested it for such a purpose The false flag use wasn't a prominent suggestion, and the highlighted false flag uses started with a false flag attack on a Soviet-allied threat. Elevating a secondary variation of what is itself one of many possible uses for acquired MiGs as if it was a standalone or primary justification for the exercise is dishonest.
- thephyber 9y ago
  > as an emotionally convenient framework for preparing for the potentiality of widespread domestic counterinsurgency I haven't read the specific docs, so I don't have a frame of reference. Seems like perfectly valid reasoning. > Elevating a secondary variation ... Fair enough
  - fapjacks 9y ago
    Just to be clear, the other guy has no idea what he's talking about and is some kind of wacko conspiracy theorist.
- fapjacks 9y ago
  You have no idea what you are talking about. I think you are talking about the "zombie riot" civic emergency drills conducted in recent years, but I'm talking about specifically something my army unit did (develop SOPs for a zombie apocalypse) as coordination training. Additionally, you should know that you are a conspiracy theorist and completely out of touch with reality if you think that regular US army units will fire on American citizens in some kind of "widespread domestic counterinsurgency". You truly have no idea what you're talking about.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > but I'm talking about specifically something my army unit did (develop SOPs for a zombie apocalypse) as coordination training Developing SOPs as a training exercise (SOPs developed in such contexts are, IME, throwaways) and having standing SOPs are a different thing. That certainly makes sense. > Additionally, you should know that you are a conspiracy theorist and completely out of touch with reality if you think that regular US army units will fire on American citizens in some kind of "widespread domestic counterinsurgency". Actually, I think that that's one of the major problems command authorities would face in such a situation even if there was legitimate reason to bring the Army into such a situation, and even overt preparation for the distant possibility would be problematic and disruptive, which is why any such preparation would not be overt.