History Headscratchers / WorldWarZ

*** Again, the mistakes made a) happened all at once, and b) require basic logic and logistical failures. Also, even basic 5.56 rifle ammo is armor-piercing ''by default''. There's also speculation that the Somalis were high, and claims that the SAW gunners had AP rounds because they reasonably expected to engage primarily ''vehicles''. The regular infantry had regular anti-personnel ammo, but ran out and had to "borrow" from the SAW gunners.

*** Which is strange, considering that they had highly effective anti-zombie black ops being performed, but ran out of time. Yet when Yonkers comes around, the same leadership completely loses all knowledge of zombies, such as how they're attracted to stimuli such as artillery fire and explosions? In fact, I'm pretty sure they explicitly mention satellite cover at some point. And aerial recon is perfectly plausible, considering that they explicitly have helicopters. And what does New York have quite a lot of? Why, helicopter landing pads on rooftops, most with securely locked doors! They can at least find a few that can support a military chopper. Zombies are only as resilient as they are due to author fiat (they can still be decapitated easily by melee weapon), not consistent physical properties.
*** It's noted that the reports were stuck in a desk someplace thanks to inter-departmental turf wars, and the operators themselves had been ignored because people just didn't want to accept the fact that ''holy shit there is a goddamn zombie apocalypse brewing''. The ObstructiveBureaucrat at its finest. The problem is that while this is an explanation, it's still not a ''good'' explanation. If there were AZBOs, that means someone in the military or gov't had to have ordered and oversighted them. That means someone in the military has to have ''wanted'' them. Which means their reaction when they learn about the whole Yonkers thing is going to be "great! I have detailed intelligence on our foe. Want me to go get it? Or, if we can't get to it, how 'bout we find the operators and just ask them?" Or, heck, just call Israel. An ObstructiveBureaucrat who doesn't bother to learn anything about the enemy because he thinks he already knows it all is one thing. An ObstructiveBureaucrat who actively hangs up the phone on someone who is trying to help him for free is something else again. The last time this happened in actual warfare is when the Japanese lost Guadalcanal because the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy refused to even talk to each other for about six months, and they make everybody study that particular bit of military history in [=OCS=] precisely to lampshade 'This is what happens when interservice rivalry gets out of hand; don't fuck up like they did.'

*** It's noted that the reports were stuck in a desk someplace thanks to inter-departmental turf wars, and the operators themselves had been ignored because people just didn't want to accept the fact that ''holy shit there is a goddamn zombie apocalypse brewing''. The ObstructiveBureaucrat at its finest. The problem is that while this is an explanation, it's still not a ''good'' explanation. It's the sort of behavior that ends up deserving an entry in DarthWiki/WhatAnIdiot, which is why its being brought up in Headscratchers in the first place. If there were AZBOs, that means someone in the military or gov't had to have ordered and oversighted them. That means someone in the military has to have ''wanted'' them. Which means their reaction when they learn about the whole Yonkers thing is going to be "great! I have detailed intelligence on our foe. Want me to go get it? Or, if we can't get to it, how 'bout we find the operators and just ask them?" Or, heck, just call Israel. An ObstructiveBureaucrat who doesn't bother to learn anything about the enemy because he thinks he already knows it all is one thing. An ObstructiveBureaucrat who actively hangs up the phone on someone who is trying to help him for free is something else again. The last time this happened in actual warfare is when the Japanese lost Guadalcanal because the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy refused to even talk to each other for about six months, and they make everybody study that particular bit of military history in [=OCS=] precisely to lampshade 'This is what happens when interservice rivalry gets out of hand; don't fuck up like they did.'

** Judging by the number of zombies, there were not enough tanks present to run them over before they all get get stuck on the bodies of several hundred zombies or run out of fuel. I m sure some tanks did try though(this troper works in a armored regiment and can attest that it is the dream of most tankers to run people over, but driving straight through a zombie invasion of millions is a very bad idea).

*** It's noted that the reports were stuck in a desk someplace thanks to inter-departmental turf wars, and the operators themselves had been ignored because people just didn't want to accept the fact that ''holy shit there is a goddamn zombie apocalypse brewing''. The ObstructiveBureaucrat at its finest. The problem is that while this is an explanation, its still not a ''good'' explanation. Its the sort of behavior that ends up deserving an entry in WhatAnIdiot, which is why its being brought up in Headscratchers in the first place. If there were AZBOs, that means someone in the military or gov't had to have ordered and oversighted them. That means someone in the military has to have ''wanted'' them. Which means their reaction when they learn about the whole Yonkers thing is going to be "great! I have detailed intelligence on our foe. Want me to go get it? Or, if we can't get to it, how 'bout we find the operators and just ask them?" Or, heck, just call Israel. An ObstructiveBureaucrat who doesn't bother to learn anything about the enemy because he thinks he already knows it all is one thing. An ObstructiveBureaucrat who actively hangs up the phone on someone who is trying to help him for free is something else again. The last time this happened in actual warfare is when the Japanese lost Guadalcanal because the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy refused to even talk to each other for about six months, and they make everybody study that particular bit of military history in [=OCS=] precisely to lampshade 'This is what happens when interservice rivalry gets out of hand; don't fuck up like they did.'

*** To be entirely fair to Brooks, he's not doing the same thing as ''Film/ShaunOfTheDead'' or ''VideoGame/DeadSpace''. ''Shaun of the Dead'' is a parody (albeit one that treats what it's parodying with a certain degree of respect, love and good humour); it's taking the ZombieApocalypse and making fun of it by playing it straight in a way which exposes how silly it really is, because if we're entirely honest of ''course'' zombies are so fundamentally ridiculous and useless as monsters that they would easily end up being taken out within a couple of days by an organised, coordinated human response which knows what to do and keeps its cool. And ''Dead Space'', while I haven't played it and can't comment on its quality or believability, takes place in the future JustForFun/InSpace, which I assume gives the makers a bit more leeway in terms of WillingSuspensionOfDisbelief; like it or not, it's clearly not trying to have a foot in the real world outside the player's window. What Brooks is trying to do, however, is taking the classic Romero "the dead have risen, civilization has fallen and the world is genuinely fucked" ZombieApocalypse scenario and see how a vaguely realistic world actually might come to that point. Basically, he's got an end-point that he wants to reach (society has more-or-less collapsed because of the walking dead) and is suggesting what he thinks would have to happen for society to actually reach that point. Which, on one hand means a lot of WhatAnIdiot flying around and people doing counter-productive things, and it's fair enough to call him out on this. But on the other hand, he's kind of forced to do this because the classic ZombieApocalypse scenario is so fundamentally unrealistic that if you want to end up with such a situation, all of these equally unrealistic things would have to happen for a real-world society to get to that point.

** Maybe, because not rescuing the Palestinians would [[WhatAnIdiot result in a load more zombies being available to attack Israel]]. Also, the zombies have not yet reached Israel, so there won't be this problem there with the civil war.

** It got so much DanBrowned is not even funny: The resistance of human body to the Shock and Awe weaponry (answer: [[MadeOfPlasticine is not much]]), handwave the rest of the armament in existence, the effect of heat and cold in meat, metabolism and mobility in dead bodies, The overuse of incompetent government (Chinese government in real life while somewhat fascist, actually had a competent internal military and there are more competent Generals than those show in the book in the U.S) and this troper been a psychologist can tell that the way of the use of Moral Damage, the reaction to danger from civilians and its ramifications is pure [[GoshdangItToHeck crab]]. Doing Handwave and making some BittersweetEnding is not a Deconstruction.

** One of the reasons why Zombie Survival Guide is considered a decent read before this; in that book it specifically mentions that Castles (the genuine articles at least, not tourist traps built in modern times) are the perfect zombie defense. However they also noted that Castles were designed to survive sieges from humans, who had to be supplied, took breaks and possibly consider the siege to be costing them way more than it's worth and just up and leave. Zombies had none of those drawbacks and on top of that could cause people to go insane from the 24/7 moaning (this is the same universe where people would lie down and die from hopelessness) meaning you either had to literally outlive the dead (which could range from a handful of years to several decades) or had to have rescue come for you. Brooks also notes that on top of those castles being rather rare nowadays, most of them are also crumbling due to being so old. There are also a few "Recorded Attacks" about how the people inside went insane and killed eachother, still having enough rations to last for years, due to madness from the moaning and isolation.

* Why are both of the children so horrifyingly stupid? In a terrifying situation, a kid is going to react by shutting up and listening to their parents, especially if they know that the parents are the only way out of it, and need to focus. So why is it that when they're trying to get out of Philidalphea, the younger idiot starts distracting her parents by screaming for them to get out of the car, go around to the trunk, and get her blanket, while the older one UNBUCKLES HER SEATBELT WHEN SHE CLEARLY KNOWS THEY ARE VERY LIKELY TO GET IN AN ACCIDENT. That's Darwin Award level stupidity, especially since she looks to be about twelve or so. And how did Gerry remember to grab his younger daughters counting toy, but couldn't take five seconds to grab the inhaler instead?

*** First and foremost, I share your opinion of the author's favoritism and I don't mean to defend it. Any doubts that he was letting logic, reason, or basic common sense get in the way of that went by the wayside when we got his treatment of [[DracoInLeatherPants Fidel Castro the modernizing liberal]]. However, I think that the issues you are specifically pointing at have actual justifications, even if they are in spite of Brooks rather than because him. You are right that we also have no reason to believe that the US would behave better in the middle of a zombie apocalypse than it is now, but there is a difference between the US Government now (in all its' screwy wonder) and Putin's government now. The former has a lot more room to fall before hitting the same lows. This is especially since there has been extremely extensive contingency planning and installments to do exactly what you said: keep the basic functions of American society and government intact and working during a crisis. The fact that they succeeded in the US and not Russia isn't in and of itself godmoddy (even though plenty of other stuff in the book is): it's those contingencies and the dedication underpinning them slipping a bit but holding while in Russia that lack of care or dedication allows- say- Putin or whoever the Tsar is to make a power grab in the chaos to basically turn things back into medieval Muscovy. Finally, the idea that "militant theocrats gaining influence" is "much more likely in the US than the far less religious Russia" is a CriticalResearchFailure that manages to overlook the historical role of the Russian Orthodox Church, especially recently under Putin. Even if militant theocrats in the US could overcome all other obstacles (which is a big if) to gain power they would still have to fight ad kill each other over what kind of theocracy they want first. Or wind up with something like [[Literature/TheHandmaidsTale The Republic of Gilead]], which nicely illustrates how a "compromise theocracy" would be a dysfunctional and probably short-lived mess. Whereas in Russia having the church seize power or be co-opted by ambitious forces in the government is far, far easier. Especially since there is one overwhelmingly large church and it already has a lengthy history of being a handmaiden to totalitarian government. Whether this is a case of Brooks actually doing his research and not letting his biases override it, or this being a case of AccidentallyCorrectWriting is something I don't pretend to know so you'd have to judge for yourself, but it made sense to me and I'm not exactly an apologist for him.
*** Just because Russia is already authoritarian doesn't mean that they are going to resort to random extreme (and pointless, as explained above) measures like decimation. Unlike the measures taken by other countries, the measures taken by Russia are not a logical outgrowth of what the current government could be expected to do, but simply the assumption that Russia is capable of any brutality, regardless of whether it even makes any sense. It's entirely correct that the author's portrayal of various countries is heavily influence by bias and a good illustration is the difference in attitude towards Russia and China. As bad as the Chinese government is (though it's not as bad as Russia), the Chinese people are mostly decent people, as shown by the Chinese who were interviewed. Russians, on the other hand, are just as bad as their government and have no redeeming qualities - even the point of view characters. There is no indication that it was failed contingencies that allowed the formation of the Holy Russian Empire. Rather, it seems to be taken for granted that (just like it's taken for granted that Russians won't fight unless under they are under gunpoint), that Russia's natural government is an oppressive totalitarian one. Finally, religious influence in Russia is much lower than in the US. The Eastern Orthodox Church may enjoy state backing, but all indicators of religion devotion are much lower than in the US and they have little influence in public life. And claiming that the Eastern Orthodox Church has a long history of being a handmaiden of totalitarian government is in fact CriticalResearchFailure. There has been a totalitarian government only once in Russia's history and during most of this period the Russian Orthodox Church was heavily persecuted. So the creation of a totalitarian religious regime in in Russia is yet another example of the portrayal of Russia being nothing more than a collection of negative and ignorant stereotypes.

*** While your overall point is good and I have been one of the people ripping into Brooks for this, the idea that the military is somehow immune to panic or stupid decisions isn't true. There are painfully numerous cases where trained military personnel have panicked badly enough, not done the most basic research, not made rational choices, and what have you. Often inexplicably (like Braddock randomly dropping the highly effective skirmishing tactics he had used to screen his expedition just before they got hit). The problem is that things like Yonkers require everything and everybody to suffer from that at the exact same moment. [[IdiotPlot There's a trope for that.]]

** Ultimately, I think this is just a bit of a NecessaryWeasel that you have to deal with in order to accept the scenario of a ZombieApocalypse to begin with. A purely "realistic" approach to a Zombie Apocalypse would probably end up not having the apocalypse get off the ground at all, since zombies are actually one of the most implausible and contradictory monsters out there and most scenarios involving them completely overrunning the earth require so many leaps of logic and things going just wrong that they're completely impossible. Basically, if you want a ZombieApocalypse, you need lots of zombies, and to get lots of zombies you have to assume that everything worked out just so in order to make sure you get lots of zombies.

*** To be entirely fair to Brooks, he's not doing the same thing as ''Film/ShaunOfTheDead'' or ''VideoGame/DeadSpace''. ''Shaun of the Dead'' is a parody (albeit one that treats what it's parodying with a certain degree of respect, love and good humour); it's taking the ZombieApocalypse and making fun of it by playing it straight in a way which exposes how silly it really is, because if we're entirely honest of ''course'' zombies are so fundamentally ridiculous and useless as monsters that they would easily end up being taken out within a couple of days by an organised, coordinated human response which knows what to do and keeps its cool. And ''Dead Space'', while I haven't played it and can't comment on its quality or believability, takes place in the future InSpace, which I assume gives the makers a bit more leeway in terms of WillingSuspensionOfDisbelief; like it or not, it's clearly not trying to have a foot in the real world outside the player's window. What Brooks is trying to do, however, is taking the classic Romero "the dead have risen, civilization has fallen and the world is genuinely fucked" ZombieApocalypse scenario and see how a vaguely realistic world actually might come to that point. Basically, he's got an end-point that he wants to reach (society has more-or-less collapsed because of the walking dead) and is suggesting what he thinks would have to happen for society to actually reach that point. Which, on one hand means a lot of WhatAnIdiot flying around and people doing counter-productive things, and it's fair enough to call him out on this. But on the other hand, he's kind of forced to do this because the classic ZombieApocalypse scenario is so fundamentally unrealistic that if you want to end up with such a situation, all of these equally unrealistic things would have to happen for a real-world society to get to that point.

*** SurprisinglyRealisticOutcome is a trope entirely about realism and satire, specifically how using the realistic consequences to satire another fiction trope. For example, there's an episode of family guy where Peter offhandedly blows up a children's hospital for a gag. At the end of the episode where Peter goes to claim his reward, he is instead arrested. His adventures did give him development, but at the end of the day he blew children up, children that existed in his world. It satirizes how some cartoons would do heinous things for gags and just forget about them when they become irrelevant to the plot at hand.

* Why did China want to keep it a secret? Maybe this is obvious, but...this troper just can't get it.

** Ironically enough, the actions of the Chinese government in the early chapters of the book have been retroactively proven incredibly accurate; when Covid-19 was first discovered in China, multiple doctors attempted to sound the alarm about an imminent global epidemic, begging for immediate containment measures... and the government responded by arresting the doctors and suppressing the information. Their reaction to this epidemic and those before it make it very clear that Brooks hit the nail on the head.

* Who do you suppose the in-universe author was symbolically killing in the separate chapter "Closure, LTD"? I suspect it was a parent (Brooks' in-universe alter ego would have been a child or teenager when the Zombie Pandemic first occurred), possibly the "mom" he mentions at the end of World War Z.

* How did so many zombies actually come to be about? 200 million zombies are mentioned in America, but here's the problem: in order to be infected, one has to be bitten, escape, stay safe for 24 hours, and reanimate. [[ArtisticLicenseBiology I can accept that this disease is 100% infectious, no one is immune and it never simply kills the victim,]] but for that many zombies to form, this means that nearly everyone who was bitten had to get away, and stay safe for a day. They can't be killed by the other members of their party, if they have one. They can't commit suicide. They can't be found/caught by other zombies (not unlikely, since they're wounded) or simply stumbled upon and eaten while they are "dead" just before reanimation (zombies prefer fresh meat, they will still eat carrion). For 200 million zombies to form, this would have had to happen (taking into account the chaos, those who survived, etc-- ''nearly 100% of the time.''

*** Which still wouldn't stop people from constantly spot-checking members of their party. Think the testing scene in ''Film/TheThing1982''. Also, couldn't an infected victim then be used for suicide runs until they turn, if zombies ignore them? Just hand them an assault rifle and a few mags, and have them walk around headshotting zacks at point blank? Give benefits to the loved ones of people who come forward as Very Special Forces. Once their heart stops beating, an explosive collar automatically detonates. You could even put a radio tag in the collar for reuse. Or just make them a squad, which each member killing the others as they turn. It's a VoodooShark; an attempt to patch a plot hole just creates another, larger plot hole.
*** No, they couldn't. At the absolute best, a victim might last a week or so, and even that is *very* generous and assuming a miniscule initial infection - maybe an only-just-infected skin graft, for example, like the surgeon early in the book mentions. Once the war starts and people start getting bitten, the infections and reanimations happen much, ''much'' quicker. There's just no time to put together Very Special Forces(which would involve the victims having to stop denying infection, come to terms with it, and come forward, which may well not be a quick process), equip them with explosive collars, transport them places, and have them kill zombies for maybe a few minutes or hours before turning. It would be a huge waste of resources, and a big risk to uninfected people involved in the process as well - what if someone reanimates, say, on the plane taking them to a drop-off? Or close to a populated area? It might work better with smaller groups of ordinary survivors, but you have to take into account people's sentimentality, ignorance of zombies' responses to infected victims, and the victims' denial - and anyway, maybe they wouldn't want to go on a suicide run.

*** This troper would like to point out that the Zombie Survival Guide goes over the process of turning literally on the third page. For anyone that doesn't remember, or hasn't read the book, it says that for a standard 23 hour infection, within five hours the victim has a fever, slight dementia, joint pain and vomiting, with numbing, a higher fever, loss of muscle control and increased dementia forming before it's been ten hours. So unless the victims got a really slow burn, they won't be in any state to do anything very soon. Seriously, even if you knew you were terminal and dying, if you had severe dementia, a high fever, couldn't feel your extremities, and was throwing up everywhere, would you be able to run out with an axe and kill some zombies? Even if they were ignoring you, it takes a fair amount of strength and some aim to split open a skull with an axe. Good luck doing that while you can't feel or control your arms, and can't actually remember who you are or what you're doing out there.

** Ultimately, I think this is just a bit of a NecessaryWeasel that you have to deal with in order to accept the scenario of a ZombieApocalypse to begin with. A purely 'realistic' approach to a Zombie Apocalypse would probably end up not having the apocalypse get off the ground at all, since zombies are actually one of the most implausible and contradictory monsters out there and most scenarios involving them completely overrunning the earth require so many leaps of logic and things going just wrong that they're completely impossible. Basically, if you want a ZombieApocalypse, you need lots of zombies, and to get lots of zombies you have to assume that everything worked out just so in order to make sure you get lots of zombies.
** And remember, it doesn't ''matter'' how much damage is done to the body; if the brain is intact, it's going to reanimate. The book also makes it clear that if someone has been infected before their death, then they'll still become a zombie, even if the virus isn't their cause of death. Remember the section in Ukraine? The refugees on the bridge were all killed with nerve gas, and within minutes the infected bodies were getting back up. Or the downed pilot who found her crewman stuck in a tree, being eaten alive by a group of zombies - he started reanimating as she was turning to leave.

*** It's a 'D-strength' unit, maybe a convict battalion. And Moisin - Nagants were turning up as 'army surplus' on American websites as late as the mid-2000s.

*** The government needing to tie their fate to that of the soldiers is not at all a good explanation for the decimation policy, since their fate ''is'' already tied together - they're all interested in not being eaten by Zombies. So the implication of the Russians needing brutal decimations, while other nations' soldiers know what is at stake and are prepared to fight, is that either the Russians are utter cowards or as undisciplined and self-interested to the extent that they don't care what happens to their nation, as long as they can save themselves. Which isn't that far from the Nazi opinion of the Russians, especially when coupled with the stereotypical absurd exaggeration of the Russian government's brutality and aggression (taking measures that would appall Stalin or planning on expanding after Russia has lost most of its population). And of course the US army is not faced with massed desertion and mutinies when they decide to abandon most of the country, despite many of their soldiers having joined the army for similar reasons as the Russians. Even China is apparently able to send human waves of conscripts for some time without needing to carry out mass executions.
*** It's been a while since I've read the book, but regarding the decimations I think something might need clarifying. They aren't there to tie the Russian people to survival, it's to tie the Russian people to [[TheEmpire the regime.]] Russian people- like everybody else on the planet- have a vested interest in eliminating the zombies, staying alive, and rebuilding. The problem from the perspective of the Holy Russian Empire is that [[YouHaveOutlivedYourUsefulness none of this necessarily involves them being around to rule over the ashes,]] since not only does wanting to continue living not necessarily mean they will gladly support the regime afterwards, the same drive to survive the zombies would likely lead many of them to trying to get out form under the thumb of the oppressive, totalitarian theocracy and start anew like the Cossacks. This might cause some damage to the war against the zombies because of troop desertion from the most effective force anywhere near the neighborhood, but it would cause far more serious damage to the Holy Russian Empire with countless people- most of whom have survival skills and some level of armament- either lashing out against it or moving elsewhere to set up parallel powers. They had already seen an abundant case study of that in the South when China rebelled against its' government during the apocalypse, so they already know what can happen. In the worst case the Imperial regime believes that if people are allowed to do that it will break the united front and allow the zombies to [[DividedWeFall devour them all]], in the best case scenario they will still win the war but [[DespotismJustifiesTheMeans they will no longer be the ones with the power.]] So the decimation are not only- or even primarily- meant to keep morale and discipline up, they're meant to solidify the Tsar's death grip over the people.
*** It certainly shows that you haven't read the book in a while. The decimations where explicitly carried out to force the Russian soldiers to fight the zombies. The further arguments about the regime just trying to ensure staying in power simply don't work. For example, the Cossacks formed at times when most of Russia's people were serfs, so there is hardly going to be anything similar appearing in modern times. Beyond that, nothing strengthens a regime than a successful defeat over a dangerous enemy - there are plenty of examples from Russia's history. And after the devastation of a war with the zombies most people would be more focused on survival than trying to fight for democracy. In fact, an authoritarian regime would do better here. So brutalities like that are completely unnecessary and could in fact back fire. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that the government considers the Russians incapable of fighting for their country without a gun to the head and the book shows that this expectation is correct - the Russian army begins to fight the zombies only after decimation is introduced. So in fact the accusations that the original poster raised about the Russians being portrayed as subhuman brutes and cowards are quite correct. of course the fact that the author describes the way the Russians fought against the zombies as "brutal" is already a good sign of this - apparently the Russians are evil even when fighting zombies!

*** Additionally, the vast majority of the 'persnickety' M16's jams are because of the cheaply made, poor quality magazines. Anyone familiar with weapons knows that a well-maintained M4 or M16 with PMags jamming is a rare, rare occurrence.

*** The AK series of rifle is perfectly accurate for its purpose. More than a few countries have adapted the AK platform into ''sniper rifles.'' Portraying AKs as inaccurate bullet hoses is, itself, VideoGame/CallOfDuty logic. AKs are also capable semi-automatic rifles; much of their reputation for inaccuracy comes from their rather high ''full-auto'' recoil (on semi-auto, recoil is negligible and comparible to AR-15s) and some issues with the original 1949 model. Note that almost all "AK-47s" in the world are in fact based on the ''AKM'' which was a modernization of the original 1949 model.
*** Your knowledge is about 40 years out of date. The first model M16 rifles were prone to jamming due to improper maintenance and bad-quality ammunition. Modern revisions (such as the M16A4 and the M4 carbine) are very reliable when properly maintained. And soldiers maintain their rifles religiously.
*** To be fair, his knowledge is 40 years out of date because Brooks' knowledge was 40 years out of date: the post is practically quoting the Zombie Survival Guide, which proved - among other things - that Max Brooks' firearm knowledge was absurdly inadequate and inaccurate. (His firearms information and recommendations were more inaccurate than they were correct. Sadly, most readers never bother to error-check him.)

*** The Vietnam-era M16, yes. And that was due more to meddling bureaucratic incompetence than any real issue with the rifle itself (essentially, the powder got switched to a 'dirtier' version, and the troops were told the rifles didn't need to be cleaned due to a chrome-lined barrel) The modern M16A4 rifle is a world-class weapon, one that serves as the base for some/many NATO service rifles because of how GOOD it is.
*** It's only prone to jamming if you don't clean it, which the military is trained to do every chance they get. It can actually take more physical abuse than the AK-47, due to being made out of milled parts rather than stamped ones. The SIR is implied to be an AK clone chambered in 5.56. This cannot be true, because 1.) It is described as accurate, something anyone whose knowledge of guns goes beyond VideoGame/CallOfDuty knows ''does not'' apply to the AK family. It is also unlikely because even if the M-16 series were the glorified peice of shit the book says it is, it would still be more practical to at least use the magazines, something the AK series is quite fundamentally incapable of doing.

*** It's a 'D-strength' unit, maybe a convict battalion. And Moisin - Nagants were turning up as 'army surplus' on American websites as late as the mid-2000s.
*** Really, I think there's some justification to how the "Holy Russian Empire" behaves in-book, even if it's not the greatest. Russian Imperial doctrine makes a certain amount of sense, in large part because it's similar to the sort of vintage doctrine built up from experiences like Yser, Omdurman, Chosin, and Dien Bien Phu. It's just infinitely sloppier, less effective, and more costly than that ever was even under idiots like Cadorna. It certainly makes a hell of a lot more sense than relying strictly to the inane 18th century SIR tactics that would in reality get swarmed and wiped out by the zombies. It's just that when you really get down to it, the Russian military and government are *not* benevolent or benign. We know this precisely because of their prior records in waging modern wars on their home soil, as shown by WWI, the Russian Civil War, WWII, and the conflicts in Chechnya and the Caucasus. Totalitarian regimes (be they Absolutist Monarchies, Communist Dictatorships, Religious Theocracies, or some bastard hybrid or other type) generate deadweight democide in situations like that, and they do it by the boatload. Couple that with the fact that Russian weapons production generally *do* tend to use secondhand or obsolete weapons (check out the vintage weaponry in Cryostasis for a support unit in the 1960's or 80's, which is actually quite accurate for what Russian military doctrine uses), and the fact that Russian doctrine tends to value mass levying and undervalue emergency conscript training. The problems are more or less threefold. First comes from the fact that Brooks has such a skewed view of tactics that he thinks infantry blocks are a *good* idea against hordes of melee combatants that can hit you from any side (when in fact they are not) and thus is liable to skewer the frankly reasonable if probably more inefficient (but not necessarily *ineffective*) and brutal than need be tactics. Secondly, we have the fact that the Imperial military would in fact be (sensibly) levying huge amounts of manpower to make up for the material problems they run into in terms of supply and production, which would easily see a lot of the reserve weaponry (like the WWII vintage) that they *actually* have being pressed into service. There's no reason not to; a (wo)man with a gun- ANY gun- is better than one without, and it's not like they'd suffer a disadvantage like they would against the West or WWII Axis for doing so (since the enemy are non-sentient, slow, stupid zombies). Finally, *on top of* that, we have fact that Russian governments tend not to be very benign towards anybody, their own people and foreigners included. There's no reason to believe the Imperial regime would be *more* benign than Putin's with the world going to hell, especially if he's actually Tsar, and the resulting measures to retain power and solidify the situation would be horrible by *anybody's* standards, especially since they're well beyond anything that can probably be justified legitimately. Which- need I say- would harm nobody more than the common Russian themselves. Think less echoing Nazi propaganda about the Russian people being subhuman brutes, and more echoing the Nazi propaganda about the ''Russian REGIMES(S) being subhuman brutes.'' Which-if I may be so bold- is actually accurate even if it is a massive case of the Pot Calling the Kettle Black.

*** It's been a while since I've read the book, but regarding the decimations I think something might need clarifying. They aren't there to tie the Russian people to survival, it's to tie the Russian people to [[TheEmpire the regime.]] Russian people- like everybody else on the planet- have a vested interest in eliminating the zombies, staying alive, and rebuilding. The problem from the perspective of the Holy Russian Empire is that [[YouHaveOutlivedYourUsefulness none of this necessarily involves them being around to rule over the ashes,]] since not only does wanting to continue living not necessarily mean they will gladly support the regime afterwards, the same drive to survive the zombies would likely lead many of them to trying to get out form under the thumb of the oppressive, totalitarian theocracy and start anew like the Cossacks. This might cause some damage to the war against the zombies because of troop desertion from the most effective force anywhere near the neighborhood, but it would cause far more serious damage to the Holy Russian Empire with countless people- most of whom have survival skills and some level of armament- either lashing out against it or moving elsewhere to set up parallel powers. They had already seen an abundant case study of that in the South when China rebelled against its' government during the apocalypse, so they already know what can happen. In the worst case the Imperial regime believes that if people are allowed to do that it will break the united front and allow the zombies to [[DividedWeFall devour them all]], in the best case scenario they will still win the war but [[DespotismJustifiesTheMeans they will no longer be the ones with the power.]] So the decimation are not only- or even primarily- meant to keep morale and discipline up, they're meant to solidify the Tsar's death grip over the people.
*** It certainly shows that you haven't read the book in a while. The decimations where explicitly carried out to force the Russian soldiers to fight the zombies. The further arguments about the regime just trying to ensure staying in power simply don't work. For example, the Cossacks formed at times when most of Russia's people were serfs, so there is hardly going to be anything similar appearing in modern times. Beyond that, nothing strengthens a regime than a successful defeat over a dangerous enemy - there are plenty of examples from Russia's history. And after the devastation of a war with the zombies most people would be more focused on survival than trying to fight for democracy. In fact, an authoritarian regime would do better here. So brutalities like that are completely unnecessary and could in fact back fire. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that the government considers the Russians incapable of fighting for their country without a gun to the head and the book shows that this expectation is correct - the Russian army begins to fight the zombies only after decimation is introduced. So in fact the accusations that the original poster raised about the Russians being portrayed as subhuman brutes and cowards are quite correct. of course the fact that the author describes the way the Russians fought against the zombies as "brutal" is already a good sign of this - apparently the Russians are evil even when fighting zombies!

*** First and foremost, I share your opinion of the author's favoritism and I don't mean to defend it. Any doubts that he was letting logic, reason, or basic common sense get in the way of that went by the wayside when we got his treatment of [[DracoInLeatherPants Fidel Castro the modernizing liberal]]. However, I think that the issues you are specifically pointing at have actual justifications, even if they are in spite of Brooks rather than because him. You are right that we also have no reason to believe that the US would behave better in the middle of a zombie apocalypse than it is now, but there is a difference between the US Government now (in all its' screwy wonder) and Putin's government now. The former has a lot more room to fall before hitting the same lows. This is especially since there has been extremely extensive contingency planning and installments to do exactly what you said: keep the basic functions of American society and government intact and working during a crisis. The fact that they succeeded in the US and not Russia isn't in and of itself godmoddy (even though plenty of other stuff in the book is): it's those contingencies and the dedication underpinning them slipping a bit but holding while in Russia that lack of care or dedication allows- say- Putin or whoever the Tsar is to make a power grab in the chaos to basically turn things back into medieval Muscovy. Finally, the idea that "militant theocrats gaining influence" is "much more likely in the US than the far less religious Russia" is a CriticalResearchFailure that manages to overlook the historical role of the Russian Orthodox Church, especially recently under Putin. Even if militant theocrats in the US could overcome all other obstacles (which is a big if) to gain power they would still have to fight ad kill each other over what kind of theocracy they want first. Or wind up with something like [[Literature/TheHandmaidsTale The Republic of Gilead]], which nicely illustrates how a "compromise theocracy" would be a dysfunctional and probably short-lived mess. Whereas in Russia having the church seize power or be co-opted by ambitious forces in the government is far, far easier. Especially since there is one overwhelmingly large church and it already has a lengthy history of being a handmaiden to totalitarian government. Whether this is a case of Brooks actually doing his research and not letting his biases override it, or this being a case of AccidentallyCorrectWriting is something I don't pretend to know so you'd have to judge for yourself, but it made sense to me and I'm not exactly an apologist for him.
*** Just because Russia is already authoritarian doesn't mean that they are going to resort to random extreme (and pointless, as explained above) measures like decimation. Unlike the measures taken by other countries, the measures taken by Russia are not a logical outgrowth of what the current government could be expected to do, but simply the assumption that Russia is capable of any brutality, regardless of whether it even makes any sense. It's entirely correct that the author's portrayal of various countries is heavily influence by bias and a good illustration is the difference in attitude towards Russia and China. As bad as the Chinese government is (though it's not as bad as Russia), the Chinese people are mostly decent people, as shown by the Chinese who were interviewed. Russians, on the other hand, are just as bad as their government and have no redeeming qualities - even the point of view characters. There is no indication that it was failed contingencies that allowed the formation of the Holy Russian Empire. Rather, it seems to be taken for granted that (just like it's taken for granted that Russians won't fight unless under they are under gunpoint), that Russia's natural government is an oppressive totalitarian one. Finally, religious influence in Russia is much lower than in the US. The Eastern Orthodox Church may enjoy state backing, but all indicators of religion devotion are much lower than in the US and they have little influence in public life. And claiming that the Eastern Orthodox Church has a long history of being a handmaiden of totalitarian government is in fact CriticalResearchFailure. There has been a totalitarian government only once in Russia's history and during most of this period the Russian Orthodox Church was heavily persecuted. So the creation of a totalitarian religious regime in in Russia is yet another example of the portrayal of Russia being nothing more than a collection of negative and ignorant stereotypes.

*** The Cossacks formed at times when most of Russia's people were serfs, so the comparison is absurd. Beyond that, nothing strengthens a regime than a successful defeat over a dangerous enemy - there are plenty of examples from Russia's history. And after the devastation of a war with the zombies most people would be more focused on survival than trying to fight for democracy. In fact, an authoritarian regime would do better here. So brutalities like that are completely unnecessary and could in fact back fire. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that the government considers the Russians incapable of fighting for their country without a gun to the head.
*** And of course there is no reason to expect Putin's regime to be more benign during an apocalyptic Zombie war than during peacetime, but there is also no reason to believe that of the US government. But apparently the basic structure of US society is intact, elections are held, the death penalty is barely used (again, desertion is apparently not a problem) and militant theocrats don't gain influence (much more likely in the US than the far less religious Russia). All in all, it's obvious that the author didn't let logic and reason interfere in punishing the countries he disliked, while being generous toa those he liked.