Very astute observations, and great questions. You bring up some points that I would enjoy elaborating on. I apologize in advance for the length.
From my previous post:
Is it possible to survive in a city after a collapse? Possibly. Is hunkering down out in the country the perfect choice? Probably not. However, simply removing yourself from the sheer numbers of sheeple in an area can (and most probably does) increase your survivability tremendously.
While I state that not being in the city, and thereby removing yourself from the high probability of being collateral damage is highly preferable, I'm not going to go to the other extreme and say that the open country is the perfect solution either. You made a very excellent point about the "lone house" in the country.
I'm a coauthor of a book that will be published next year that goes very deeply into homestead defense. It's not my desire to attempt to promote that book here. In no way do I proclaim to be an expert, but I do have a background and considerable experience on this kind of subject. In fact, if someone does claim to be an expert on this, they are probably selling you something. So in deference to this community I'll give you some of my thoughts on the subject (all of which are in the book). It's my free gift to everyone here to get you all thinking proactively.
Many people (urban and rural) have the notion that they will protect their home FROM THEIR HOME. I can't begin to express how dangerous that mindset is. The average homesteader/prepper does not have the manpower or resources to pull off the 24 hour operations and the hardening of their structures required to make that type of strategy work. Even if they did, being in a siege position is a horrible direction to begin your planning with. Typically, the goal is to keep bullets from zinging through your home, loved ones, etc. And as your Warrant Officer correctly stated, if your enemy isn't able (or willing) to shoot you with direct fire weapons, they will most likely utilize indirect fire weapons (howitzers/mortars) or employ fire (most likely recourse for civilians without artillery assets).
That said, some will go into the "Well I have no other choices. What can I possibly do?" mentality. We are a resilient and intelligent community. We see problems and find solutions (as opposed to crawling into a fetal position or giving up and asking for help from the government). "What can you possibly do?" Quite a lot.
Consider for a moment how smaller, non-traditional military units operate. Most of them do utilize a supply/logistics "base", but in many instances they are for the most part "on their own" in unfriendly (hostile) areas. They patrol often and keep the fighting away from their "house". You have to understand your AO (Area of Operations) and know what your footprint will be. With active and passive security in depth, as well as patrolling, it's possible to detect and engage the enemy far away from your loved ones (we're currently doing it globally; quite a distance from home). This "stand off" from your dwelling is critical. It also brings us to one of the most important aspects in homestead defense.
Preparing your AO. You have time now to assess and prepare your AO for future eventualities/possibilities. You can dictate the terrain, obstacles, fields of fire, and every other aspect of your defensive location. You can determine how you will defend it, what logistics need to be pre-positioned (and where), how you will communicate, HOW WELL IT IS CONCEALED, etc. Being "the ant" now is a great solution.
Another point to consider is the Inverse-Square Law. I mentioned before (maybe another post) about how this is a point we need to understand. It doesn't directly apply, in that we have roads/interstates and other variables that can direct and facilitate a larger number of sheeple in a given direction. However, it's my belief that for the most part, the further you are from cities and urban sprawl the less likely you will be to ever see "bad guys". If you've ever been out in the woods or driving through the country there are two things I want you to realize about it. One, unless you know where you're going and how to get there, it's EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY UNLIKELY you will just "stumble on someone", statistically speaking. Second, while you are moving through the countryside you are vulnerable. Yep. You're moving. The people that aren't have the advantage. It is literally thousands of times easier to pick out something that is moving against a background that is not moving, than it is to detect something that is not moving while you are. How much of the countryside are you able to observe, process in your mind and fully assess while it zips by on both sides of the road? Conversely, someone might have observed you coming a LONG time before you actually get there. That's just the visual side of it. Sound works against the moving party as well. That road noise that obscures sounds to the mover is a signal to the non-mover.
I have the advantage of being raised in the country, moving to the city, and then moving back to the country. It gave me perspective on what I notice, and more importantly, what I take for granted. I can tell you that from my experience, it's VERY unlikely that I wouldn't know someone was on my property before they knew I was aware. That wasn't the case in the city. Someone could have knocked on my door (or kicked it in) when we lived in the city, and that would have been my first clue. "DING DONG!
Honey, I think someone's at the door." How safe is that?
I hope this helps to get people planning and addressing real strategies in bugging in or bugging out. There are a lot of "armchair quarterbacks" that have given advice to our community. Much of it is inaccurate, wishful and could be outright dangerous if followed. Think realistically and act positively. That's how we can address these fears. The likelihood of ever facing armed squads of death goons is statistically microscopic. It's conceivable that simply 1) removing yourself from the urban areas and 2) putting up a fence would solve 99.9999% of any potential issue. But it's my opinion that failing to do #1 would make #2 pointless.
This has been a very informative discussion with you all and I really look forward to hearing all of your thoughts on this subject!