Bugging Out - Bugging in?? . . . Gangs are Afoot

[Canadian Prepper]

+1  At some point they'll have to realize that if they kill the goose that laid the golden egg, they'll be very hungry. 

Without access to farm machinery, fertilizer, and pesticides, farmers will be less productive, not more.  There will be a need for more people who know how to produce food, not less.  There will be a demand for more field labor, not less.

Of course if your idea of prepping is putting up a five year larder of food and have no active food production, well, that's easy enough to take.  But if you have enough to get you through to next season cached and secured plus a large garden or acreage under cultivation, they'd be fools to take you out.  Not saying it wouldn't happen, but they'd be fools.

It sounds as if the discussion suggests an elaboration of the initial post, which posited a breakdown in the rule of law, followed by large scale looting by gangs from the city, but didn't specify whether the WROL situation was permanent, or whether alternate forms of communal organizations emerged to fill the gap left by the temporary or permanent collapse of government. A lot of nasty things happened in the former Yugoslavia not that many years ago, but I understand that things have largely returned to normal and are not always too rosy for some of those who engaged in the worst crimes during the civil war. I also think that the examples of Somalia and rural Afghanistan that qualify as failed states or regions never fully under the rule of law as we understand it might give us some insights as to how people cope with it, even if I would hardly consider those optimal places to live. I think they prove however that any large scale looting of the sort envisaged in the first post would probably occur as a relatively short lived stage in the breakdown of order, followed by something more akin to rule by local warlords, mafias, clans, etc.  How people plan or react to such a potentiality ought to have some bearing upon how they fare, and might even have a positive benefit upon the broader society.

I'd like to think that the more prepared elements in such a scenario would include people with the right ideals who would to do their best to restore order to the extent possible, though the welfare of family and friends remains no small element in any case.

[endurance]

I may be kidding myself with this, but I do think some areas of the country would fair better regardless of the disaster due to different attitudes toward local government vs. state government vs. federal government.  There are a lot more layers of law enforcement with many different approaches on the local level here in the US than a lot of the states that have failed (Somalia, Afghanistan, etc.).  While in some cities there are large segments of the population with utter disrespect for law enforcement, there are other regions where folks have a deep respect for the county sheriff even if they may not always agree. 

I think that is another consideration if one is thinking about creating the perfect 'stead.  It seems like strong communities with a strong belief in the rule of law will be a lot more resistant to rampant gangs than Baltimore or Detroit.

[Canadian Prepper]

I may be kidding myself with this, but I do think some areas of the country would fair better regardless of the disaster due to different attitudes toward local government vs. state government vs. federal government.  There are a lot more layers of law enforcement with many different approaches on the local level here in the US than a lot of the states that have failed (Somalia, Afghanistan, etc.).  While in some cities there are large segments of the population with utter disrespect for law enforcement, there are other regions where folks have a deep respect for the county sheriff even if they may not always agree. 

I think that is another consideration if one is thinking about creating the perfect 'stead.  It seems like strong communities with a strong belief in the rule of law will be a lot more resistant to rampant gangs than Baltimore or Detroit.

I agree with the gist of what you're saying and think the question might then be a case of how far from the larger urban centers one might need to go to avoid the main centers of gang recruitment or looters, as well as finding that mix of community where you'd like to live that also provides the necessary amenities to survive. Even many urban centers might be alright, but I suspect that with economic and cultural changes, any location can change significantly even within less than a generation (Compare the 1970s vs 2003 blackout in New York).

Will the imagined gangs venture very far from their operating base? I appreciate the shortcomings of a static defence, but if a  community can alert and assemble a sizable quick response force of citizens/police (i.e. a couple dozen or larger) there's a point at which the so called gangs would have to organize a stricking force of battalion size just to ensure victory. Without the compulsion of the state, or in the original scenario any underlying cause, how well effectively can such groups be built up and maintained, and how far will they venture to seek out victims?

[cptd]

I agree with the gist of what you're saying and think the question might then be a case of how far from the larger urban centers one might need to go to avoid the main centers of gang recruitment or looters, as well as finding that mix of community where you'd like to live that also provides the necessary amenities to survive. Even many urban centers might be alright, but I suspect that with economic and cultural changes, any location can change significantly even within less than a generation (Compare the 1970s vs 2003 blackout in New York).

Will the imagined gangs venture very far from their operating base? I appreciate the shortcomings of a static defence, but if a  community can alert and assemble a sizable quick response force of citizens/police (i.e. a couple dozen or larger) there's a point at which the so called gangs would have to organize a stricking force of battalion size just to ensure victory. Without the compulsion of the state, or in the original scenario any underlying cause, how well effectively can such groups be built up and maintained, and how far will they venture to seek out victims?

Those are great questions. If we're to assume these guys are motorized, as was the context of the orginal post, they've got considerably greater range than a foot-mobile mob, and can cover said distance quickly. I think the distance a city-based gang could strike into the country would be a function of a lot of things. It's a funcion of the availablity of fuel more than anything, as a motorized army marches on its gas tank even more than it marches on its stomach.

One thing to keep in mind is that oil refineries and pipeline terminals are typically in urban areas, not in the country. If thse guys figure that out and start staging raids for gas at the source, they're not going to have as big of a problem getting out into the country as conventional thinking might dictate. It all depends on how sophisticated their leadership becomes, and how long they are able to develop and mature.

I have been trumpeting the imortance of not underestimating the potential of the city folk since I came into this forum. One thing that is absent a lot of the predictions about the so-called "sheeple" is what they would be capable of under competent leadership.

That leadership will emerge. There will be perverse minds who take the things they learned as officers in the army or even n the prepper community and turn it to their personal gain. They will be more than capable of organizing people who are desperate and will do anything into a competent army of professional troops. I've met officers in the army during my career who I would consider capable of that kind of thing - and who would be more than capable of pullling it off. Furthermore, there is firm historic precedent for this kind of thing going down, all over the world at all times in history.

Thinking that everyone with the skills to survive will simply use them to survive and will mind their own business and dothe right thing is probably a flaw, perhaps a fatal one.

As much as we like to profess total self reliance, the reality is that because of the problem state in this thread - the post-SHTF emergence of organized, proficient, thugs - homesteading successfully depends on a fairly rapid return of a friendly government capable of maintaining order in the cities and preventing gangs like this from forming, and the more time goes by, and the more proficient those gangs become, and the more sophisticated their leadership becomes, the bigger the problem they will pose. It is a threat that will grow over time, not shrink. Their range will increase, not decrease.

Having a QRF consisting of local cops and citizens will work for a little while but the reality is that you will always be on the defensive in this situation, reactng when they show up and trying to drive them off. If there is no one to pursue them and deal with them on their own turf, then you're always fighting at home, which is also not a sustainable situation. They can retreat; you can't really do that, so all it takes is once loss in battle, just one time, and your combat power is reduced to zero.
And that failling, if they just want to pee in your campfire for the sake of spite, they can ride by on the ATV's throwing firebombs and burn all of your crops, buildings, cattle, etc. to ashes. Then your sustainable source of food isn't really producing for you.

Your survival as homesteaders depends on someone being at the wheel of government larger than your community, because your community does not have the assets -intelligence, mobility, combat power, and so on to engage the enemy described in the original post. Plain as that.

[endurance]

I think there's a very real possibility that if there's a real end of rule of law situation, the production of fuel will not be very far behind.  Refining modern gasoline is an incredibly complex operation requiring a high degree of sophistication and expertise.  Getting the oil to the refinery, refining it, and distributing it is a serious undertaking that just won't work for very long without a smooth system to get the right people to the right places at the right times.  Again, will the bad guys kill the geese that lay the golden eggs?  If they 'accidentally' killed or chased away a dozen of the wrong people that refinery will be out of production indefinitely. 

Then there's the other challenge of northern weather, heating homes and clearing roads.  How long can a gang travel down the path of lawlessness before they cut their own throats? 

[Canadian Prepper]

I agree with cptd's premise that we shouldn't simply dismiss urbanites as sheeple or the potential of evil people to organize people towards bad ends, but I just wonder why countries like Somalia and Afghanistan still carry on as they do, despite the fact that they are definitely suffering from far worst hardships than anything we've seen on this side of the ocean. Examples like the Russian Revolution that I've seen discussed elsewhere had more than simply percieved inequality or envy behind them, but pretty specific historical conditions such as a supporting ideology to encourage the Bolsheviks, so I hardly see it as inevitable that such a class war would arise either.

Even the drug cartels I've referenced earlier seem to mostly go about their business and employ violence primarily to silence opposition, and while I can see such groups provide the seeds of something worst in a scenario like the original post, why wouldn't they use extortion, threats and the odd raid to get them a longer term source of income and supplies? As the author of the article I posted has pointed out, even the drug cartels have an interest in Mexico sustaining its basic infrastructure of electricity, roads, etc, and would only hurt themselves if they made the nation fall into the totally failed state category. So unless a country like the US were to fall into some type of civil war scenario where gangs want to recreate General Sherman's march to the coast, something seems off.

I appreciate Endurance's thoughts about a loss of fuel supplies, though I'm pretty sure that there's still enough in Afghanistan, Somalia and previously, during Yugoslavia's civil war that I wouldn't want to put too much hope in the bad guys running out of it.

[chrisdfw]

Sitting in place and allowing attacks is foolish, the whole fixed fortifications thing.

If you want to protect what you have, you need to have intelligence and patrols, and take the fight to any attackers.

To that end, I have night vision, I have my 50 with long range optics, I have people I can trust. Next I really want to get thermal imaging.

In any event, you will need neighbors, friends, and team members. But that doesn't mean you can't defeat much larger teams. To do so you better have planned to do so. You better have pre-set up locations and plans. Engage the enemy away from your home base and make it such that you choose when the fight occurs, and hopefully where.

I live in a suburban area and while its a decent way from the major urban center, I know we will have to deal with the potential of gangs, as well as just ordinary hungry refugees (which can be dangerous as well, starving people are dangerous)

[cptd]

Sitting in place and allowing attacks is foolish, the whole fixed fortifications thing.

If you want to protect what you have, you need to have intelligence and patrols, and take the fight to any attackers.

To that end, I have night vision, I have my 50 with long range optics, I have people I can trust. Next I really want to get thermal imaging.

In any event, you will need neighbors, friends, and team members. But that doesn't mean you can't defeat much larger teams. To do so you better have planned to do so. You better have pre-set up locations and plans. Engage the enemy away from your home base and make it such that you choose when the fight occurs, and hopefully where.

I live in a suburban area and while its a decent way from the major urban center, I know we will have to deal with the potential of gangs, as well as just ordinary hungry refugees (which can be dangerous as well, starving people are dangerous)

If you're out on a patrol away from your homestead, who's back at home doing the daily work of farming the land? You would also need to leave a sufficient force behind to keep from being outmaneuvered and flanked at home. The manpower involved in what you propose is beyond what most communities of preppers will be able to muster.  If you're doing the work of managing a homestead you can't be out doing things like chasing down massive gangs.  THat's totally unrealistic.

I'm not going to post any further in this thread, but I appreciate all of the discussion and it's been fun exercise but my position remains. Your only long-term surviva option in this scenario is getting out of the AO of these gangs, because unless/until there is an authority with the significant resources that would be needed to confront them, a homestead operation would be impossible to sustain without resorting to some kind of pacification policy (I'll give you some of my stuff to leave me alone). This is how warlords work, and a surprising portion of the world works this way. I've seen it.

Homesteading is still a good way of prepping for a disaster, but it doesn't insulate you against this kind of threat. If you want to survive, get out of dodge and plan not to come back.

[inthego]

+1  At some point they'll have to realize that if they kill the goose that laid the golden egg, they'll be very hungry. 

Without access to farm machinery, fertilizer, and pesticides, farmers will be less productive, not more.  There will be a need for more people who know how to produce food, not less.  There will be a demand for more field labor, not less.

Of course if your idea of prepping is putting up a five year larder of food and have no active food production, well, that's easy enough to take.  But if you have enough to get you through to next season cached and secured plus a large garden or acreage under cultivation, they'd be fools to take you out.  Not saying it wouldn't happen, but they'd be fools.

Agreed, my experience in this world is that desperate and or hungry people often act -foolishly, hell people that are well educated, well feed and with time to consider multiple outcomes often act -foolishly.

[flippydidit]

I'm seeing two recurring falsehoods in this thread.  The first is the sampling of historical precedent to bolster an argument without taking in all the facts.  The second is the blatant assumption that all homesteaders and preppers are country bumpkins without any military training or organization.

It honestly ruffles my feathers.  If it came down to zero rule of law with gangs afoot, then different rules of engagement are going to apply.  So it isn't a big leap to think that at that point I would "borrow" a few Bradley's with some "Army buddies", drive into the city and dance on their little 4-wheelers.  We wouldn't leave until the "gang" ceased to exist.

We aren't scared little homesteaders with an, "Oh my, what should I ever do?  Maybe we should just capitulate." attitude.  In fact, many of us didn't just start prepping last Saturday.  We've developed networks, trained and cross-trained, and have a pretty solid position to defend from.

I also agree with livinitup0.  They are on the wrong end of attrition (and we won't be fighting attrition warfare, we'll be using maneuver warfare).  It doesn't take long (one bad winter?) in a WROL environment to thin population numbers.  Something we'll no doubt have to deal with ourselves.

Now for some historical precedent.  American pioneers versus Native Americans.  That's right, cowboys and indians.  Contrary to popular belief, there weren't a lot of "cavalry saves the day" scenarios.  Those homesteaders defended their lands against roving bands of marauding "gangs".  Only those gangs didn't have to stop at a gas station.  And those gangs could resupply at their own self sufficient camps.  So the argument that homesteading and defending your way of life is impossible, or "not worth it" becomes subjective and only defined by what "truths" you choose to allow your mind to tolerate.

The bottom line is that when "they aren't playing fair", we won't be either.  After all, we're talking about the rules not applying, right?  If that's the case then all is fair in love and war.  So that begs the question, what are the limits we country bumpkins must constrain ourselves to?  I'm a machinist and a gunsmith.  I have a friend that is a chemist, and another that is an engineer.  We could definitely create some serious firepower.  Does that mean we can't create poisons, chemical weapons, et al?  This is just to get people thinking down the path my signature quote speaks of.  If it truly comes down to defending your community in a WROL scenario, the kid gloves come off.  This is all of course only speaking in a hypothetical, sci-fi discussion.   

[nelson96]

If you're out on a patrol away from your homestead, who's back at home doing the daily work of farming the land? You would also need to leave a sufficient force behind to keep from being outmaneuvered and flanked at home. The manpower involved in what you propose is beyond what most communities of preppers will be able to muster.  If you're doing the work of managing a homestead you can't be out doing things like chasing down massive gangs.  THat's totally unrealistic.

This thought process was my reason for starting this thread.  For some, including me, I still think it applies.  If you don't have adequate numbers and ability to utilize them, it is not worth the predicted loss of life to fight. 

However >>>>>

I'm seeing two recurring falsehoods in this thread.  The first is the sampling of historical precedent to bolster an argument without taking in all the facts.  The second is the blatant assumption that all homesteaders and preppers are country bumpkins without any military training or organization.

It honestly ruffles my feathers.  If it came down to zero rule of law with gangs afoot, then different rules of engagement are going to apply.  So it isn't a big leap to think that at that point I would "borrow" a few Bradley's with some "Army buddies", drive into the city and dance on their little 4-wheelers.  We wouldn't leave until the "gang" ceased to exist.

We aren't scared little homesteaders with an, "Oh my, what should I ever do?  Maybe we should just capitulate." attitude.  In fact, many of us didn't just start prepping last Saturday.  We've developed networks, trained and cross-trained, and have a pretty solid position to defend from.

I also agree with livinitup0.  They are on the wrong end of attrition (and we won't be fighting attrition warfare, we'll be using maneuver warfare).  It doesn't take long (one bad winter?) in a WROL environment to thin population numbers.  Something we'll no doubt have to deal with ourselves.

Now for some historical precedent.  American pioneers versus Native Americans.  That's right, cowboys and indians.  Contrary to popular belief, there weren't a lot of "cavalry saves the day" scenarios.  Those homesteaders defended their lands against roving bands of marauding "gangs".  Only those gangs didn't have to stop at a gas station.  And those gangs could resupply at their own self sufficient camps.  So the argument that homesteading and defending your way of life is impossible, or "not worth it" becomes subjective and only defined by what "truths" you choose to allow your mind to tolerate.

The bottom line is that when "they aren't playing fair", we won't be either.  After all, we're talking about the rules not applying, right?  If that's the case then all is fair in love and war.  So that begs the question, what are the limits we country bumpkins must constrain ourselves to?  I'm a machinist and a gunsmith.  I have a friend that is a chemist, and another that is an engineer.  We could definitely create some serious firepower.  Does that mean we can't create poisons, chemical weapons, et al?  This is just to get people thinking down the path my signature quote speaks of.  If it truly comes down to defending your community in a WROL scenario, the kid gloves come off.  This is all of course only speaking in a hypothetical, sci-fi discussion.   

This makes a lot of sense too.  But as I said early on in my posts, I will get my family to a safe place first.



You all have very good arguments to support your beliefs.  Let's remember that this is a made up scenario that will probably not get to the point we need to be prepared for in this way.  However, I believe all SHOULD be prepared in some way.  That said, lets all try to keep it sivil (not that you aren't) but I like this topic and the comments its created and I don't want the moderators to lock it.

[FreeLancer]

Looking at the modern historical precedent of Rhodesia in the 1970's, my guess is most of the white farmers wish they'd bugged out to calmer parts of the english diaspora, instead of risking their fortunes, wives, and children in a vain civil war against Mugabe's hordes. 

Reading about the heroic defensive measures they took to defend their farms, families, and way of life is impressive, but, in the end, left them exhausted, at the mercy of the new government, with their families and fortunes ruined.  Some may feel strongly that it's a struggle worth fighting for, but I think you have to respect the man who is not willing to risk his life, limb, family, and fortune for a lost cause.

I suppose if all your wealth is tied up in your land it makes for a difficult decision when the handwriting is on the wall.  But sometimes that's the right thing to do, no matter how painful, because you can always start over somewhere else.

[ygodnik]

I am less worried about this scenario occurring along the "rape the cattle and stampede the women" lines. Given the population makeup of the US at this time, there will be more men with families they want to take care of than single men. If someone has a family, and one group is trying to rebuild and offers a long term solution, and the other group says leave your family so we can go loot, who will most follow? Perhaps I am being overly optimistic in my appraisal of people, but I think people will stay close to their families.

If large groups of the population are gathering in family units, which will be less mobile, any roving band will see considerable resistance. Residual community and law enforcement feelings will remain, and these roving bands of unattached single people will not last long. Another thing I noted is that when people ran out of fuel in NE during Sandy, they did not find a plan to obtain further fuel supplies until they were plumb out. The refineries could not get up and running quickly despite the local, state, and federal governments seeing that as a high priority. Imagine if there was no external support. Some people talked about the tactical situation when 50 people attacked one house. I agree that I would be lucky to wound a few in that type of situation before I was overrun. The logistical situation, however, is against the 50 guys on machines. It takes a huge amount of resources to keep a couple of squads in the hills for a couple of weeks in a war. These quickly organized criminal elements would not have the logistical support required to continue to be mobile and effective for long. The noise they made would broadcast their coming and they would be worn down through attrition and lack of supplies. Once they had been heavily damaged, they couldn't recover. They would be hunted until they died.

This is an improbable scenario within an improbable scenario (total government collapse). I think we should look at Russia or Argentina to see a closer approximation. Our Canadian friend talked about a weaker government with increased petty and organized crime. I think he is hitting closer to the mark. How are we increasing our resistance to those type of problems? What are we doing to improve our financial and food security situation? Are we out of debt? Have we built good relationships with those around us and strengthened them? Are we acquiring skills that we can use next year regardless of how things turn out?

While it is fun to be Mad Max, it will be more helpful to focus on the basics. I think learning 13 new skills will go a long way, and will help us if times get tough. Or even if they don't. Good luck, and I am glad people on this forum recognize there is room for differing points of view.

One more note on FreeLancer. I have often wondered if Jews are so pro education because of their history. They have been chased and kicked out of so many countries with nothing but their clothes on their backs they have learned they might as well pack as much value as possible in their heads. That way, they always have some intellectual capital to start a business where ever they land. Something we could learn from as well.

[cptd]

Well I'm sorry to have offended you, it certainly was not my intent to do so.

All I was trying to do is highlight some of the practical limitations that living on a homestead create in the face of a hardcore opponent. I do not recall ever calling you or anyone else a "bumpkin" or making any disparaging comments about you. I do not recall ever saying anything negative. All I did was suggest that a particular position was unsustainable. It's fine if you disagree but I don't see why the anger?

I based my tactical assessment on the loose details provided in the original post. He did not say at that time that the people being attacked had access to Bradley Fighting Vehicles. Obviously, if they did, it would change things, as would lots of other potential force multipliers, but he didn't say those were present. I just went on what was there.

Ultimately it's up to you whether to take someone else's spot analysis of a very vague hypothetical personally as an attack on your character and way of life. That was certainly not the intention and for my part in that misunderstanding I apologize.

[sdcharger]

I think it is clear the scenario is highly unlikely and untenable if it happens.

The roving hoards are more likely to be hungry refugees not gang bangers.  Certainly problematic but not impossible to deal with.

You are so much more likely to be victimized by local hodlums.  You should identify them ahead of time and have a plan to neutralize them as soon as the shtf.  This is the proactive method in my way of thinking.

[flippydidit]

I think it is clear the scenario is highly unlikely and untenable if it happens.

The roving hoards are more likely to be hungry refugees not gang bangers.  Certainly problematic but not impossible to deal with.

You are so much more likely to be victimized by local hodlums.  You should identify them ahead of time and have a plan to neutralize them as soon as the shtf.  This is the proactive method in my way of thinking.

Agreed.  And long before I go around "borrowing" Bradley's or concocting nerve toxins, our plans are to feed the hungry and and try to assess our ability to "bring them into the fold".  We won't be able to do this for everyone, and some will simply be given some food, water and clothing and politely sent on their way.  I believe it was Steven Harris who correctly stated, "It's easier to feed your neighbor than shoot them."  I agree whole-heartedly with that.

[FreeLancer]

One more note on FreeLancer. I have often wondered if Jews are so pro education because of their history. They have been chased and kicked out of so many countries with nothing but their clothes on their backs they have learned they might as well pack as much value as possible in their heads. That way, they always have some intellectual capital to start a business where ever they land. Something we could learn from as well.

I have come across that same concept from several different sources, too. 

It's ironic that the anti-Semites rail against Jewish control over finance and science when it's violent persecution over the centuries that has selected Jews with the intellectual capabilities to perform well in these facets of society.

[RPZ]

"sooner or later attrition will do you in...."

actually... if they're not producing their own resources then they're living on borrowed time and if thats the case then you've kind of got that backwards. If Im holding them off, and other survivors are holding them off... then what are the gangs living on? On top of that... gangs organize for a reason, numbers = resources... i mean its not for friendship or songs around the campfire. If a gang member isnt getting resources from their gang... they wont be a gang member for much longer.

I think the roaming gangs would definitely be a problem... but only for a time. That kind of anarchy is not sustainable.

I agree for different reasons. Just as water finds it's own level, these guys will diminish in proportion to how much of the country is occupied by the prepared or otherwise who won't tolerate their presence.

The rovers will certainly die off as scavenging is not going to sustain them. That leaves those thugs that organize themselves into conclaves - areas they control and maybe even actually produce for some of their own basic needs. The problem will then be that of truly organized and supplied raiders whose target goals will be to rape and rob, and expand territory.

However, at this stage even if national government response has been weak or non-existant there will likely be some concerted action on a local, county and maybe state level to counter such groups, displace, contain and or destroy them with organized force.   

[Virginian]

tag

[Shaunypoo]

I appreciate Endurance's thoughts about a loss of fuel supplies, though I'm pretty sure that there's still enough in Afghanistan, Somalia and previously, during Yugoslavia's civil war that I wouldn't want to put too much hope in the bad guys running out of it.

I think the US is such an energy dependant country from transportation to climate control that it would actually be used up rather quickly.  There is only so much fuel present at any one time that it is constantly being produced, and it is constantly being refined, and it is constantly being sucked out of the earth.  A stop of any one of those and how long would the fuel supply last before it is used and/or goes bad?

I am less worried about this scenario occurring along the "rape the cattle and stampede the women" lines. Given the population makeup of the US at this time, there will be more men with families they want to take care of than single men. If someone has a family, and one group is trying to rebuild and offers a long term solution, and the other group says leave your family so we can go loot, who will most follow? Perhaps I am being overly optimistic in my appraisal of people, but I think people will stay close to their families.

I think you will have some people who want to follow the leader and loot and pillage, but they will be vastly outnumbered by those who want to protect who they can and what they have.  I honestly don't think that there will be an unlimited supply of footsoldiers for resupply.  It will be totally disorganized at first, then it will swell when people coalesce for the purpose of looting and pillaging, then it will diminish gradually.  There will be losses of life as well as attrition.  It is my belief that most of those that would look to pillage are in fact pretty cowardly to begin with and once they see a few of their "bretheren" fall, they will take off.  They are looking for the easy way to survive, i.e. taking from others, but once they realize the dangers to their own life, they will be less inclined.

Maybe I am just taking my own perceived outlook.  I want to survive at nearly any cost because if I survive, I increase my families' chances of survival.  Some warlord comes through and decides that my family doesn't need to survive but he wants me for his raging hoard, I figure that my reason for surviving is gone and I am taking as many of them with me as possible.  Whether that is in a poorly thought out rage or a false compliance where I covertly kill as many "bretheren" as possible, I can't tell you.  I think many would feel the same way.  I hope many would feel the same way.

[Wildthang]

Well, I live in the country, and I will die in the country. Where I live is kind of out in the wide open, and I can see and hear them coming from a long way off. All of my neighbors shoot guns, and in warm weather on the weekends, it sounds like a war because everybody is out in their back yards shooting targets. Everybody in my area are hard working farmers that pretty much mind their own business, and take care of their familys.
Knowing the people in a 5 mile area around me the way I do, any gang that comes to my kneck of the woods will be whittled away in short order because everybody in my area have guns, shoot guns, and are willing to defend what is theirs.
Like Hank Jr always said, " A country boy will survive"!
Some of you guys can theorize about the city being safer if you like, but I feel much safer in the country and always will. As soon as I step foot in a big city, I feel like a caged animal, and vulnerable to an extent. When a large city goes Ape chit, it isn't going to be pretty and there will be nowhere to hide. At least here in the country, we can simply go further out in the country, but in a city with no fuel, you will be greeted by the crazies if you try to walk out, so there will be no escaping it!
So like I said before, at least I can throw on my gear, and go a little further out, no problem!

[cptd]

Well, I live in the country, and I will die in the country. Where I live is kind of out in the wide open, and I can see and hear them coming from a long way off. All of my neighbors shoot guns, and in warm weather on the weekends, it sounds like a war because everybody is out in their back yards shooting targets. Everybody in my area are hard working farmers that pretty much mind their own business, and take care of their familys.
Knowing the people in a 5 mile area around me the way I do, any gang that comes to my kneck of the woods will be whittled away in short order because everybody in my area have guns, shoot guns, and are willing to defend what is theirs.
Like Hank Jr always said, " A country boy will survive"!
Some of you guys can theorize about the city being safer if you like, but I feel much safer in the country and always will. As soon as I step foot in a big city, I feel like a caged animal, and vulnerable to an extent. When a large city goes Ape chit, it isn't going to be pretty and there will be nowhere to hide. At least here in the country, we can simply go further out in the country, but in a city with no fuel, you will be greeted by the crazies if you try to walk out, so there will be no escaping it!
So like I said before, at least I can throw on my gear, and go a little further out, no problem!

I think the US is such an energy dependant country from transportation to climate control that it would actually be used up rather quickly.  There is only so much fuel present at any one time that it is constantly being produced, and it is constantly being refined, and it is constantly being sucked out of the earth.  A stop of any one of those and how long would the fuel supply last before it is used and/or goes bad?


I think you will have some people who want to follow the leader and loot and pillage, but they will be vastly outnumbered by those who want to protect who they can and what they have.  I honestly don't think that there will be an unlimited supply of footsoldiers for resupply.  It will be totally disorganized at first, then it will swell when people coalesce for the purpose of looting and pillaging, then it will diminish gradually.  There will be losses of life as well as attrition.  It is my belief that most of those that would look to pillage are in fact pretty cowardly to begin with and once they see a few of their "bretheren" fall, they will take off.  They are looking for the easy way to survive, i.e. taking from others, but once they realize the dangers to their own life, they will be less inclined.

Maybe I am just taking my own perceived outlook.  I want to survive at nearly any cost because if I survive, I increase my families' chances of survival.  Some warlord comes through and decides that my family doesn't need to survive but he wants me for his raging hoard, I figure that my reason for surviving is gone and I am taking as many of them with me as possible.  Whether that is in a poorly thought out rage or a false compliance where I covertly kill as many "bretheren" as possible, I can't tell you.  I think many would feel the same way.  I hope many would feel the same way.

T

I think the US is such an energy dependant country from transportation to climate control that it would actually be used up rather quickly.  There is only so much fuel present at any one time that it is constantly being produced, and it is constantly being refined, and it is constantly being sucked out of the earth.  A stop of any one of those and how long would the fuel supply last before it is used and/or goes bad?


I think you will have some people who want to follow the leader and loot and pillage, but they will be vastly outnumbered by those who want to protect who they can and what they have.  I honestly don't think that there will be an unlimited supply of footsoldiers for resupply.  It will be totally disorganized at first, then it will swell when people coalesce for the purpose of looting and pillaging, then it will diminish gradually.  There will be losses of life as well as attrition.  It is my belief that most of those that would look to pillage are in fact pretty cowardly to begin with and once they see a few of their "bretheren" fall, they will take off.  They are looking for the easy way to survive, i.e. taking from others, but once they realize the dangers to their own life, they will be less inclined.

Maybe I am just taking my own perceived outlook.  I want to survive at nearly any cost because if I survive, I increase my families' chances of survival.  Some warlord comes through and decides that my family doesn't need to survive but he wants me for his raging hoard, I figure that my reason for surviving is gone and I am taking as many of them with me as possible.  Whether that is in a poorly thought out rage or a false compliance where I covertly kill as many "bretheren" as possible, I can't tell you.  I think many would feel the same way.  I hope many would feel the same way.

That's a lifestyle choice, which I respect and admire. It is not the same as my choice, which, as I've said elsewhere, involves niether of the above two choices (life in the country or life in the city).  Neither is palatable to me over the long term.

[chrisdfw]

If you're out on a patrol away from your homestead, who's back at home doing the daily work of farming the land? You would also need to leave a sufficient force behind to keep from being outmaneuvered and flanked at home. The manpower involved in what you propose is beyond what most communities of preppers will be able to muster.  If you're doing the work of managing a homestead you can't be out doing things like chasing down massive gangs.  THat's totally unrealistic.

agreed, but yourself anyway. But my "homestead" if you can call it that, is based on minimal inputs from me, think fruit and nut trees and food producing bushes, with only a small garden plot. But that is beside the point, I can't even defend it alone, and don't plan on trying, I have friends and neighbors who have a vested interest in keeping secure.

It all depends on the size of your community. We have gotten to the point where we are a civilization through division of labor, and to keep and defend it, the same must continue, some people will need to patrol and others need to farm, and some need to fix things, educate children, etc. It is impossible to do it all alone, as you correctly point out.

[cptd]

agreed, but yourself anyway. But my "homestead" if you can call it that, is based on minimal inputs from me, think fruit and nut trees and food producing bushes, with only a small garden plot. But that is beside the point, I can't even defend it alone, and don't plan on trying, I have friends and neighbors who have a vested interest in keeping secure.

It all depends on the size of your community. We have gotten to the point where we are a civilization through division of labor, and to keep and defend it, the same must continue, some people will need to patrol and others need to farm, and some need to fix things, educate children, etc. It is impossible to do it all alone, as you correctly point out.

I guess that's just not a lifestyle for me, so I choose something else. Even if I trusted the government to not interfere with that (I don't) I wouldn't be happy with the lifestyle, especially if I had to use violence or threat of it, even occasionally, to maintain it.

It might not bother some people that they have to shoot an occasional looter. But I've had to shoot people before and I don't want to have to do it again. I'd rather find a place to live where that's not necessary, and there will be places like that out there.

To be honest, the only reason I'm still in the United States now is that my wife has a good paying job here and because of the security provided by a lawful society. I've been all over the world. I've been to so many countries I would have a hard time even thinking of them all. I've been in places with all kinds of governments and all kinds of predominant religions. I can live here in peace. If that changes, if I need to do what the people in third world countries do, holing up in the countryside, never venturing far from home, worrying constantly about looters, about warlords, about a crooked government - at that point it just isn't worth being here anymore because there are places out there where I wouldn't have to live that way, or perhaps, not to the same extent.

In my experience, people who live in places where they have to fend for themselves and rely on neighbors and their own resources to survive, people in those places don't die of old age.

[livinitup0]

I'd really like to know where these "safe havens" are going to be after a SHTF scenario that keep getting brought up ITT.

[Shaunypoo]

I'd rather find a place to live where that's not necessary, and there will be places like that out there.

That is what all of us want.  Where is that place?  You are telling us you don't think we will be able to do that here in the US.  Then tell me where that place is so I can try to go there in that situation.

[nelson96]

I'd really like to know where these "safe havens" are going to be after a SHTF scenario that keep getting brought up ITT.

Go west young man, go west. . . .  Get away from the population centers and find some country you can put between you and the trouble at hand.

That is what all of us want.  Where is that place?  You are telling us you don't think we will be able to do that here in the US.  Then tell me where that place is so I can try to go there in that situation.

There will be no place like that. . . .  IMO, presently the U.S. is still the best place to live for protection of your desired independence and individual opportunities.  If something were to happen to the U.S. that were to take this away, other countries would already be in a worse situation.  The entire world relies on the stability of the U.S. in some way shape or form and if we were to fall, so would fall the rest of the world.  That said, it would be better to be close to your own people with common concerns and goals, not to mention your own familiarity of the area and its resources in which you are from.

[cptd]

That is what all of us want.  Where is that place?  You are telling us you don't think we will be able to do that here in the US.  Then tell me where that place is so I can try to go there in that situation.

I don't think there's any way to know for sure right now. It depends on how and when SHTF, and how every country involved reacts to it.

And, it's just my OPINION. My opinion might be wrong, so if it doesn't make sense to you, don't do it - I can admit that I might not be correct.

I would be steering the converstation way off topic by answering your question about where to go in this thread. I am planning something different, which you can read about in my life at sea thread.

This thread started with a tactical assessment. That assessment was what to do if a raiding party showed up. Obviously there are a million variables I don't know about the situation, and a successful defense is decided by many things. Available defenders, equipment, terrain, weather conditions - lots of things that weren't included in the original post. It would be impossible, based on what was given, to give more than very general advice, which might or might not make sense anymore when all of the details of the particular engagement are taken into consideration.

My TACTICAL (not strategic, but tactical) assessment of that particular situation is that it is an untenable position, and that survival would mean escaping before the enemy arrived.

There have been a trillion and one "what if's" added to this thread, which is good thinking, but were not part of the stated scenario. People have postulated the effects of everything from neighborhood posses banding together to repel the invasion to borrowed Bradley Fighting Vechicles chasing the badguys down and sending them to a grisly demise.

None of these things were presented in the original scenario, and any of those things might affect how I analyze the defensibility of a particular place.

If you want to know where in the world to go if you need to flee, we can start that conversation somewhere else and I'll have a lot to contribute.

I think I've probably said all I feel the need to say about the roving hordes of death.

[Shaunypoo]

There will be no place like that. . . .  IMO, presently the U.S. is still the best place to live for protection of your desired independence and individual opportunities.  If something were to happen to the U.S. that were to take this away, other countries would already be in a worse situation.  The entire world relies on the stability of the U.S. in some way shape or form and if we were to fall, so would fall the rest of the world.  That said, it would be better to be close to your own people with common concerns and goals, not to mention your own familiarity of the area and its resources in which you are from.

+1

[cptd]

+1

THe world is the place I'm familiar with. I didn't grow up in the country. I grew up at sea, travelling from place to place and learning according to that process. That's what I know and if it comes to it, and things get bad here, I'll be much better off deploying that skillset than I would be learning how to farm, etc.

As for there being no peace anywhere if the US tanks, that's making a gross exagerration of the importance of the US in the world. It's a point of view that you don't find in most of the world. Life in most of the world will go on the way it has for generations. Only the developed world with whom we have tricky trade alliances will suffer.