Questions for survivalists

apple0154

apple0154

MEOW
Survivalist: a person who makes preparations to survive a widespread catastrophe, as an atomic war or anarchy, especially by storing food and weapons in a safe place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7JnClHTCUQ&feature=player_embedded#at=134

Should a widespread catastrophe occur what is the point of having a three or six month supply of food? I can see the validity of having a week's supply of food in the case a storm knocks out roads, etc. but things return to normal after a short period of time.

What happens after an atomic war? Total anarchy? Is the guy in the video going to be able to defend himself against the entire neighborhood if the people know he has food? Won't the community go door to door and gather up all the food to be rationed amongst the population?

If the guy won't come out of his house and share his supplies why wouldn't the community simply burn the house to the ground? It would only take one instance of that happening and people who stockpiled would know they either share or risk being burned alive in their home. All his weapons and biologically sealed suits are not going to protect him or his family.

So, what is the point of pretending he's a warrior defending a "fortress" when a can of gas siphoned from a neighbor's car and a match will take him down, literally down to ashes?
 
These are the same assholes (like Tim McVeigh and SmarterThanFew) that either commit cowardly acts of domestic terrorism or post BS on the internet as mighty keyboard warriors.


militia.jpg
 
First, while a localized disaster, such a tornado, hurricane, earthquake, etc. are most often dealt with inside a week or two, that is not always the case. Look at the Katrina disaster. We are STILL rebuilding in some places. Look at the flooding in the midwest - some areas under water for more than a month. Not all disasters are over in a week, and in many case, especially in more rural areas, such as the flooded areas of the midwest, it is easier to have a good place to retreat to preplanned, with necessities prestocked, than to try to create a temporary residence and stock it after a disaster has caused evacuation.

Second, nuclear war and such are not the only things which can disrupt the economy long term. Say a big conventional war breaks out in the middle east, disrupting all oil exports from that region for an indefinite period. What effect will that have on our transport industry? If we are having difficulty with proper distribution of goods, what do people do until things sort themselves out? A major conflict which disrupts, or even puts a long-term end to foreign oil imports, a scenario which is NOT all that highly improbable, will bring our economy to a grinding halt, and will stay that way for many months.

In such a scenario, we could easily be faced with collapse of the urban areas. All cities are only three days away from starvation when in comes to available food stocks. If new stocks are not constantly delivered from rural agricultural areas, the cities go down, which in turn would take ddown a significant portion of our power infrastructure, since most power plants are closely associated with urban areas. Such a disruption would take several months, if not a year or more, to recover from.

And while such have a very low probability of occurring, it is not impossible, not by a long shot. And the probability of something major happening gets more likely every day in the current global economic environment. With socialist economies such as Greece failing and threatening to take more down with them, Spain, France, Germany, even England, we are looking at, the very least, significant disruption of our economy as a side effect. We're already seeing it. Imagine the effect Europe-wide riots such as England and Greece are currently dealing with, and what that could do to the economy. What happens if the fledgling and very unstable government in Iraq ends up in power vacuum - the further instability in that area could and would cause in the oil industry, and the effect that would have on our already unstable economy. Instability builds on instability, and the threat of the whole thing crashing down around our ears becomes more real every day.

At no time in history can I find conditions which are more threatening to cause a major, catastrophic disruption of the world's economies, the type of which that would make the Great Depression look like a relative dot-com surge. Such disruptions would put many, many people on their own for a significant period of time - months to a year or more.

Besides that, stocking up on groceries and such are always a good hedge against inflation, if nothing really bad does happen.

The only survivalists I question are the ones looking for things like food stores with 10 year shelf lives, heirloom seeds for ongoing, multiple years of gardening without restocking seeds from the market, electrical generators designed to last for decades, and the basic outlook of being totally (yea, right) self-sufficient for ten years or more. The only things I can imagine that would take things down to a self-survival or die situation for more than two, three years at most, would be a global nuclear war, or a major meteor strike, both of which would be unlikely to survive long term, regardless of preparations.

But the need for months, if not a year or more of reasonable self sufficiency? I do not believe that to be so unlikely as to disregard it. Unlikely, yes, but possible enough to take it seriously.
 
Can we expect more scenes like this when Obama is defeated? Then it might be necessary to have supplies and be prepared to defend your life and property from community organizers.

 
apple0154 said:
Survivalist: a person who makes preparations to survive a widespread catastrophe, as an atomic war or anarchy, especially by storing food and weapons in a safe place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7JnClHTCUQ&feature=player_embedded#at=134

Should a widespread catastrophe occur what is the point of having a three or six month supply of food? I can see the validity of having a week's supply of food in the case a storm knocks out roads, etc. but things return to normal after a short period of time.

What happens after an atomic war? Total anarchy? Is the guy in the video going to be able to defend himself against the entire neighborhood if the people know he has food? Won't the community go door to door and gather up all the food to be rationed amongst the population?

If the guy won't come out of his house and share his supplies why wouldn't the community simply burn the house to the ground? It would only take one instance of that happening and people who stockpiled would know they either share or risk being burned alive in their home. All his weapons and biologically sealed suits are not going to protect him or his family.

So, what is the point of pretending he's a warrior defending a "fortress" when a can of gas siphoned from a neighbor's car and a match will take him down, literally down to ashes?
Click to expand...

how close do you think those neighbors will come if they know they are gonna be shot? It's nothing but simple cowardice when idiots like legion troll throw insults at those that do stockpile for widespread catastrophes, or maybe it's fear and incompetence when others (you maybe?) question the wisdom of stockpiling and preparation as they talk about things righting themselves soon enough. It's that blind faith in government swooping down to save the day that will kill more people in the beginning and middle than it will in the end.

Don't doubt for a second that the breakdown of society, once it starts, will downward spiral in to chaos and anarchy as families look for ways to ensure their own survival over that of the community.
 
I predict that when Obama loses the election we will see riots and bloodshed in this country that will make the Black riots in England look like church picnics. We have to prepare.
 
Killed any police lately, SmarterThanFew?



That's what I thought.



1791_large.jpg
 
apple0154 said:
If the guy won't come out of his house and share his supplies why wouldn't the community simply burn the house to the ground? It would only take one instance of that happening and people who stockpiled would know they either share or risk being burned alive in their home. All his weapons and biologically sealed suits are not going to protect him or his family. So, what is the point of pretending he's a warrior defending a "fortress" when a can of gas siphoned from a neighbor's car and a match will take him down, literally down to ashes?
Click to expand...
And there is lies the bottom line mentality of the modern liberal. If someone else has the foresight to have prepared for a long term catastrophe, community has the right to murder and steal from said individual if they refuse to share. And, of course, typical of liberal thinking, they'll undoubtedly destroy that which they are trying to attain in the process. No wonder the world is so fucked up. Your type goes on about how survivalists are weird, make fun of them, question their tactics. Yet in the end, you have no problem with murdering them and stealing what you should have been providing for yourselves, as he did. Pathetic sub-human weasels, the fucking lot of you.
 
Good Luck said:
First, while a localized disaster, such a tornado, hurricane, earthquake, etc. are most often dealt with inside a week or two, that is not always the case. Look at the Katrina disaster. We are STILL rebuilding in some places. Look at the flooding in the midwest - some areas under water for more than a month. Not all disasters are over in a week, and in many case, especially in more rural areas, such as the flooded areas of the midwest, it is easier to have a good place to retreat to preplanned, with necessities prestocked, than to try to create a temporary residence and stock it after a disaster has caused evacuation.

Second, nuclear war and such are not the only things which can disrupt the economy long term. Say a big conventional war breaks out in the middle east, disrupting all oil exports from that region for an indefinite period. What effect will that have on our transport industry? If we are having difficulty with proper distribution of goods, what do people do until things sort themselves out? A major conflict which disrupts, or even puts a long-term end to foreign oil imports, a scenario which is NOT all that highly improbable, will bring our economy to a grinding halt, and will stay that way for many months.

In such a scenario, we could easily be faced with collapse of the urban areas. All cities are only three days away from starvation when in comes to available food stocks. If new stocks are not constantly delivered from rural agricultural areas, the cities go down, which in turn would take ddown a significant portion of our power infrastructure, since most power plants are closely associated with urban areas. Such a disruption would take several months, if not a year or more, to recover from.

And while such have a very low probability of occurring, it is not impossible, not by a long shot. And the probability of something major happening gets more likely every day in the current global economic environment. With socialist economies such as Greece failing and threatening to take more down with them, Spain, France, Germany, even England, we are looking at, the very least, significant disruption of our economy as a side effect. We're already seeing it. Imagine the effect Europe-wide riots such as England and Greece are currently dealing with, and what that could do to the economy. What happens if the fledgling and very unstable government in Iraq ends up in power vacuum - the further instability in that area could and would cause in the oil industry, and the effect that would have on our already unstable economy. Instability builds on instability, and the threat of the whole thing crashing down around our ears becomes more real every day.

At no time in history can I find conditions which are more threatening to cause a major, catastrophic disruption of the world's economies, the type of which that would make the Great Depression look like a relative dot-com surge. Such disruptions would put many, many people on their own for a significant period of time - months to a year or more.

Besides that, stocking up on groceries and such are always a good hedge against inflation, if nothing really bad does happen.

The only survivalists I question are the ones looking for things like food stores with 10 year shelf lives, heirloom seeds for ongoing, multiple years of gardening without restocking seeds from the market, electrical generators designed to last for decades, and the basic outlook of being totally (yea, right) self-sufficient for ten years or more. The only things I can imagine that would take things down to a self-survival or die situation for more than two, three years at most, would be a global nuclear war, or a major meteor strike, both of which would be unlikely to survive long term, regardless of preparations.

But the need for months, if not a year or more of reasonable self sufficiency? I do not believe that to be so unlikely as to disregard it. Unlikely, yes, but possible enough to take it seriously.
Click to expand...

England, as you quaintly refer to the UK, still has a triple A rating from the all the rating agencies.
 
In Britain no one need fear their own government, nor is there a need to cower behind a personal arsenal with a cellarful of Yank corn-derived "rations".
 
Who said they were not real, you foolish little man?

As you would realise if you lifted your Yank eyes from ogling Madames Bachmann and Palin, the late disturbances were dealt with by the duly constituted authorities, rather than by a self-deputised band of vigilantes.
 
Good Luck said:
And there is lies the bottom line mentality of the modern liberal. If someone else has the foresight to have prepared for a long term catastrophe, community has the right to murder and steal from said individual if they refuse to share. And, of course, typical of liberal thinking, they'll undoubtedly destroy that which they are trying to attain in the process. No wonder the world is so fucked up. Your type goes on about how survivalists are weird, make fun of them, question their tactics. Yet in the end, you have no problem with murdering them and stealing what you should have been providing for yourselves, as he did. Pathetic sub-human weasels, the fucking lot of you.
Click to expand...

My goodness! Take a chill pill.

I was only trying to show the futility of it all. Survivalists in a remote location may have a chance to deal with the odd straggler and even end up with a pot of homo sapien goulash but in an urban/suburban area, not a chance. If there is a situation like you describe, a duration of weeks or months, people are going to come a-callin'. I suggest a concrete panic room otherwise you'll either have house guests or no house.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top