+- Survival UK Forums (http://forum.survivaluk.net)
+-- Forum: Discussion Area (http://forum.survivaluk.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Forum: Threats and Risks (http://forum.survivaluk.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=46)
+--- Thread: Chances (/showthread.php?tid=357)
Chances - NorthernRaider - 28 October 2011
RE: Chances - grumpy old man - 28 October 2011
NR
this is my view i really think 95% of people really don't know how hard it is going to be.
as you will know even the army struggles with no supply lines and you will have come across special forces in you time you will know these men have a special mind set to allow them to do what needs to be. spending weeks on a long range op not the easiest thing under normal conditions
i think most prepares have just got a 6 month range in mind which i think is too short yes people will die but the ones who live will be savage.
there was i time between houses i with my family were homeless but instead of thinking all was lost we lived in a tent for 6 months from aug - jan so my family have a really good idea what it would be like i have also learnt my children my survival skills and tactics i think my view is more darker about the future than most but i don't live in a colourfull world now let a lone when the shtf
RE: Chances - bigpaul - 29 October 2011
post SHTF you will need something solid to live in, for protection from the weather and protection from others, a basha or tent will not give you that protection, even a shed or barn would be better than canvas.
RE: Chances - JD1 - 29 October 2011
Ray Mears might manage ok but for the rest of us mere mortals we would struggle to survive winters like the last 2 on our own let alone having to look after family as well.
I expect some of the very experienced bushcrafters could manage on their own with no dependants but it would still be a struggle to find food let alone survive the snow and - 20 temps. One of the biggest problems would be keeping warm and dry, it's fine having a nice campfire to cook over and keep warm when you're out with your mates for the weekend, if you cant have a fire due to security issues you would be screwed
As a last resort with no other option I would try it but I wouldn't fancy my (or my families) chances
RE: Chances - bigpaul - 29 October 2011
i agree, i think i could manage it but i dont think OH or S-I-L would servive.
RE: Chances - Skean Dhude - 29 October 2011
OH ?
S-I-L ?
RE: Chances - bigpaul - 29 October 2011
(29 October 2011, 16:37)Skean Dhude Wrote: OH ?
S-I-L ?
oh come on
OH: other half/wife, S I L sister in law ????
RE: Chances - Skean Dhude - 29 October 2011
Ta. OH means something different to me and S-I-L is new.
RE: Chances - bigpaul - 30 October 2011
i saw on another site someone used B I L for brother in law so i just changed the S for sister in law( who is a complete waste of space anyway-when TSHTF she thinks she will share everything with her neighbours and they will share with her-boy, is she in for a shock?)
RE: Chances - cryingfreeman - 30 October 2011
In my view, bushcraft a la Ray Mears is not about long-term grid-down survival, but rather it's about staying alive long enough in a wilderness crisis situation to eventually makes one's way back to civilisation. Naturally, if one is even half as adept at it as RM is, then that's bound to be a major plus in a hardcore widespread crisis. But you'd also need to be very fit and in good mental health as well to be able to effectively apply bushcraft knowledge over even a fairly short period (say, 10 days or so) as you make your way out of the wilds.
The whole idea of bugging out to a rural retreat is fraught with manifold pitfalls. Assuming you have a hidden, well-stocked retreat in the first instance, you'll need roads to be open (unless it's close enough to hike to) and petrol stations to be functioning (imagine trying to flee to Wales from London), so right away you'd need to have a head start on the masses, i.e. you see what's unfolding and move before the panic kicks in. So in turn, you would need a profoundly clear understanding of what constitutes your bug out trigger rationale.
Naturally, that train of thought leads to the conclusion that one should already be living at one's retreat at all times. This is the Rawlesian or mainstream American survivalist position. That in turn demands a firm stance on where a retreat should be located and what it should actually consist of. This is where I diverge from the mainstream view; to me, the whole idea of an isolated retreat is very, very dangerous and grounded in an idealised concept of how people will react post SHTF. I argue instead that survival depends on community. Why?
Isolated retreats require disciplined, armed manpower in a grid-down emergency. But:
(a) In the best of times, friends or family staying with you under one roof can be very stressful and lead to petty arguments. How much more so in the stress-filled wake of deep event? Women getting bitchy with each other, children getting restless / bored...
(b) Let's say everyone is well drilled and has some military training. The emergency drags on. Libidos get twitchy. Your young men start to think about other things.
© How many of your group might think it's okay to turn up with x untrained friends / family to drain your supplies?
(d) If someone does lay siege - let's say, some ex special force chaps roaming the remote landscapes looking for just your kind of setup - how long do you think even a well organised and equipped group can last?
(e) With the best will in the world, you can't avoid somebody in your group revealing some part of your preps in the present time, only for word of it to eventually make its way to someone like the kind of chaps described in (d).
(f) If you live there now in your remote retreat - let's say north of the Great Glen in Scotland (which I regard as the best Rawlesian locale in western Europe for reasons I can mention some other time) - can you still make a living to pay the bills in the present? Can you be sure your group members will be able to get to you on time in the event of imminent grid-down? What if you are living there now and you slip and fall outside in a blizzard, breaking a leg / arm / whatever... Imagine it's -20C, 3 am, all roads are closed and all rescue helicopters are grounded. Well done, you've just "Rawlesed" yourself into a nightmare survival scenario.
That's why I personally believe a rural settlement within a tank full of fuel's drive from a hospital is the best bet for now. A settlement gives everyone their own private domestic space and thus avoids the caged animals syndrome of a manned, isolated retreat. It pools key skill sets (if there is a doctor, a nurse, vet, etc) and provides manpower for defence on a basis less likely to wear everyone out. By no means does it guarantee total security, but it's a more formidable challenge for raiders.