Thoughts on WROL and engaging 'targets'

[NorthernRaider]

I'm a survivalist not a soldier, I WAS a soldier but and now 100% civilian, I will also choose avoiding conflict and withdrawing where possible ( But attacking with massive sudden mericless force if I absolutely have to), I cannot afford any of my group taking gunshot wounds, esp with limited and declining medical support. Theres no combat medics to save me, no choppers to casevac me. I will always give ground unless I have no other alternative. But if I'm reluctantly forced to fight it will be full on and they wont get chance to try again. You wont find anything Ramboish in my group.

[Mandlaka]

There will be NO medical facilities or help as NR has stated and the best thing would certainly be to lay low. Even if you are stocked up to the rafters with ammo, it will one day run out...
As for stores, those will certainly go too.
I do understand your argument but it is based on what life is like now and on the basic morality we all share and uphold.
But when the TSHTF, all that morality and way of life will be gone - at least for a while. Come that time, you will have to become a lot more ruthless if you and your family or group are to survive. As I said earlier, I do not like the answer from NR but it is based solidly on that time and in consideration of the fact that there will be too many negative factors at play, any of which could spell disaster for a prepper and their group.

All that having been said, every prepper who is faced with such a situation will have to stain their moral code in order to protect their own from the sheeple, the wolves and disease among others.

Sadly, there will be plenty of sheeple and the wolves that prey on them...among that nasty lot will lurk the rambo-ish ones. Those would certainly need taking out and quickly.

Best of luck to us all.

[bigpaul]

as for ammo one day running out, true, thats why some of us have bows and arrows too.

[Lightspeed]

Scythe13
quote: Clearly there are no right or wrong answers. Merely opinion and thought. However, as preppers, people that are ready for this occurrence, do we not have a moral obligation to protect the weak of society?

Thats a dilema. Maybe as a prepper this moral position is sustainable, but if you are prepping to survive and are primarily a survivalist, there is little room for protection of the weak in society, unless there is a tangible survival benefit for doing so.

Well that's how I see it anyway.

[NorthernRaider]

Put it this way if you decide to play rambo and get shot who is going to care for your wife and kids??, firefights must always be the last resort, our role is to really try and outwait the sheeple until they starve to death, not to go fighting them.

And I dont care how good you think you are with a gun or bow, theres always someone better.... or just luckier.

Tactical skills, SERE, five S's, cam and conceal, movement etc are all good skills we should try and learn, to try and keep us OUT of trouble not to go looking for it.

I may try saving a few folks with specialist skills like doctor, blacksmith, mech eng etc, but only if the investment is likely to improve my groups long term chances of survival.

[Tibbs735]

One cuban guy (Ex recon sniper) I follow on Youtube regularly talks about 90 days; it's how long he plans to stay hidden as most of the threats die off in a full blown break down. Beyond then you will msot likely be left with communities trying to survive, ruthless bands of young men (preying off the more vunderable communities) and various people bluring the 2 groups.
You need to think about moral boundaries now, so that when the time comes you can make a split second decision without hesitation.
You could probably tell quite a lot just from appearances. It's unlikely that a haggard, tired looking group of refugees are preppers, or anything other than scavengers who are a danger.

[Scythe13]

I still see this as a moral dilemma. At the same time, it's also a survival situation, and the 2 are often conflicting issues.

It's given me lots to think about.

Don't think I'll be opening my doors!

[Lightspeed]

(7 November 2012, 11:55)Scythe13 Wrote: I still see this as a moral dilemma. At the same time, it's also a survival situation, and the 2 are often conflicting issues.

It's given me lots to think about.

Don't think I'll be opening my doors!

Right decision mate

[Prepper1]

My idea is to observe people from a remote point.
If they are just walking by or having a shufty then fine i'd remain hidden for opsec.
I think were all capable of telling the difference between indifferent people just wandering about and people intent on harm as they have a presence of malice or intent about them, maybe the way they walk etc.
If a child came running up to me with a machete post shtf and was intent on doing me or mine harm they'd cop for it kid or not.
If surprised by somebody, again instant decide friend or foe and respond accordingly.

[NorthernRaider]

(7 November 2012, 11:52)Tibbs735 Wrote: One cuban guy (Ex recon sniper) I follow on Youtube regularly talks about 90 days; it's how long he plans to stay hidden as most of the threats die off in a full blown break down. Beyond then you will msot likely be left with communities trying to survive, ruthless bands of young men (preying off the more vunderable communities) and various people bluring the 2 groups.

Yes the newish fictional novel A DISTANT EDEN by Lloyd Tackett adresses this in great well thought out depth.

---

(7 November 2012, 11:55)Scythe13 Wrote: I still see this as a moral dilemma. At the same time, it's also a survival situation, and the 2 are often conflicting issues.

Not when it comes to protecting my wife and son it doesnt, its 100% crystal clear, and the more women and children that end up in my group the more absolute I become.