colony

[Barneyboy]

(17 April 2012, 19:24)The Local Ned Wrote: People talk.

One thing you can be really ,really sure of.
Either under intimidation , or casually - and to , unfortunately , the wrong person.

Any location preppers choose and congregate in , will immediately become a target for the larger 'scavenger' groups nearby.
Unless it is very very remote - it will be common knowledge and will become a target.
The locals will remember that there were a lot of people who looked kinda switched on , either heading for , or already living in - said location.



that is why we must make decisions now and organise in mass if we meet a unorganised group of people rabble will be no match for us as for the tents idea just for the start not long term.

The 'colony' will face many problems - population being the chiefmost.
Skill-mix being the next.

Even if both are correctly addressed ,it still leaves the colony vulnerable to outsiders who will only see 'us and them' , 'haves and have-nots'....'hunter and prey'.
Any location that lends itself to - defence , food , shelter - will more than likely already have been sussed by the leaders of these scavenger groups as time progresses.

I do not think that a colony would be the safest option.....I think a more scattered , but local to each other , series of 'prepper posts' is a more logical choice , to any wanderers it will look like isolated survivors ( instead of organised preppers ) , to any aggressor - they face having to simulataneously attack and hold multiple posts , instead of a larger attack on a single colony which , if it falls , takes everyone with it.

Single 'posts' , all knowing their 3 or 4 nearest 'prepper' neighbours , in contact with and sharing resources and information....any individual 'post' being hit should be noticed by some of their neighbours as radio comms go down , some form of visual sign ( beacon ? ) to let others know trouble is coming and try to organise or flee.

Islands - depending on size and location - inshore or offshore ?? - are generally a closed habitat and have a finite amount of resources/land to exploit.

Offshore = Location itself will be safer and more secure , but more vulnerable in regards to land , wildlife being misused. If resources fail then the constant trips to the mainland are a potential security risk.

Inshore = Location will be safe also, but less secure.
More vulnerable to observation unless really remote. Will also be vulnerable in regards local resources.

Perhaps the ideal setup would be a ring of prepper 'posts' all trying to be self sufficient , but linked to a safer,more secure 'Hub' such as an island stronghold to move to when things go bad ?

To be brutally honest my own opinion is that if we bunker down in or near a larger urban area , sooner rather than later we will fall to stronger groups.

If we remain static, even when prepared - I think we will die by aggressors.
If we go mobile once the police force fails , and then leave the contended areas - I think we may live slightly longer.

Those already in their chosen 'safe' place will have decided so, as it offers them their objectives , safety/shelter/supplies.
Those not in their safe place...should have their routes mapped , supplies 'cached' if possible , and an objective to move to that does offer them the 3 magic S's.

I believe that only the remotest areas will be safe...one whiff of smoke that is spotted from miles away is all it takes to compromise you.

Inshore ? find and sabotage any or all means of reaching your island that can be found nearby , or take control of them , narrow the possibilities down that you can be reached easily.

Offshore ? All likely landing points should be continually observed with some form of traps being fixed in position at low tide if possible.

Debate please.

Is a colony a wise idea ?
The more there is to gain , the more attractive a target will become.
The greater the gains , the greater the dangers involved.