Colony

[IB1]

Well I'm screwed then, at the moment our place is about 25 feet above sea level and in a few weeks time we will be about 10 feet above sea level

We all place different priorities on the various threats and poleshift is pretty low on my list, thats not to say i'm right and you are wrong, just that we all have different perceptions of the most likely threat. For me a lack of food caused by any number of threats is my biggest concern which is why I favour the coastline

Will still be looking at boats though so I will give you a wave as I float past, just don't shoot a bleeding hole in it

[NorthernRaider]

(13 September 2012, 05:30)IB1 Wrote: Well I'm screwed then, at the moment our place is about 25 feet above sea level and in a few weeks time we will be about 10 feet above sea level

We all place different priorities on the various threats and poleshift is pretty low on my list, thats not to say i'm right and you are wrong, just that we all have different perceptions of the most likely threat. For me a lack of food caused by any number of threats is my biggest concern which is why I favour the coastline

Will still be looking at boats though so I will give you a wave as I float past, just don't shoot a bleeding hole in it

Naa we only shoot sheeple and socialists, preppers would be rescued, brought ashore and included ..in .....our ...... collective..... rresistance .....is..... futile.

[Lightspeed]

(23 April 2012, 17:55)The Local Ned Wrote:

(23 April 2012, 17:35)Reaper_of_sorrow Wrote: Do we then asume that EVERY unprepared person who comes to us is a threat?

YES - UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE , REGULAR PATROLS WITH STRICT RULES OF ENGAGEMENT CAN 'VET' THESE PEOPLE BEFORE THEY GET NEAR US.

if we turned everyone away then we would very quickly create enemies and then we would have a a hoarde/mob of hungry and hopeless people attacking us for the resouces we have so maticulously planned, Then its all over, We would need o be in a position where we could build a further community around what we have put together.

THE PATROLS STANDING ORDERS WOULD BE TO 'USHER' PEOPLE IN CERTAIN DIRECTIONS , IF DONE CORRECTLY , NOBODY WOULD WANT TO COME BACK NEAR US.

Give people who are hopeless something to hold on to and something worth defending and the group of 10-15 people would be in he shit very quickly, At he begining of the afghanistan conflict brittish and american troops went into communities no bigger than what we are talking about and got torn apart, with all the UAVs and a supply chin longer than we could ever invision and they were (and in some places still are) getting pushed back by a community mallitia.

OUR ARMED FORCES ARE IN THAT CONFLICT YET AGAIN WITH THEIR HANDS TIED BEHIND THEIR BACKS.
AS THEY WERE IN ULSTER TOO - THE TROOPS ON THE GROUND COULD PROBABLY END THE CONFLICT WITHIN THE WEEK IF GIVEN THE GREEN LIGHT TO HIT ALL SUSPECTS , TOO MUCH POLITICAL INTERFERENCE ENSURES THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
DO NOT BE FOOLED INTO THINKING THAT THESE SMALL COMMUNITIES ARE 'TEARING APART' SOME OF THE BEST FIGHTING MEN AND WOMAN ON THE PLANET , TROOPS HAVE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT -THE 'LOCALS' DONT.

The thought that we should fear a few rough arses who think that tere version of perparing is to stockpile weapons and come and muscle what they want from people i believe is wrong and I think this dsscussion should be more of dealing with the refugees from the urban areas who are desperate. I am not saying we put up a banner saying free food and shelter here we still maintain a low pofile but we try and incorperate those who stumble upon us seeking food.

SO WHEN THOSE REFUGEES , WHO HAVE FAILED TO INTEGRATE ,AND WHO YOU ARE HELPING TO SURVIVE - BETRAY US FOR BROWNIE POINTS TO AN AGGRESSOR GANG THAT ARE ARMED AND VERY DANGEROUS.
WHAT DO WE DO ?

Silly to think otherwise in my opinion.

There has to be some friction between the members of any colony , especially to newer incomers.
Any stragglers must be first vetted to see if they have any skills that we need , and if not - sent on their ( opposite ) way.

The colony will quickly become a refugee camp otherwise.

You are right TLN

There is a big need to invisibly manage access to the colony area.

It comes to mind that a declared Contamination Area would be a way to dissuade casual wandering away from pre-determined routes. These would also act as explanation for the disapperance of any folk who had informed others beforehand of their intention to forage in the area.

This would require a lot of land to be captured in the exclusion zone, and the larger the exclusion zone, the more people and more coordination it will take to control it.

---

(25 April 2012, 21:31)Skean Dhude Wrote: Anyone surviving long enough who is not doing so from raiding others must be at least worth speaking to in a safe environment.

Remember we are hiding here by default. We will only get caught out because we think things have settled down.

Therein lies the problem with greeting strangers who wander in SD

From the person wandering in's perspective they will rapidly work out that the colony is self sufficient and not a raider group. Automatically the Colony will be less of a threat to them

From the Colony's point of view, the person(s) wandering in have a high probability of having survived through raiding. Some may be genuine preppers who have survived on their own resources that have now dried up.... but how to tell one from the other?.......and does the Colony want to risk letting rogue elements anywhere near?

[Skean Dhude]

(13 September 2012, 09:16)Lightspeed Wrote:

(23 April 2012, 17:55)The Local Ned Wrote:

(23 April 2012, 17:35)Reaper_of_sorrow Wrote: Do we then asume that EVERY unprepared person who comes to us is a threat?

YES - UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE , REGULAR PATROLS WITH STRICT RULES OF ENGAGEMENT CAN 'VET' THESE PEOPLE BEFORE THEY GET NEAR US.

if we turned everyone away then we would very quickly create enemies and then we would have a a hoarde/mob of hungry and hopeless people attacking us for the resouces we have so maticulously planned, Then its all over, We would need o be in a position where we could build a further community around what we have put together.

THE PATROLS STANDING ORDERS WOULD BE TO 'USHER' PEOPLE IN CERTAIN DIRECTIONS , IF DONE CORRECTLY , NOBODY WOULD WANT TO COME BACK NEAR US.

Give people who are hopeless something to hold on to and something worth defending and the group of 10-15 people would be in he shit very quickly, At he begining of the afghanistan conflict brittish and american troops went into communities no bigger than what we are talking about and got torn apart, with all the UAVs and a supply chin longer than we could ever invision and they were (and in some places still are) getting pushed back by a community mallitia.

OUR ARMED FORCES ARE IN THAT CONFLICT YET AGAIN WITH THEIR HANDS TIED BEHIND THEIR BACKS.
AS THEY WERE IN ULSTER TOO - THE TROOPS ON THE GROUND COULD PROBABLY END THE CONFLICT WITHIN THE WEEK IF GIVEN THE GREEN LIGHT TO HIT ALL SUSPECTS , TOO MUCH POLITICAL INTERFERENCE ENSURES THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
DO NOT BE FOOLED INTO THINKING THAT THESE SMALL COMMUNITIES ARE 'TEARING APART' SOME OF THE BEST FIGHTING MEN AND WOMAN ON THE PLANET , TROOPS HAVE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT -THE 'LOCALS' DONT.

The thought that we should fear a few rough arses who think that tere version of perparing is to stockpile weapons and come and muscle what they want from people i believe is wrong and I think this dsscussion should be more of dealing with the refugees from the urban areas who are desperate. I am not saying we put up a banner saying free food and shelter here we still maintain a low pofile but we try and incorperate those who stumble upon us seeking food.

SO WHEN THOSE REFUGEES , WHO HAVE FAILED TO INTEGRATE ,AND WHO YOU ARE HELPING TO SURVIVE - BETRAY US FOR BROWNIE POINTS TO AN AGGRESSOR GANG THAT ARE ARMED AND VERY DANGEROUS.
WHAT DO WE DO ?

Silly to think otherwise in my opinion.

There has to be some friction between the members of any colony , especially to newer incomers.
Any stragglers must be first vetted to see if they have any skills that we need , and if not - sent on their ( opposite ) way.

The colony will quickly become a refugee camp otherwise.

You are right TLN

There is a big need to invisibly manage access to the colony area.

It comes to mind that a declared Contamination Area would be a way to dissuade casual wandering away from pre-determined routes. These would also act as explanation for the disapperance of any folk who had informed others beforehand of their intention to forage in the area.

This would require a lot of land to be captured in the exclusion zone, and the larger the exclusion zone, the more people and more coordination it will take to control it.

---

(25 April 2012, 21:31)Skean Dhude Wrote: Anyone surviving long enough who is not doing so from raiding others must be at least worth speaking to in a safe environment.

Remember we are hiding here by default. We will only get caught out because we think things have settled down.

Therein lies the problem with greeting strangers who wander in SD

From the person wandering in's perspective they will rapidly work out that the colony is self sufficient and not a raider group. Automatically the Colony will be less of a threat to them

From the Colony's point of view, the person(s) wandering in have a high probability of having survived through raiding. Some may be genuine preppers who have survived on their own resources that have now dried up.... but how to tell one from the other?.......and does the Colony want to risk letting rogue elements anywhere near?

OK. From the top.

We have no obligation to take in anyone.
We have a moral obligation to help where it generates no risk to ourselves
We should help where possible imo

Raiders will be easy to id from preppers, simply ask then for details on how they survived. Raiders will be less inclined to answer for a srart.

My view is that you would evaluate people before they are near the camp. stop them and question further those that you may want to encourage and let the others go by. If they approach the place and see where you are then it becomes a bit more tricky. You may not want them to leave, yet you don't want them to come in either.

You cannot afford for any force to put you under seige. You will not survive.

[bigpaul]

i prefer the low key, total isolation principle, which is easy to do in my area as we have a low population "out in the sticks" and after a major "fall" numbers will be less anyway, i will be staying away from any populated areas and not inviting visitors, anyone who gets too near my camp/retreat/bol will be "taken out" quietly and quickly

[Tibbs735]

You need a clear idea of whats going on in the surrounding area, which can be achieved by patrols and observation points. Then that way, you can intercept and ambush intruders before they get close. For all they know, you are just bandits, they haven't seen your house yet, if you have been observing noise discipline, cooking at night, nothing stupid etc.
Maybe try not to garden in the first 2 years as well, just save seeds and prepare the soil. Having neat rows of crops out in the open is suicide.
Once you have ambushed them, find out where they are headed, what they are doing etc. Just send them back the way they came. Obviously just wipe them out if they are bandits. You'd probably get good at recognizing the type; mainly young men and teenagers, lean and hungry with no moral restraint.
I wouldn't want to take anyone in. You need to form a group and get to know each member before the time comes. How could you trust new people? What if they had a disease like HIV or fleas or typhus etc.

[bigpaul]

or the plague? bird flu? swine flu? better to be alone and rely on no one than be in a group of people you dont or cant trust ( i would rather go "lone wolf" than not be able to sleep cos i dont trust anyone enough not to stab me while i sleep)

[Jan]

Have a look at the following site: http://www.floodmap.net

[Destiny]

we my house is about 699 feet above sea level and is about 56 miles to the nearest beach/coastline so I should be safe

[Barneyboy]

(13 September 2012, 08:50)NorthernRaider Wrote:

(13 September 2012, 05:30)IB1 Wrote: Well I'm screwed then, at the moment our place is about 25 feet above sea level and in a few weeks time we will be about 10 feet above sea level

We all place different priorities on the various threats and poleshift is pretty low on my list, thats not to say i'm right and you are wrong, just that we all have different perceptions of the most likely threat. For me a lack of food caused by any number of threats is my biggest concern which is why I favour the coastline

Will still be looking at boats though so I will give you a wave as I float past, just don't shoot a bleeding hole in it

Naa we only shoot sheeple and socialists, preppers would be rescued, brought ashore and included ..in .....our ...... collective..... rresistance .....is..... futile.

how about socialists preppers NR pal