Time for AU and AG

[Timelord]

I much agree with all in your post!. I am not a pacifist dreamer and not much different from yourself in views. I was just theorising on mid to long term PSHTF scenarios. Yes it went a bit off the original thread. Probably because I see Au & Ag as being only any use in a PSHTF world and then personally I would not rate them much. I think you are more likely to bring trouble down on yourself having that type of wealth about you. A subsistance economy - however sparse that is - does not have much use for silver & gold, Those with the precious metals may find themselves lynched for trying to reintroduce old corrupted values. People will be far too busy & concerned with just surviving through the seasons to worry about stockpiling precious metals. We live in a world of stuff and much of it will be available to adapt as we need. In fact there will be such an oversupply of material objects for quite a while, that money/gold/silver etc will have no real value in exchange for it. The only way precious metals will be any use is if there is only a partial collapse and our present ideology survives. The big boys are buying up precious metals & commodities as a way to get their wealth out of paper and into tangible assets. landbanking is another one of those. They have so much of the paper stuff that they have no real alternatives. They are also gambling on only a wobble or at worst a partial collapse. Anything more and it will only be worth the memories of those that are still around and then again thay will have far more important things to think about by then. In this case it would be quite a long while before a commodity exchange system would be feasible again. regards, TL.

[bigpaul]

again, we have this great assumption that somehow we will have a functioning army to rely on! all very well, if its a small blip..maybe things a bit worse maybe for 2 or 3 months then its back to "business as usual"..no arguement there. but what is this is "the big one" everything goes t1ts up and NOTHING is ever the same again, the government either is non existent or has no control over anything outside London, everywhere else its every man, woman and child for themselves. no money is being printed, gold and silver are worthless, do you really think the ordinary squaddie is going to turn up for work as usual, no they will be at home looking after OH's and kids, if there is a big die off...some kind of pandemic....soldiers are not immune from the effects of something like that and their numbers would be as reduced as the civilian population is,and in that case they will be in the same mess as the general population.

[NorthernRaider]

An army of only 82,000 men could not even control the home counties never mind that many of them are overseas. Be honest 32,000 Police could not stop a few hundred chavs from rioting in London last summer.

[bigpaul]

(18 May 2012, 11:11)NorthernRaider Wrote: An army of only 82,000 men could not even control the home counties never mind that many of them are overseas. Be honest 32,000 Police could not stop a few hundred chavs from rioting in London last summer.

that was my point NR, plus the current and previous governments were amalgamating regiments and laying off squaddies left right and centre, within a few short years we wont have enough armed forces to even defend this small island never mind fight a major war!

[NorthernRaider]

And soon the control of our forces is likely to be passed over to the EU.

[bigpaul]

(18 May 2012, 11:18)NorthernRaider Wrote: And soon the control of our forces is likely to be passed over to the EU.

maybe, the way the "european project" is going i wouldnt be surprised to see the whole thing implode within 6 months!!especially as now a lot of european countries have elected SOCIALIST governments and dont want to carry on with the austerity measures and want to spend,spend,spend!!

[The Local Ned]

1. I don't think I said a fully functional army ?
I said any functional parts (which might remain).

2. The 'ordinary' squaddy is typically a young single man.
He has NO dependents or OH.

3. 'Squaddies' don't turn up for work , if they are single soldiers ,with no dependents ,then they will live in their lines at the barracks.

They cant just up sticks and walk in and out at their leisure.

Thats why we have guardrooms , they control access in AND out.

If they are married ,then they will live in quarters within the garrison itself , which is under the control of a families officer, not the local council , and is once again monitored by the various units.

4. Why leave a possibly still functional group with experience , equipment and the capability to survive - to chance it solo ?

Risking a bullet in the head for desertion ?
Leaving your muckers in the shit ?
-It wont happen...you arent going to leave the same set of blokes that watched your back in afghan ,just to head for the hills on your jack jones.

By even stating things like 'squaddies turning up for work' gives an indication that there is a lack of knowledge on here regarding the way the army operates...it isn't a 9 to 5.
To a single soldier living in camp - his lifestyle can be compared with that of a guest of HM prisons...he has limited choices over what he can or cant do.
You swear an path of allegiance - and the army can do whatever they like , when they like , for as long as they like , with you , especially if martial law is declared.

Granted NR - the numbers in the forces are diminishing rapidly , but I am not suggesting that the army that will be left will have the capability to restore order nationally....perhaps in certain areas yes , but nationally - no.
You know as well as I do how the army will react - it will grab and hold key areas , with force if necessary....they arent going to walk away from weapon stores.
Looters will be shot

[bigpaul]

I think i said in an earlier post that i dont think the govt (and therefore the army under their control) will be able to control more than London and that other parts of the country further away from london will be left to their own devices. if "squaddies" will remain on camp and not be allowed to leave, either being shot for desertion or locked up in the guardhouse, i dont see the point of the post regarding a part functioning army? as NR said with numbers as low as they are they would be hard pressed to control the home counties much less the rest of the country, so therefore i do not see this having anything to do with the rest of us who do not live anywhere near any army camps.

[The Local Ned]

I was only replying in regards to the points raised in your own reply , I will say again that the army (in its entirety) may not be fully functional , but that there will be some form of order retained in or around those areas that they are functioning in.

The other point regarding soldiers remaining in-camp was in reply to your idea that they wouldn't 'turn up for work' when a national emergency hits us.
They don't have to 'turn up' , they won't have left in the first place as they are based in-camp , they seldom leave their barracks in any numbers otherwise....and if the authorities somehow manage to be switched on enough to realise the imminent SHTF ,then all leave will be cancelled and soldiers confined to barracks as a precautionary move.

You miss the point here regarding overall troop numbers , some may go AWoL , most will stay put , allowing their units to operate as required unless we are talking about TEOTWAWKI , and not a breakdown of social order caused by rising tensions.

I dont think they will be tasked to pacify major population centres , only tasked to safeguard essential infrastructures , transport hubs , hospitals etc.

Just my humble opinion.

[bigpaul]

(19 May 2012, 17:29)The Local Ned Wrote: I was only replying in regards to the points raised in your own reply , I will say again that the army (in its entirety) may not be fully functional , but that there will be some form of order retained in or around those areas that they are functioning in.

The other point regarding soldiers remaining in-camp was in reply to your idea that they wouldn't 'turn up for work' when a national emergency hits us.
They don't have to 'turn up' , they won't have left in the first place as they are based in-camp , they seldom leave their barracks in any numbers otherwise....and if the authorities somehow manage to be switched on enough to realise the imminent SHTF ,then all leave will be cancelled and soldiers confined to barracks as a precautionary move.

You miss the point here regarding overall troop numbers , some may go AWoL , most will stay put , allowing their units to operate as required unless we are talking about TEOTWAWKI , and not a breakdown of social order caused by rising tensions.

I dont think they will be tasked to pacify major population centres , only tasked to safeguard essential infrastructures , transport hubs , hospitals etc.

Just my humble opinion.

OK, i think i see your point, but i was thinking along the lines that in a large event even single soldiers-as in unmarried ones-would still want to go home and make sure their families(parents, brothers, sisters) and even girlfriends are OK and taken care of, thats what i meant by not turning up for work, also if its an economical breakdown i wouldnt have thought they would have hung around if their not being paid! not being or ever having been in the services i am going on pure conjecture here, we dont have any Army camps near here, i think the Royal Marines are based at Chivenor the other side of Barnstaple, there used to be a big camp near Taunton not sure if its still there as the area is being redeveloped, i was trying to put over my thoughts that i dont think there are enough soldiers and police combined to take over the entire country in some sort of martial law, i would assume that as the MP's power base is in and around London that they would want most if not all of the Army near them so that they can have protection to carry on with whatever they are doing, leaving the rest of the country unprotected or unmolested...whichever is your view.