Military Training..

[bigpaul]

all this talk of squaddies shooting civilians! post SHTF there wont be enough left of the British Army to even guard the barracks, numbers are being run down all the time, soon be less than 82,000 even if the soldiers are armed and civilians are not, 82,000 against 65 million are long odds and the soldiers would be overwhelmed by sheer weight of numbers!

[NorthernRaider]

(28 February 2013, 14:00)Skean Dhude Wrote: Military training will be handy for the first few years, there is no doubt however it isn't the be all and end all. Being a farmer, blacksmith, etc. will be more important after the initial few years.

I think a hybrid will be required, something along the lines of the 17 / 18 th century American / French / Canadian militias that lived in the Americas. Basically traditional skilled craftsman such as farmers, Smiths, Wrights etc but still well trained as Militia. Specialisation is for insects its going to be the multi crafted who survive AND thrive.
Somrthing akin to I think they were called Hanoverians who homesteaded but also trained to a high standard. In those coming times the days of our children getting into trouble for carrying a knife, touching dads gun and staying out late will be turned around ( rightly) 180 degrees.

And of course keeping some computer geeks, social workers, etc as beasts of burdon will be advantagous

[Scythe13]

(28 February 2013, 14:16)NorthernRaider Wrote:

(28 February 2013, 14:00)Skean Dhude Wrote: Military training will be handy for the first few years, there is no doubt however it isn't the be all and end all. Being a farmer, blacksmith, etc. will be more important after the initial few years.

I think a hybrid will be required, something along the lines of the 17 / 18 th century American / French / Canadian militias that lived in the Americas. Basically traditional skilled craftsman such as farmers, Smiths, Wrights etc but still well trained as Militia. Specialisation is for insects its going to be the multi crafted who survive AND thrive.
Somrthing akin to I think they were called Hanoverians who homesteaded but also trained to a high standard.

This is a VERY good argument for community groupings. It makes every bit of sense to work in a team, as it would take a lifetime to learn ALL the skills to survive and thrive, for one person, or it would take 10 people a few years each to learn them all, as a collective.

[bigpaul]

its all about degrees of scale, sure a lot of people can do more work and produce more but then more people are going to require more stuff anyway, a small group or even a single person cannot do as much stuff but they dont need as much stuff in the first place!like I and OH cannot do as much work as say 10 people but then we are only going to need 20% as much as those 10 people!

[Scythe13]

(28 February 2013, 14:41)bigpaul Wrote: its all about degrees of scale, sure a lot of people can do more work and produce more but then more people are going to require more stuff anyway, a small group or even a single person cannot do as much stuff but they dont need as much stuff in the first place!like I and OH cannot do as much work as say 10 people but then we are only going to need 20% as much as those 10 people!

The foundation of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations shows the capability of specialisation of individuals.

He basically shows that a group of people can create more pencils with each person specialising, than the whole group combined doing the whole process individually. The difference was very significant. In regard to what you're on about, I agree, you'd only need 20% the amount, but having said that, with each person specialising, you'd produce well in excess of what you needed. Instead of having 100% of need-production, specialisation results in 120% (or there abouts) of need-production. It causes an excess!!! Happy days for the group. That means, after 5 lots of production, everyone gets a day off haha.

[bigpaul]

yeah but having an excess got us into the problems the world is having now, we are buying all the excess food of the world and importing it, cos its cheaper, instead of growing it ourselves and being self sufficient.

[Scythe13]

(28 February 2013, 15:29)bigpaul Wrote: yeah but having an excess got us into the problems the world is having now, we are buying all the excess food of the world and importing it, cos its cheaper, instead of growing it ourselves and being self sufficient.

As usual, I'm confused. Sorry BP.

I didn't think the world had excess food. I thought that 50% of production was rejected/wasted, either during travel to the processing, or from being out of date or below quality standards. I remember hearing about it a few weeks ago on Radio4 (no, I'm not over 50 years old, I just prefer to be educated instead of amused).

Having an excess in production, post SHTF can't be a bad thing, unless you're producing babies or poo, can it? Food excess is ideal and is how we store stuff in our cupboards.

[bigpaul]

(28 February 2013, 15:43)Scythe13 Wrote: Having an excess in production, post SHTF can't be a bad thing, unless you're producing babies or poo, can it? Food excess is ideal and is how we store stuff in our cupboards.

yes, up to a point, but post SHTF any excess might just go to waste if you cant use it (sensibly), preserve it or sell it, if you cant do any of these then its just surplus to requirements. there is no point in "manufacturing" more than you actually need.

[Scythe13]

(28 February 2013, 15:55)bigpaul Wrote:

(28 February 2013, 15:43)Scythe13 Wrote: Having an excess in production, post SHTF can't be a bad thing, unless you're producing babies or poo, can it? Food excess is ideal and is how we store stuff in our cupboards.

yes, up to a point, but post SHTF any excess might just go to waste if you cant use it (sensibly), preserve it or sell it, if you cant do any of these then its just surplus to requirements. there is no point in "manufacturing" more than you actually need.

That's where I'd tend to, respectfully, disagree.

Excess is good for those 'just in case' situations. Yes the excess that couldn't be kept would be wasted. But you could use it to barter (I know you love that word), but also for allowing new members to join your group (I know you hate that word) and be fed and looked after, while they're adjusting to the group.

I'd rather produce food for 15 people have have a group of only 10 people, than have a group of 10 and produce enough for 10. If one or MaryN's scenario's people came along, we could accomodate more of them, and possibly, in return use their skills to produce even more and thus allow the group to become 20 people and produce ample food for 26 people. That way, there's always a contingency. Whether loss from fire, thief, rodent, or whatever, there will be a back-up.

---

Once again, I do say this from the eyes of an eternal optimist.

[Tibbs735]

(28 February 2013, 14:02)bigpaul Wrote: all this talk of squaddies shooting civilians! post SHTF there wont be enough left of the British Army to even guard the barracks, numbers are being run down all the time, soon be less than 82,000 even if the soldiers are armed and civilians are not, 82,000 against 65 million are long odds and the soldiers would be overwhelmed by sheer weight of numbers!

I think a group of soldiers being ordered around by some emergency official would quickly realize, especially if they had some officers or nco's with common sense, that they hold all the cards, and would promptly gtfo with some useful civvies, leaving the emergency official to deal with the mob!