DOOM!

[Chad]

Deterrent for what? Did you open my link? Plenty of studies out there that say most evil doers quit at first sight of a gun, and most defensive uses involve simply brandishing, not shooting.

I did read it and it highlights the two scenarios I pointed out (Katrina or possibly a Detroit). The problem is that these are either short term situations (Katrina) or a situation with minimal value (Detroit). If the payoff is larger, a current example would be drugs, then the guns lose their deterrence. This loss of deterrence would probably also happen in an extreme situation, which is rather permanent like Syria or Afghanistan.

[Seneca]

I did read it and it highlights the two scenarios I pointed out (Katrina or possibly a Detroit). The problem is that these are either short term situations (Katrina) or a situation with minimal value (Detroit). If the payoff is larger, a current example would be drugs, then the guns lose their deterrence. This loss of deterrence would probably also happen in an extreme situation, which is rather permanent like Syria or Afghanistan.

But guns are almost ubiquitous for drug dealers and households in war torn areas right?

They also use one or two guys with guns to guard drug shipments in to areas like Katrina.

Guns are a tool, and preppers might overemphasize their powers a bit, especially if they don't train, but guns are a necessary tool if you have something other people really want. The more people want what you have, and/or the less social order there is, the more you need that gun.

[Chad]

I don't disagree they are tools and can be useful. They just aren't a very good answer for all of these problems.

[Seneca]

They just aren't a very good answer for all of these problems.

Nope, but a great tool to stimulate the politics forum.

[subgard]

It would not be that difficult to develop both mobility and the resources to hunker down if need be. The most important thing is probably knowing when to do which.

[jacob]

Well, you gotta look at which problem you're looking to solve. There's a big difference between a hurricane (a shelter), a war (being on the winning side), a pogrom (leaving), and an ecological disaster (finding the best spot).

[Chad]

They just aren't a very good answer for all of these problems.

Nope, but a great tool to stimulate the politics forum.

That's for sure. Especially, since I have actually been thinking about creating a similar post. I'm 98% done with Jim Rogers Street Smarts, which expands some of his previous macro investment theories.

[Chad]

Well, you gotta look at which problem you're looking to solve. There's a big difference between a hurricane (a shelter), a war (being on the winning side), a pogrom (leaving), and an ecological disaster (finding the best spot).

I must admit, I'm not sure why you would shelter for a Katrina level hurricane (lower levels are only minor disasters) and need to be on either side in a war (seems like the easiest and most advantageous strategy would be just leaving).

[jacob]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKqXu-5jw60

[Chad]

I'm fairly certain "duck and cover" for nuclear war is a futile exercise.

[jennypenny]

I learned a new word (pogrom).

@Chad, Seneca re:effect of individual gun ownership--I think the stand-off at that ranch in Nevada last weekend showed a different benefit to gun ownership. I agree that not much can be accomplished by an individual against more than a couple of intruders. Last weekend's display showed that a group can quickly assemble and fight off either an unwarranted use of force by authorities or assist local authorities in fighting off an outside aggressor.

Re: bugging in or out--It really depends. I agree with RJ that a homesteading lifestyle keeps you prepared to dig in without a lot of additional effort. Being prepared to bug out temporarily is also prudent and I would consider it just common sense and not really 'prepping.'

Beyond that, you have to decide what your skills are versus what threats you consider most likely.

The scariest situation I foresee is a slow (but not that slow) economic decline. How does one decide when their location is no longer viable when the situation changes at a pace almost too slow to detect? I also wonder about location choices if you think that's the most likely doomer scenario. My first instinct is to head to the mountain west or eastern oregon. OTOH, I wonder if staying in the heart of things, say between NYC and DC, you protect yourself from dwindling services and resources. If the US had touble sustaining itself, I wonder if the last remaining resources would be poured into DC and NYC to keep the government and banking industry afloat. Would services dwindle faster in places west of Chicago? Would states like Mississippi lose federal funding and services altogether? Would states in the mountain west have resources withheld until they complied with demands on energy resources in those states? I can foresee conflicts between federal and state/local officials in any area that produces food or energy.

I weigh those two sides--my ability to support myself on a homestead out west compared with continued access to other services, like banking and medical, in my area. Even holding onto a government job might guarantee a certain standard of living better than what we could provide for ourselves out in the woods somewhere. I'm not sure what the answer is. I suppose that's why I'm currently focused on homesteading in a suburb in the NE.

I don't prep for anything that would last beyond two years, or anything catastrophic (meteor, large nuclear incident). I'm also quick to come down on my prepper friends who talk about buying a gas mask or geiger counter when they don't own a decent fire extinguisher or first aid kit. I personally think that learning to be a sensible, capable person now will increase your chances of survival significantly no matter what happens or whether you bug in or out.

[jennypenny]

Bosnia, Katrina, Sudan, Rwanda, WWII, Iraq, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, Famine in East Africa.....

The people who succeeded, packed their bags and left. The people who failed and/or died, stayed behind. A common theme in all of those places was the individuals who stayed did so because they felt they had some sort of compound or property that provided them safety.

Building up an insulated, self-sufficient compound has two major flaws. The more invested a person becomes in the compound the less likely they are to do the one thing that will save them - abandon it. If a Chernobyl, Three Mile Island or Fukushima occurred at the Columbia Generating Station or at San Onofre, would the person with the backyard bunker with a year's supply of food and potassium iodide be more or less willing to abandon it than the person with minimal supplies and lots of flexibility?

The second flaw (I am NOT saying anyone here has it!) is more troubling. Those attracted to "compounds" have difficulty working together with others, perhaps the reason they move to compounds in the first place. In emergency situations it is often the softest skills that allow people to survive. People skills. The Vietnamese "boat people" who were able to work together with others, build a boat and float to the Philippines then somehow convince one of the many international organizations to sponsor them in a new country were the ones who not only survived, they thrived. A few years ago I got to witness the fate of those who helped the U.S. during the Vietnam war and stayed behind after. It was not pretty.

There is a delusion of self-sufficiency that was outlined in a study of Katrina survivors. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/162458.php Even after the fact, those who stayed behind and suffered believed themselves to be self-sufficient while those who left were rated as more self-sufficient by relief and emergency workers.

We are moving toward portable skills, increasing flexibility, learning to need less and practicing dealing with those who are different from us. Multiple passports may be the safest investment one could make.

I can't disagree with anything you said. I also have more of a bunker mentality because I'm terrible at forging and maintaining social bonds.

I just wonder if it's different in the US. People leaving the countries you listed had better places to try and get to. If the US suffers a dramatic decline, do you think there will be a new 'haven' to take it's place? Or will there only be pockets of habitable places and almost everywhere else will be in decline? (I apologize for how US-centric this sounds.)

If everyone fears planet-wide overpopulation, food shortages, and long-term weather-related problems, then where should we migrate to? (that's a serious question)

[Chad]

The scariest situation I foresee is a slow (but not that slow) economic decline. How does one decide when their location is no longer viable when the situation changes at a pace almost too slow to detect? I also wonder about location choices if you think that's the most likely doomer scenario. My first instinct is to head to the mountain west or eastern oregon. OTOH, I wonder if staying in the heart of things, say between NYC and DC, you protect yourself from dwindling services and resources. If the US had touble sustaining itself, I wonder if the last remaining resources would be poured into DC and NYC to keep the government and banking industry afloat. Would services dwindle faster in places west of Chicago? Would states like Mississippi lose federal funding and services altogether? Would states in the mountain west have resources withheld until they complied with demands on energy resources in those states? I can foresee conflicts between federal and state/local officials in any area that produces food or energy.

This is probably the most likely catastrophic event (I don't consider Katrina type event catastrophic for most of us for a number of reasons.). From my perspective, I would prefer to be able to move easily instead of trying to protect land/house that have dropped 30-50%. Of course, depressed areas could be good retirement places after they crash. This would depend on how deep the crash is.

I just wonder if it's different in the US. People leaving the countries you listed had better places to try and get to. If the US suffers a dramatic decline, do you think there will be a new 'haven' to take it's place? Or will there only be pockets of habitable places and almost everywhere else will be in decline? (I apologize for how US-centric this sounds.)

I do think there will always be a new haven. It could be an entire country or it could be specific cities. Being able to move easily means I can take advantage of that with less downside than if I owned a significant piece of property.

[Spartan_Warrior]

(OT, but wow! I hadn't even heard of that Nevada standoff--not once was it mentioned by Yahoo News, as far as I saw. I've been researching Nevada for a while now for a novel, and I'm wanting to move there more and more. )

[George the original one]

> Last weekend's display showed that a group can quickly assemble and fight off either an
> unwarranted use of force by authorities or assist local authorities in fighting off an outside aggressor.

I think the locals AND the contractors are lucky they don't live under a different government. The scenario might have gone considerably differently.

[UrbanHermit]

Yes! During WW2 you would have been better staying put in America than moving to most of the rest of the developed world.

That's because the disaster wasn't in America, it was in Europe. Staying put is also a great strategy for surviving a forest fire-- when the fire is in another state.

Bosnia, Katrina, Sudan, Rwanda, WWII, Iraq, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, Famine in East Africa..... The people who succeeded, packed their bags and left. The people who failed and/or died, stayed behind.

+1. My grandfather's family got the hell out of russia in the early 1920s, leaving the bulk of their wealth (land) behind. They had the better part of a century to observe the wisdom of that choice.

I've also had long conversations on this point with Lebanese and Argentinian colleagues who got out of their respective countries in time to observe the meltdown from the comfort of their high paid engineering careers. Try suggesting to either of them they would have been better off with a crate of canned food and a rifle, and you will be met with gales of hilarity.

Disaster almost never strikes everywhere equally, and for those who are able, getting out of the way is almost always the best strategy.

[Chad]

@Chad, Seneca re:effect of individual gun ownership--I think the stand-off at that ranch in Nevada last weekend showed a different benefit to gun ownership.

I would need to know more details, but initially I'm not sure if the guns made the difference or the fact that the federal Bureau of Land Management isn't experienced with using the heavy handed tactics of the DEA or ATF.

I'm also not sure this rancher is in the right.

Also, his supporters will eventually have to go back to their lives and jobs (many aren't local). When this happens he will be exposed and at a severe disadvantage. The Bureau of Land Management may even be able to arrest him without firing a shot, as only a couple people, even if he has that, can't man a 24/7 shift over weeks to monitor all approaches. This is a key disadvantage of a compound. They know where you are and can monitor you to see habits, capabilities, etc., and then move when it's most advantageous to them, but you probably can't do the same.

I agree that not much can be accomplished by an individual against more than a couple of intruders.

This is kind of what I was talking about when people overvalue guns. Your statement basically assumes you would win 1 vs 1 and probably 1 vs. a couple of people, but there is no guarantee at all this would be likely.

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting guns can't be useful. I'm only suggesting that people are overly confident of outcomes with guns.

[Ego]

If everyone fears planet-wide overpopulation, food shortages, and long-term weather-related problems, then where should we migrate to? (that's a serious question)

I believe the similarities with many of the previous collapses holds true in a planet-wide scenario. Water and food shortages affected the entirety of East Africa in the 1980s. For all intents and purposes that was the whole world to the average East African. Yet there remained some places in the region better off than others. Those who saw the signs and moved early did relatively better than those who clung to familiar land.

[jennypenny]

It doesn't matter if the Nevada rancher was right or not. My point was that the word went out (my inbox lit up that day) and people immediately headed to Nevada to help. That's the part that's significant to my mind. It made me think that people who've bunkered up aren't necessarily alone after all. A loose network of people with similar mindsets seems to be developing.

[jennypenny]

@ffj--responded in the Bundy thread.