priorities & value in hypothetical SHTF scenario

[toexist]

I'm far enough away from an urban area to worry about hordes of hungry city walkers making it this far. Most city dwellers would sit around waiting for help from the government, and the smart ones would stay where the farm land is. There are too many mountains between there and here to cross to even get close to my place. The vast majority that managed to survive the first 30 days would not make through the first winter post SHTF.

Not all city people have this mentality and I believe there would be advantages to staying in or near major city. I believe everyone regardless of location would be better off staying put where their resources are.

 

[toexist]

I have a couple friends whom own large farms outside city. I would feel less safe out in open regardless of how much land there is. City people are used to chaos and there are ''street smarts" many aquire over time by default.

There is no perfect location.

 

[Maverick]

So that's where your prepper instincts got started! .

I wish it was that easy much of it came from my dad, mom helped but didn't like to talk about why it needed to be done, the nuclear bombs scare in them times affected her tremendously and she still won't talk about it today. Dad was one of the coordinators between the DOD and outward communities in setting up CD preparations during the Eisenhower years. How things have changed today.

 

[Arcticdude]

Not all city people have this mentality and I believe there would be advantages to staying in or near major city. I believe everyone regardless of location would be better off staying put where their resources are.

I agree 100%. Staying put in the cities is a great place for the masses of city dwellers. Once their limited resources run out they'll be too weak to be much of a threat to anyone else.

 

[DrHenley]

When the population exceeds the available resources, that's when things become so desperate that it comes down to kill or be killed for everyone. The "golden horde" will emerge rather quickly I believe. In most rural areas, the resources will be sufficient to sustain the population, and cooperation is a viable option. People will band together to protect their communities from the horde. In most urban areas, no amount of cooperation can overcome the lack of resources.

My BOL is in an area where the natural resources far exceed the population's requirements for survival. The population density is 22 per square mile (8/km²) for the entire county, but most of that is located in small towns on the other side of a major river. The immediate population density is less than 1 per square mile. Major population centers are far enough away, and the location is so situated, that the golden horde may never find it. And they will have to cross large open fields where they will be vulnerable to sniper fire from long distances. There is simply too much low hanging fruit in more accessible areas for the horde to bother going that far out of the way.

 

[bigpaul]

people in the UK will not bug out, they may scavenge outside of the cities but will return to their homes at night.
someone who has been paying a mortgage for 5, 10, 15 years is not going to up and leave just because there is no food in the shops.
they will wait for "the government will save us" and by the time they realise no help is coming it will be too late, they will be too weak to go anywhere. in any case where would they go? city folk know nothing about rearing animals or butchering same, what is safe to eat and what is not, their food all comes in little cellophane packets from the supermarket, some of them even get it delivered to the door! most people in this country say "the UK is a small island, no where is safe", I am very glad for them to have this opinion, it makes my location more secure.
anyone who tries to bug out and live in the woods will be dead very quickly, this country is very cold and very wet and is not conducive to living out doors long term.

 

[toexist]

I agree 100%. Staying put in the cities is a great place for the masses of city dwellers. Once their limited resources run out they'll be too weak to be much of a threat to anyone else.

You make a lot of assumptions.

 

[bigpaul]

You make a lot of assumptions. You should never underestimate people. Not wise.

no, but you can see what most people would do with a life times experience of how they behave in various situations.

 

[toexist]

I will prepare for the worst for peace of mind like everyone else.

However I will not pre judge or underestimate any group of peoples ability to survive or adapt.

I don't know articdudes resources nor do I care. I don't want nor do I need what articdude has. I won't make assumptions about his survival probability in an unlikely scenario that may or may not ever occur.

The thing is everyone seems to think that city dwellers are at a disadvantage in such a scenario and that is a mistake in my opinion.

You think you'll be safe in your isolated bunker with your dog's, ur booby traps, ur sandbags, ur assault weapons and all ur supplies? Really?

All it takes is one person to know discover/expose ur location and ur just as vulnerable as everyone else. Maybe more so in fact cause you have what the masses want. You will have a big target sign on your back. You really think you'll be able to hold all those desperate people off forever?

You can keep ur isolated hidden fortress in the middle of nowhere. To me that would be like hiding in a coffin.

In any event what is more likely is that nothing of such extreme will occur. All of our excess supplies will expire. Our resources will go un used.

If something does occur. It probably won't be as life changing as you'd expect but rather a couple weeks of inconvenience in the dark.

And if something extreme actually occurs...who's to say that any of us would survive initial impact. I'm not worried about something I have no control over.

All I'm saying you shouldnt make assumptions about people you know nothing about. This is the internet.

Some of you talk about people like your talking about cattle and that ain't cool.

 

[Maverick]

I don't make assumptions about others. I will prepare for the worst for peace of mind like everyone else.

However I will not pre judge or underestimate any group of peoples ability to survive and adapt.

I don't know articdudes resources nor do I care. I don't want nor do I need what articdude has. I won't make assumptions about his survival probability in an unlikely scenario that may or may not ever occur.

The thing is everyone seems to think that city dwellers are at a disadvantage in such a scenario and that is a mistake in my opinion.

You think you'll be safe in your isolated bunker with your dog's, ur booby traps, ur sandbags, ur assault weapons and all ur supplies? Really?

All it takes is one person to know discover/expose ur location and ur just as vulnerable as everyone else. Maybe more so in fact cause you have what the masses want. You will have a big target sign on your back. You really think you'll be able to hold all those desperate people off forever?

You can keep ur isolated hidden fortress in the middle of nowhere. To me that would be like hiding in a coffin.

In any event what is more likely is that nothing of such extreme will occur. All of our excess supplies will expire. Our resources will go un used.

If something does occur. It probably won't be as life changing as you'd expect but rather a couple weeks of inconvenience in the dark.

And if something extreme actually occurs...who's to say that any of us would survive initial impact. I'm not worried about something I have no control over.

All I'm saying you shouldnt make assumptions about people you know nothing about. This is the internet.

Some of you talk about people like your talking about cattle and that ain't cool.

How is being out in back country a coffin? Cities offer nothing for us a custom to being out in the back country and far safer than living in or near cities, we have far better sustainment abilities than any city can offer especially in a SHTF situation. In my travels in many areas throughout the world I have seen cities go south in very short order and the chaos that follows. Their are reasons why militaries dislike urban policing and warfare.

With what I seen in my Military career I'll stay away from cities, I prefer the trees to my back instead of concrete walls.

 

[MaterielGeneral]

I sure hope those figures aren't too accurate.

Me to but I have heard of that 90% figure before.

 

[MaterielGeneral]

View attachment 6773
I was reading an article comparing male vs female preppers. Interesting enough most male preppers tend to focus on defensive tools (i.e. weapons ammo etc) where as women tend to focus on food/water preservation/storage. Basically jist of article was that most tend to place over emphasis on defensive weoponary/gear and not enough on things most essential to survival.

The most essential component to survival is water by far as we supposedly cannot survive more than 3 days without it. In the unlikely SHTF WOROL scenario the value of clean water will trump everything else...even food. I would imagine that many people would be forced to trade for water, food, etc.

Just for fun, how do you think the values of certain items will play out? For instance say you own a lot weapons, defensive gear, etc but run out of water food, etc. How much food or water would say a $1,000 gun be worth? Would it be worth a $1,000 worth of water/food ?

I know it may be a ridiculous question to ask. I'm just curious about hypothetical stuff like this. I just wonder if many items that we believed to be valuable would be worth much in such a scenario.

My last military job was quartermaster. As a supply sergeant I got really good at researching and prioritizing. I generally had a very limited budget to work with and that is how it is now. A very limited budget. I am not going to go buy very expensive firearms for a fun show and tell hobby and neglect the other areas of prepping. You have to prioritize and plan and train. I try to spread things out air, water, food, security and not concentrate on one category. I keep the categories in my mind always take advantage on sales and when ever I go into town I always hit up the two discount stores and see if the have received any new discounted products. Every time I go grocery shopping I buy a little extra. Mylar bags and oxygen absorbers do wonders. I bought large barrels for water off of craigslist because of the price and it was a couple of years before I could actually use them. My previous house did not have a basement and had limited heated storage, so now I have 132 gallons of water but I also have ways to purify it. I do have a soft spot for medical so I am always looking for really good medical deals. My latest thing has been security related and that's non electric communications and perimeter defenses like caltrops and rat trap chemlight alarms. Unless your rich or fairly well off then it takes time. I have accomplished a lot but it took time. I also try to network. If your a lone wolf in my opinion you are dead. There is a reason all through history humans have banded together into small villages near a water source.

 

[MaterielGeneral]

One last note on guns. All you need is a basic no frills firearm and be able to hit what you aim at. Someone with a $100.00 Mosin Nagant can easily take that $1,700.00 AR15 from your cold dead hands all they need is training and the right opportunity to take it.

 

[Robinjopo1]

P.S. Maybe the reason women are more well prepped in multiple areas are they tend to be smarter than us.....

Brent...... you figured it out. When I started gardening, I had no idea that you could not garden around walnut trees. I lost many crops because of them.

 

[toexist]

How is being out in back country a coffin? Cities offer nothing for us a custom to being out in the back country and far safer than living in or near cities, we have far better sustainment abilities than any city can offer especially in a SHTF situation. In my travels in many areas throughout the world I have seen cities go south in very short order and the chaos that follows. Their are reasons why militaries dislike urban policing and warfare.

With what I seen in my Military career I'll stay away from cities, I prefer the trees to my back instead of concrete walls.

Why because everyone will be thinking the same thing you're. We have been conditioned that we should leave the cities in emergency and seek refuge in rural areas.

First thing that would happen would be every Tom, Dick and Harry coming after you and your stuff. NO THANKS.

You would be like Salmon to a bear and no amount of firepower would be able to hold. Sheer numbers would overwhelm.

This is assuming things will have escalated to the hopeless scenario being depicted.

Think WW2 and the German invasion of Stanlingrad. It's much easier to overtake ranches/farms than cities. Many people in city are also armed. There is a Walmart every few city blockS and countless other stores. Plus surrounding our cities are countless suburbs surrounding to default to which are balance between rural and urban.

We have more places to hide were fewer would look.

High rises themselves could also become fortresses of the sky with countless barriers to no additional cost of my own.

Many people I know buy things in bulk and have at a months worth of food and water and these aren't peppers. A lot of these people will be abandoning there resources out of fear.

Within first couple days millions will have left there homes.

I'd rather go up or down than rush to middle of nowhere where I'd be sitting duck. Things never go how u think they will. Every chooch is thinking they need to leave city.

No thanks.

 

[Brent S]

I must admit that being in any large urban area seems like it would be much more dangerous in any large scale emergency of more than three weeks. When people get hungry they get dangerous. When there's so many people that they outstrip all available food in three days, there's going to be problems, quickly. As far as being salmon to a bear, well, if your alone in the country then your probably right. Everyone will need at least some numbers to survive as we all need to sleep sometime. Either way, I still see the countryside as much more survivable.

 

[Maverick]

Not many people are capable to make the hike to my place up here on the mountain and certainly not in the masses. The majority of people are going to follow the blacktop from city to city town to town along well traveled paths by foot. People will die without food, every store and super market has three days of stock then it's depleted that's with cities and small towns. In the cities who is going to bury all the bodies before disease sets in? Most of the river and creeks near large populated areas will become contaminated with sewage spillage in the rivers, people bathing and washing clothes up stream, urinating etc... history has shown this and even continues today in developed nations, sickness will set in in short order causing more deaths, without medical who is going to take care of the sick, people in masses have always been around someone that is sick, influenza would become a major concern. Without city workers who is going to take care of storm drains and full sewer lines further exposing the city to diseases. Winter time? last I heard not many places in and around cities have fire places and not an over abundance of wood, not much burnables that won't affect health, domestic animals will roam the streets carrying tics and fleas, with the sewer line being full along with the drainage system it will push rats to the surface exposing the city to the plague. Cities are an incubator and without medical and an operational infrastructure the city is wide open to the environment without working utilities.

Sorry, trying type this all out on the phone :-/

 

[MaterielGeneral]

First thing that would happen would be every Tom, Dick and Harry coming after you and your stuff. NO THANKS.

You would be like Salmon to a bear and no amount of firepower would be able to hold. Sheer numbers would overwhelm.

This is assuming things will have escalated to the hopeless scenario being depicted.

Think WW2 and the German invasion of Stanlingrad. It's much easier to overtake ranches/farms than cities. Many people in city are also armed. There is a Walmart every few city blockS and countless other stores. Plus surrounding our cities are countless suburbs surrounding to default to which are balance between rural and urban.

We have more places to hide were fewer would look.

High rises themselves could also become fortresses of the sky with countless barriers to no additional cost of my own.

Many people I know buy things in bulk and have at a months worth of food and water and these aren't peppers. A lot of these people will be abandoning there resources out of fear.

Within first couple days millions will have left there homes.

I'd rather go up or down than rush to middle of nowhere where I'd be sitting duck. Things never go how u think they will. Every chooch is thinking they need to leave city.

No thanks.

In my opinion staying in a large city is a death trap. You will run out of logistics very quickly. Yes a very large amount of people will flee the city in search of aid. Depending on your location in America and what time of year it is, most refugees will flee South.

Depending on the extent of the event you better have the mentality that every Tom, Dick and Harry is coming after your stuff. If you do not have situational awareness you are kind of screwing yourself(to death), it does not matter if you are rural or urban. Do not just jump to conclusion that sheer numbers will overwhelm. You have to look at.

Location: how far from the city, mode of transportation, how many days of travel to your location,

Terrain: Is your location mountainous, prairie, oceanfront, is their obstacles refugees must cross or detour.

Assets: What does your area have that would make refugees head to your location?

Attrition: You have to consider and guess what kind of resistance will the refugees meet between the city and your location. A lot of people are not going to stand by and get raped of their supplies or their neighbors. Something else to consider is that there is a way higher percentage of rural gun owners vs urban gun owners. Most liberals are pro gun control and cities tend to lean towards liberalism.

Your right cities are harder to attack and that is the reason why through history many armies will surround the cities and starve them out or catapult disease ridden bodies into the city. In a SHTF event why would someone want to go into a city. The Walmart's you mentioned will be looted out.

Something else to consider once the power is out, you loose water pressure and loose sewage removal. Gravity will win, sewage will collect down hill and work its way backwards. If you do not have a one way valve your bathroom is going to throw up raw sewage making your living area inhabitable.

High rises may become hard to attack up if you have good defenders but personally if I wanted the building I would simply smoke them out. Smoke rises and if that did not work then I would write off the building and burn them out. Heat and fire rise up. Basically if I cant have the building then nobody can and if it came to that then I probably would not take any prisoners.

Sorry to be a downer, I am looking at it from a military perspective and just do not see a long term survivability in a city.

 

[MaterielGeneral]

I forgot to mention the book Strategic Relocation by Joel Skousen. It is a really good book and you will learn a lot about your location. Its expensive so I went to my library and ordered it on the library system that many library's share. Depending on your library will determine the cost. At my library all I had to pay was the shipping and I think that was $6.00 but vs $35.00 its a better choice.

http://www.joelskousen.com/

 

[toexist]

We all agree on a few critical points. One is that only the strongest will survive.

Several other determining factors will play in. One being that no matter what unless we're taking about nuclear attacks (to which case ALL would perish) there WILL be survivors in BOTH city and urban areas.

Those who survive will have to for most part avoid conflict & or minimalize any kind of sustained fighting of any kind.

I believe if ur location is revealed to the masses than ur probability for long term survival would be unlikely. I don't believe it would be wise to engage in gun fights unless in self defense as last resort.

Live by the sword die by the sword. Any sustained gunfights (unless ur part of extremery large group) would result inevitably with expiration.

Going unnoticed would be one of the biggest challenge. It would be difficult for people in rural areas to go undetected. With any kind of exposure brings increased risk and diminishing odds.

After such an extreme event many would immediately flee large cities. Not long after large groups would probably be formed MOST without violent intent. Once gunfire is exchanged that would change quickly.

I believe exposure is the most critical point and it would virtually be impossible to prevent people from over taking farm ranch and even bunkers. Sure you might be able to hold off for while but eventually odds would dimish.

One thing many fail to realize is its a lot easier to go unnoticed in chaos. People wouldn't be smoking out large buildings as that would make them vulnerable. I don't think some here comprehend just how large some of these building are. They are essentially mini cities. Most would be abandoned after a short while. Yes there would be looters but I don't see lone looters lasting too long. Not wise kicking in doors by urself. Even within units there would be places to go undetected. I can go on and on with this one.

Finally one of the most essential factors would come down to is sheer luck. Whether you'd like to admit it luck would be a major deciding factor regardless of location.

I believe many have distorted view of cities in general. I have done a bit of traveling to different countries across the globe. You would be surprised that when most people think of cities in US only 2 come to mind...Los Angeles & New York. Two completely unique and different types of cities. Each major city is different with different people sub cultures, pockets etc.

You cannot base an assumption on what would happen in one city to based on what has happened in another.

For example much of limited data most of you are going by is based on what happened in Katrina and or LA riots. Two completely isolated unique incidents in two different parts of country.

Everything we're discussing is subjective & hypothetical. There are no concrete universal examples to go by.