Hypothetical Post-Apocalypse: best strategies for survival?

I think that the hardest part of a post apocalyptic situation would be the same thing I see folks having a hard time with everyday........dealing with change. I see folks literally break under the pressure of a simple shift change at work. I don't think most folks have the skills to deal with divorce, loss of job,death, or even things that should be good like a birth or marriage. I think the masses would not survive simply because they would fail to act in hope that it really isn't happening or that they will somehow be missed by the event. The big trait of many real and Hollywood survivors is the ability to deal with the situation and accept it(not the same as liking the situation). Get past the trauma of the "Boom" and then start making decisions. Move before the highways are plugged or hunker down and stock up while everyone runs in panic? It all depends on the specifics of the event. I'll decide when it happens :)
 
ROCK6 said:
It is a tough call, but regardless of your location, if you have a any type of home, apartment, condo, it's much safer to stay put unless you're being forced out by a fire, flood or other calamity beyond your control. For those in more urban or suburban locations, if you don't have a place to go to (cabin in the woods) or you don't get out early enough...you will become a refugee and your chances of surviving drop significantly. I have a good friend in the Seattle area and he's putting a lot of work into a cabin he has in the mountains. We've discussed this, but if he can't get out before the mad frenzy of traffic, he would be much better off hunkering down for a week or two until the madness subsides or the masses decreases in size....If you can't get a sizeable community defense plan organized, it's best you keep as small a profile for as long as possible.

ROCK6
Click to expand...

Many of us in urban/suburban areas don't have cabins in the woods; what could we do to increase our chances for survival in either a temporary or long-term situation?

In a temporary local disruption of society, I could see staying put until order is restored (week or two at most), but what about a longer, widespread, and more serious breakdown? I mean, I live in a small apartment in a relatively suburban area. It's a second floor apartment, but there are two windows right next to the front door that someone could easily enter through; barricading it such that it could withstand sustained assault would be difficult if not impossible. Safety or natural disasters aside, I guess we'd be forced to become refugees once all readily available and stocked resources in the area ran out right?

So unless I could convince some person or group that is well-stocked or self-sufficient in the country that I'd be more of a benefit than a cost, I'd be on my own and back to square one with being on the move and camping out in the wilderness. I guess in that case, I'd just try to get as far and deep as I can...find a good camping spot to hole up in. If I had a cabin in the woods and the money to fully outfit it, believe me I would :)(even though it'd still be risky, it'd be better than nothing. go watch that movie "Le Temps du Loup/Time of the Wolf" it shows a scene where a family shows up to their bug out cabin only to be surprised to find strangers have already stumbled upon it, resulting in the father getting shot). Unfortunately many of us don't have the money for that kind of thing. So do I have the right idea for this specific kind of case or am I not thinking about something? What would you guys do if you were in a situation similar to mine?
 
rksoon said:
Many of us in urban/suburban areas don't have cabins in the woods; what could we do to increase our chances for survival in either a temporary or long-term situation?

In a temporary local disruption of society, I could see staying put until order is restored (week or two at most), but what about a longer, widespread, and more serious breakdown? I mean, I live in a small apartment in a relatively suburban area. It's a second floor apartment, but there are two windows right next to the front door that someone could easily enter through; barricading it such that it could withstand sustained assault would be difficult if not impossible. Safety or natural disasters aside, I guess we'd be forced to become refugees once all readily available and stocked resources in the area ran out right?

So unless I could convince some person or group that is well-stocked or self-sufficient in the country that I'd be more of a benefit than a cost, I'd be on my own and back to square one with being on the move and camping out in the wilderness. I guess in that case, I'd just try to get as far and deep as I can...find a good camping spot to hole up in. If I had a cabin in the woods and the money to fully outfit it, believe me I would :)(even though it'd still be risky, it'd be better than nothing. go watch that movie "Le Temps du Loup/Time of the Wolf" it shows a scene where a family shows up to their bug out cabin only to be surprised to find strangers have already stumbled upon it, resulting in the father getting shot). Unfortunately many of us don't have the money for that kind of thing. So do I have the right idea for this specific kind of case or am I not thinking about something? What would you guys do if you were in a situation similar to mine?
Click to expand...

All I can say is that the absolute LAST place I would want to be is in an urban or suburban environment, especially anywhere close to a city of any size at all.

A very small town, no more than 1000 inhabitants would be the largest I would want to be close to.

Living in an urban environment means that your life support (food, water, power) is all provided to you by means of a fragile, attenuated, mechanized process that will fail immediately.

It would be possible to stock some supplies, but those are finite, and you would always have to worry about someone else taking what you have.

What we did when we lived in a situation similar to yours, was move to someplace not like yours. :o

Andy
 
Haha :) I know, believe me I wish I could. I don't want to be so close at all. I'm a beach/country boy by heart, but alas, all the career opportunities for me are in urban environments :( Once I actually establish myself career-wise, I should be more flexible as to where I live and have more money to devote to being prepared for the worst case scenario.
 
Andrew Colglazier said:
All I can say is that the absolute LAST place I would want to be is in an urban or suburban environment, especially anywhere close to a city of any size at all.

A very small town, no more than 1000 inhabitants would be the largest I would want to be close to.

Living in an urban environment means that your life support (food, water, power) is all provided to you by means of a fragile, attenuated, mechanized process that will fail immediately. Andy
Click to expand...

Andy, I live in that kind of small town in way upstate New York. Our remote location assures that we will be somewhat safe from the crush of people coming out of major cities.

However, we also are dependent upon electricity and a long-distance delivery system for gasoline, oil, and food. We might feel the breakdown in deliveries first.

Once the electricity stops, I can no longer get water out of my deep drilled well, or run my oil furnace for heat. I have backups for woodburning and there is a freshwater river a mile from my house, but that involves driving. In winter, that may not be possible. When the town highway department stops plowing snow, and we can't get gas, transportation will stop.

The idea of urban folk escaping to the country is a myth. We can't support you and we don't want you. Sad but true. A few old folk still have gardens, but they do it more out of tradition than any real attempt to be self-sustaining. We all depend on being able to drive to a big-box grocery store like Hannafords or Price Chopper, 20 miles away.

Yes we stock up food that might get us by for a month, but after that, what? You can just as easily do that in the urbs and surburbs.

My recommendation is that everybody look at your own community, rural or urban, and start figuring out what you can do to survive at home. And you can't do it alone, you will have to depend on others for mutual aid. It's called social capital. Build the resources now.
 
Something for everyone to think about is that if this end of time thing is like another Ike or Katrina, wildlife will also be affected, birds will migrate and you will probally see some floating deer and if it floods the fish will swim all over the place. When Ike came through, it came up to Missouri and turned east and headed towards Ohio... where do you run to....


Pat
 
I an a big SHTF buff, pretty much since seeing mad max 1 and 2 back to back when I was a kid. Some good books on the subject are Alas, Babylon by Pat Frank, and an online book called Lights out, by Halfast (his online handle) both about small communities that band together.
World War Z by Max Brooks, zombie fiction at its finest, and The Road, if it wasn't mentioned, by Cormac Macarthy. Being made into a film with Viggo Mortensen.

My personal choice would be narrow down my gear quick and bug out to good location. I live in a rural area and hunting should be an option.
Some good ideas I should follow myself to prepare is set up a cache somewhere, with food and other essentials. Have it in a good bug out spot and well hidden and protected from wildlife, but have other locations thought out as plan B's.
I would say anyone who doesn't currently own a firearm should at least have a .22lr or a very good air rifle. (Crosmann backpacker is a good cheap one that could maybe take a rabbit at the most.)

I agree with most of what Rock6 said, however I disagree that most couldn't live on their own. I bet a lot of people could live and provide for them and their immediate families, depending on the situation (post nuclear, zombie plague, unlikely) and the size of your family (that 8 asian babies family?)
The thing is, this will require a lot of WORK. Hunting, collecting food, building, farming. No more sedentary lifestyle for anyone. Up until a relatively short while ago the bulk of the worlds population did it not knowing another way, which is the hard part for us.
 
For a lot of reasons perfectly valid at this very moment, and for reasons which would become vital in such a proposed scenario, I can see substantial worth in what might be called "Amish" communities.

I'm not being facetious. I'm much too "English", or conventionally-valued to be accepted by or wish to become an Amish person, but the systems by which they generally live are practical and practicable.

There's also that problem such communities, or enclaves, becoming the initial victims of predators (human).

But for, raised in City, 20 years in Country, staying in my area is the only way I could ever survive.

But the question comes to me, why would I want to? My children are raised and live their own adult lives in metro areas which, even if I COULD reach, would not be intimidated by my survival skills. I would not be a help.

I understand the life-drive of younger people, but for those of us over, say, 60, why bother? Live as you can, protect those you love if possible, leave when you choose.

justathought.



Kis
enjoy every sandwich
 
The biggest problem is going to be other people. If you have made preparations you had better be prepared for people who did not to resent you for it ,blame you for what happened and feel perfectly justified in killing you for it or even simply wanting to deprive you of it even if they don't get it themselves.

Movement is going to become exceptionally dangerous as people in the country will not want to give up what they have to a bunch of city folks who fled for the hills.
I know I would not. Maybe if you are a doctor ,a dentist or an engineer or have some really useful skills you can hook up with a crew who have some resources.

Probably the best thing you could do if you live in a city is join your local Hells Angels or similar bike club or the Police force. Then you will have a fortified compound ,armed soldiers many with military experience ,a chain of command etc.


Instead of 1 2000$ rifle you would be much better off with a crate of 20 SKS and a crate of cheap corrosive 7.62/39 to turn your kids soccer team into your own little militia.

My plan is to hunker down until darwin takes a good portion of the stupid out in the first few weeks and then start to rebuild. A few alliances and a little bit of ethnic cleansing and we are back on our feet.

I have a hard time thinking that a world where 1 good welder is worth 1000 lawyers is going to be all bad.
 
Well, since apocalypse is an ending time, then it would be wise to study up on primitive living skills and methods of living within a desolate nature, like the desert. Also, you will need to quickly adapt to the rapidly changing environment and surroundings, if that is a part of the event. Hanging out in cities could be a huge mistake, but on the other hand, it might be the only way to find food and water and it's difficult to say exactly what wilderness will be left, if any.
 
Bill Siegle said:
I think that the hardest part of a post apocalyptic situation would be the same thing I see folks having a hard time with everyday........dealing with change. I see folks literally break under the pressure of a simple shift change at work. I don't think most folks have the skills to deal with divorce, loss of job,death, or even things that should be good like a birth or marriage. I think the masses would not survive simply because they would fail to act in hope that it really isn't happening or that they will somehow be missed by the event. The big trait of many real and Hollywood survivors is the ability to deal with the situation and accept it(not the same as liking the situation).
Click to expand...

Well said, Bill. :thumbup:

I've seen folks self destruct over similar trivialities.

My SHTF plan? I'm going to eat my neighbors pets.

Then my neighbors. :D
 
thanks for the book recs guys, adding to my list for future reading pleasure :)

Great discussion on this. Sounds like for the most part, the specific circumstances will dictate the appropriate response. And yes, judging by the previous posts, the unfortunate truth seems to be that many people in cities will get screwed from the outset (through lack of preparation or simply bad luck), while even the people who are relatively self-sufficient in rural areas will be threatened by dangerous people or even good people who do bad things because they know of no other way to survive.

In light of all this, I guess my plan would be to try and hole up for a week or two (or as long as supplies allow, while taking into account that I'd need to outfit myself for travel as well). Perhaps I'd try to seek out remaining law enforcement, military personnel, or other members of the community who are capable of immediate mutual defense (even that makes me uneasy), but I'd more likely head out to the wilderness. If I come across someone or some group on the way that has a decent situation going (actually self-sufficient and defendable) I'd ask to contribute; if they say "no way, no room/resources for you and yours" then I'd say thanks, wish them the best, and keep going deeper until I found a good spot to settle in until things really calmed down. I definitely understand the fact that folks in the country don't want extra burdens. Anyway, from my point of view, if something like this were to happen, trust is out the window. I'd want to get as far away from other people as possible; or if I had a place in the country, I'd be very reluctant to allow strangers to stay. Pessimistic, but it's what I believe.

Once things seemed to calm down, I'd probably want to scout out to see if people were pulling themselves together again, only then would I consider coming out of the survival retreat for a more established communal situation.

and yes, well said indeed Bill!
 
I recently read this book and found it interesting:

http://www.amazon.com/Reinventing-C...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222112746&sr=8-1

the author does a contrast and compare of the collapse of the Soviet Union to the presumed imminent collapse of America as an economic and military superpower. while it doesn't address TEOTWAWKI situations, it does give interesting insight into the much more mundane (and more likely) reality of economic collapse of a modern industrial economy.

anyways, sorry if this post is a little off-topic - i'll go back to watching the markets meltdown... :(
 
rksoon said:
In light of all this, I guess my plan would be to try and hole up for a week or two (or as long as supplies allow, while taking into account that I'd need to outfit myself for travel as well). Perhaps I'd try to seek out remaining law enforcement, military personnel, or other members of the community who are capable of immediate mutual defense (even that makes me uneasy), but I'd more likely head out to the wilderness. If I come across someone or some group on the way that has a decent situation going (actually self-sufficient and defendable) I'd ask to contribute; if they say "no way, no room/resources for you and yours" then I'd say thanks, wish them the best, and keep going deeper until I found a good spot to settle in until things really calmed down. I definitely understand the fact that folks in the country don't want extra burdens. Anyway, from my point of view, if something like this were to happen, trust is out the window. I'd want to get as far away from other people as possible; or if I had a place in the country, I'd be very reluctant to allow strangers to stay. Pessimistic, but it's what I believe.
Click to expand...

Russell, I think the problem with plan is that you are going to have a great deal of competition.

In any kind of societal collapse where the cities lose power, water, and food shipments, many folks will leave immediately because they have some place to go. Others will stay because they have no place to go. Still others will stay because that was their plan, at least for a while.

But sooner or later, the vast majority of people still in the cities will leave or attempt to leave, because the food supplies will quickly run out, and because the cities will become a fire hazard.

That means that the vast majority of people still alive will leave the cities... either before you, or at about the same time you do. So you will be far from the only person whose plan will be to leave the city and look for someplace to settle, or to continue on into the wilderness, such as that is.

Those who went before you because they had someplace to go won't want anybody else there. Those who leave when you do will be competing with you for membership in those communities which are still functioning, or they will be living off others who are vulnerable.

The thought to push into the wilderness assumes that nobody else would do that. It also assumes that there would be some way to sustain yourself there, but hunting and gathering, perhaps, but you will have to deal with others for those same resources. You will also have to deal with th elements.

Anybody who isn't already where they need to be, with the things they will need to get by, will be in a heap of trouble..

Andy
 
Yes, astute observations on my assumptions Andy; my plan did not fully take into account competition of other survivors. Your last sentence sums it up quite well "Anybody who isn't already where they need to be, with the things they will need to get by, will be in a heap of trouble.." :)

Basically, I need to hurry up and make lots of money in our rocky economy so I can build and live in a secure compound that is remote from cities and in close proximity to all natural resources one needs to survive; and then I need a good dose of luck. Ah, *cracks knuckles and stretches* tis a simple matter! :) No seriously, I envy the lot of you who are already set up in situations conducive to survival. I need to start bringing that cash in.... :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top