A partial collapse

[miguel]

I read this article over at survivalblog.com and it hit the nail on the head, IMHO.

While it certainly is possible to have massive societal breakdown -- a stereotypical TEOTWAWKI event -- I think it's more likely we could experience a lesser flavor of it. Even if Federal and/or State authorities were to fail to function, county and/or local government at some level could be expected to remain operational, even if in a limited capacity.

I'm sure many people frequent that site, but in case you don't, this is a good read: The Unrealistic Mentality of the Modern Survivalist, by Bryan R. - SurvivalBlog.com

 

[csmith]

Great article. Thanks for posting.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Skimmed the article. The author doesn't take into account the fact that most major cities have only 3 days food available. If the transportation infrastructure collapses for any reason, folks in the major cities will be starving in short order. Additionally, while gangs will likely scavenge their turf and neighboring areas first, when those supplies run out, they will likely move to where they think food/prey exist. Therefore, while many of his points are well-founded, his basic premise, in my opinion, is flawed.

 

[jeremy]

Placed for further comment later...

 

[rugertoter]

Skimmed the article. The author doesn't take into account the fact that most major cities have only 3 days food available. If the transportation infrastructure collapses for any reason, folks in the major cities will be starving in short order. Additionally, while gangs will likely scavenge their turf and neighboring areas first, when those supplies run out, they will likely move to where they think food/prey exist. Therefore, while many of his points are well-founded, his basic premise, in my opinion, is flawed.

I would be surprised if food even held out for three days. There would be hoarding in massive quantities and then there would be lots of killing going on for that hoarded food.

 

[BumpShadow]

I read this article over at survivalblog.com and it hit the nail on the head, IMHO.

While it certainly is possible to have massive societal breakdown -- a stereotypical TEOTWAWKI event -- I think it's more likely we could experience a lesser flavor of it. Even if Federal and/or State authorities were to fail to function, county and/or local government at some level could be expected to remain operational, even if in a limited capacity.

I'm sure many people frequent that site, but in case you don't, this is a good read: The Unrealistic Mentality of the Modern Survivalist, by Bryan R. - SurvivalBlog.com

Good stuff. I like it. Very practical.

Skimmed the article. The author doesn't take into account the fact that most major cities have only 3 days food available. If the transportation infrastructure collapses for any reason, folks in the major cities will be starving in short order. Additionally, while gangs will likely scavenge their turf and neighboring areas first, when those supplies run out, they will likely move to where they think food/prey exist. Therefore, while many of his points are well-founded, his basic premise, in my opinion, is flawed.

Read the whole article before speaking.

I would be surprised if food even held out for three days. There would be hoarding in massive quantities and then there would be lots of killing going on for that hoarded food.

Again, read the whole thing. He covers that.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Seems to me that the author's using Argentina's and South Africa's situation to postulate what will happen in the US is the flaw in his major premise. While there may be some superficial similarities between those two nations' situations and ours, they neither have a tradition of civilians being armed (as opposed to armed-insurgents-turned-civilians) nor are either society largely industrialized-urban/suburban as we are. Neither do either country have the wide-ranging presence of the National Guard as we do here - they are primarily agrarian/undeveloped countries. While the author made some good points about what may be expected during a "partial collapse", I don't think he made the case he intended to make.

 

[Baditude]

great article, gives you alot to think about

 

[45fan]

I think if a person was looking at the broad strokes of what the article was trying to imply, good points can be taken from it.
Total collapse back to the stone age isnt very likely, but I suppose it can happen, and I think that is the scenario the author believes the average survivalist to be prepared for.

Honestly, if a person were prepared for the worst, and it only fractionally came to be, I would think that they would still be prepared.
I think that the most important point brought up in the article was the physical fitness aspects of surviving. All the tacticool gear and supplies in the world wont do anyone any good if they cant fend off a looter or two, or actually work an entire day in the field planting his winter food supply. I am no where near as in shape as I was at 19, and do attempt to improve my physical well being, but can definitely do more in that department, as I would imagine many of us could.

 

[Baditude]

It does bring to light that you need skills and a tight knit small group is better than trying to survive on your own. For example I might say hi to my neighbors but that is as far as it goes and I have no idea about a winter garden - things I plan to remedy in the near future.

 

[longbow]

I picture a slow burn, then people who have not prepared will be in a mess of trouble. Those that are prepared are days to weeks ahead of them....