I have issues with the "SURVIVAL GROUP" theory.

[Sourdough]

Why is nearly everyone sold on the need to be part of a "Survival Group" in the event of a very serious long term SHTF type event......???

Which is better being part of a very large survival group, or a very small survival group, and does history offer any compelling evidence to support one over the other.........???

 

[ssonb]

Yep ..Just look at the colonial frontier timeframe. To get any settlement to survive the trail blazers, Boone, Mansker, Bledsoe ect..ect would scout the area and pick out an area to build a trading post/blockhouse/fort to attract like minded adventuresome settlers into the neighborhood who would then attract the tradesmen then the merchants. These were bold strong men and women but as self sufficient as they were they new the needed help and cooperation.

 

[CrackbottomLouis]

METTC dependendent. And depends on the group. Ill take a small group that works well together over a large group and vice versa. If neither are available Im better off on my own. If a group is your goal Id want a group dedicated to learning to work together before well being is on the line if possible. Or at least surround myself in daily life with people I believe would be a value add in a bad spot. Is this the group you were banned from? No judgement, I have found groups I didn't mesh well with as well. Just wanted to know if that is the motivation behind the discussion.

 

[Sourdough]

"NO"......................and motivation is that I am interested in learning more about this survival stuff.

what is METTC.....???

I feel I would also be better off alone then being part of a survival group........But that opinion sure drive most people bat'spit crazy.

Is this the group you were banned from? No judgement, I have found groups I didn't mesh well with as well. Just wanted to know if that is the motivation behind the discussion.

 

[The Lazy L]

A large survival group spreads the workload and security requirements. More likely to be left alone. Also consumes more resources, easier to detect and more chance of disgruntled member compromising the group.

A small survival group less time to rest and minimal security. Easier to attack. Consumes little resources, easier to hide and the odd of a OPSEC breach is minimized.

History examples:

Battle of Thermopylae. Small, well equipped army with the terrain advantage eventuality overwhelmed by a superior force.
Siege of Masda. Small group with excellent defenses, food and water. Overwhelmed by a superior force.
Jews Vs Nazis Germany during World War II

Battle of Longewala 1971. 100 Indian Soldiers with a single jeep mounted anti-tank weapon stopped the 3,000 Pakistani troops with 101 tanks and 24 artillery guns from overrunning the Indian positions for a day. The following dawn Indian Air Force arrived to destroy the Pakistani and their tanks.

Battle of Okehazama 1560. 2,000 Oda Nobunaga surprised and defeated Imagawa Yosimoto 20,000 to 40,000 man army.

Israeli Wars; War of Independence, Sinai War, Six-day war...

My Lai Massacre

Wounded Knee Massacre

Little Big Horn

Christopher Knight "North Pond Hermit" Augusta, Maine. He lived in a tarp shack in temperatures ranging from 25 to 80 degrees Fahrenheit. Surviving from what he stole from summer cabins. He avoided State Police, local police and Conservation Officers for 27 years!

 

[hiwall]

Singles or small groups can certainly survive. But the advancement of society needs larger groups. You can have both. Singles or small groups that are at the very fringe of larger groups for trading, etc. Similar to what I have now - I live way out in the country but still have all the advantages of technological advances but I don't have to put up with the huge disadvantages of living in the city.

 

[CrackbottomLouis]

"NO"......................and motivation is that I am interested in learning more about this survival stuff.

what is METTC.....???

I feel I would also be better off alone then being part of a survival group........But that opinion sure drive most people bat'spit crazy.

METTC is a military acronym for mission, equipment, time, terrain, casualty/civilian considerations. Kind of a smart alec way of saying it depends on what you are trying to achieve and the factors involved. I would probably add knowledge base and individual, small group, and large group capabilities to that list of considerations. After analyzing your situation, goals, threats/dangers, and your capabilities make the best decision for you. There is no one size fits all answer as everyone has different variables to consider. Without knowing your variables it would be difficult to give you worthwhile advice tailored to your situation.

 

[ssonb]

In my past (younger) I was really attracted to the modern survivalist systems and ways, As I advanced (got older) I realized I was trying to reinvent the wheel. The survival skills, patterns and procedures have all been worked out by our ancestors, The Longhunters, Moutainmen, for example on our end , on the other Inuit and Indians. On the longhunter and MM end they survived in the "wilderness" thru the what I call "How long can you hold your breath underwater process." These men would load up with their kit and strike out into the woods or hills and only after running out of shot, powder,salt, horseshoes (you follow) or sometimes being chased out would return to resupply rest and return. You see they held their "supply breath" for as long as they could. The only true long term survival experts were the Native tribes or peoples and as long as they did not pick up any copper pots metal knives or Four point blankets. Once they did they immediately changed their survival matrix from eternally sustainable to a dependent one. In this modern survival matrix we are all dependent, it is up to each of us on how we feed that dependence. Asking questions Is the first step.

 

[SheepDog]

The smaller a group is the more it has to be mobile. The problem with small groups is protecting members. Long term survival requires adding members and the best way to do that is through child birth. You have to have the manpower to protect and care for babies and children. You have to teach them and equip them. That is harder to do with a small group. It is nearly impossible to get the genetic diversity required for long term survival with less than 50 people, 25 males and 25 females. When the women are pregnant or taking care of toddlers it places a larger load on the men. Ideally you want multiple wives and husbands even though that makes relationships more complicated it provides the best in genetic diversity and longevity of the groups survival. It requires a level of trust that is beyond most morality today.

 

[Meerkat]

I'd think maybe a mid size group of preppers unless your young and in good shape you won't last long trying to be a sole surviver,imo.
Also if your not in the deep woods or swamps you won't be ' alone ' long. Groups will be preying off other groups.

 

[Sonya_6]

The smaller a group is the more it has to be mobile. The problem with small groups is protecting members. Long term survival requires adding members and the best way to do that is through child birth. You have to have the manpower to protect and care for babies and children.

Personally I don't see a situation that long term as being all that likely even in the worst of circumstances (barring a global pandemic or a nuclear winter that wiped out 95% of humanity).

Even in the case of an EMP strike that took down the entire North American grid the mayhem would likely only last a couple of years, and then some form of structure would be imposed. Times may still be very hard, but it wouldn't be "Road Warrior" levels of chaos as foreign powers would move in to start colonizing parts of the country.

As far as survival groups, I suppose those groups that have actually acquired a shared B.O.L. would have a practical purpose, but honestly I get the feeling many "internet" groups are more about fantasy roleplay than practical survival plans, and I seriously doubt if many of them could get along well if the s really did hit the fan. While I do not follow an organized religion I do think the Biblically based groups will have a better success rate especially with regard to infighting, which will likely be a BIG problem for most other groups because they never laid out clear goals and hard limits from the start.

Personally if the shtf I would plan to go it alone (well me and my dogs, so mobility would be out of the question for us). We wouldn't survive long term, but I hope to be prepared to make the best of whatever time we had, and "buying some time" to figure out how bad things are while maintaining some control over our fate would be the ultimate purpose. Even just being able to hold out for 2-3 months would allow one to determine if it was truly a long term SHTF situation or whether it was a temporary glitch that could be resolved (of course if I had dependent children that that would complicate matters considerably).

 

[ssonb]

I agree pre forming a group is impossible. Too many distractions and routes of escape. The common goals will become self evident IFF there is some type of event and the hard limits will impose themselves.

 

[Sourdough]

I only go to town for supplies once a year, generally mid October. Sometimes I also go in the early spring, but that I try to avoid. I have very little human contact........but when I do go to town, I see that most people would be (not only) worthless in a survival group, they would be a massive liability.

 

[Grizzleyette___Adams]

I feel I would also be better off alone then being part of a survival group........But that opinion sure drive most people bat'spit crazy.

Unlike the majority of the American population, you are in a unique position to be able to survive alone. Most people are not living in a true wilderness location as you are, and are operating under a totally different set of parameters.

Why is nearly everyone sold on the need to be part of a "Survival Group" in the event of a very serious long term SHTF type event......???

Unless people are living solo in a true wilderness situation in a mostly inhospitable climate or terrain, there’s safety in groups, which is critical in most locations. More than one person is needed to be on all sides of the property; one or two people cannot do this (and need to sleep sometime). More than one or two people are needed to rotate assignments so that everyone has a chance to rest.

I noticed that in the aftermath of Katrina, a few homeowners that were alone (although they were well-armed) eventually suffered depredation by looters because they were outnumbered. These individuals were overwhelmed because they could not stay awake 24/7. (One lone guy at the end of the street I was on insisted on staying in his house “to protect his property.” Unfortunately he was killed by looters who outnumbered him.)

On the other hand, neighbors who previously didn’t get along all that well pre-Katrina were suddenly bonded by a common goal: to keep looters out of their area. Assignments to stand guard, etc. were rotated so everyone could get much needed sleep.

So, yeah. In most situations, groups are critical to survival. It was interesting to see how these groups formed on the spot, and were not pre-planned. All they needed was one common goal.

 

[SheepDog]

Personally I don't see a situation that long term as being all that likely even in the worst of circumstances (barring a global pandemic or a nuclear winter that wiped out 95% of humanity).

Even in the case of an EMP strike that took down the entire North American grid the mayhem would likely only last a couple of years, and then some form of structure would be imposed. Times may still be very hard, but it wouldn't be "Road Warrior" levels of chaos as foreign powers would move in to start colonizing parts of the country.

As far as survival groups, I suppose those groups that have actually acquired a shared B.O.L. would have a practical purpose, but honestly I get the feeling many "internet" groups are more about fantasy roleplay than practical survival plans, and I seriously doubt if many of them could get along well if the s really did hit the fan. While I do not follow an organized religion I do think the Biblically based groups will have a better success rate especially with regard to infighting, which will likely be a BIG problem for most other groups because they never laid out clear goals and hard limits from the start.

Personally if the shtf I would plan to go it alone (well me and my dogs, so mobility would be out of the question for us). We wouldn't survive long term, but I hope to be prepared to make the best of whatever time we had, and "buying some time" to figure out how bad things are while maintaining some control over our fate would be the ultimate purpose. Even just being able to hold out for 2-3 months would allow one to determine if it was truly a long term SHTF situation or whether it was a temporary glitch that could be resolved (of course if I had dependent children that that would complicate matters considerably).

Sonya,
An EMP event from solar activity will be a very long term event. It could last half a century and 90 to 95% of the population will die in modern societies. The "road warrior" levels of chaos would disappear after the first few months because there won't be enough food to support them. Even turning to cannibalism will only last a short time. Those who are alive after the first year will be those who have prepared "gardens" or small farms that are large enough to supply all the needed food. At first there will be looters and even large gangs but they won't last long because of disease and food shortage.
After your year of stored food is gone you should have a harvest to feed you and new animals born for the future. You will need to can and preserve everything as well as hunt and gather to complete your food supplies to last till the next harvest. Collecting and preserving seeds will be a prime concern. Being alone you won't have the ability to do all the work for food and maintain security and safety for yourself or your animals.
Most successful groups will be formed after the devastation and during the big die off. The really dangerous areas are those areas down wind from nuclear storage facilities (active nuclear plants that have fuel stored in cooling pools). Once the power goes out the pools will evaporate and the fuel will ignite sending radioactive smoke down wind for hundreds of miles. The further East you go in the USA the worse this problem gets.
If you live in an urban or suburban area you are in more danger from the population than if you live in a more isolated rural area. Rural populations are more used to coming together to get the job done and less likely to turn on their local population members. There are enough people to work together to provide safety and food and enough knowledge to know how to do what will be necessary. I doubt that anyplace will be "heavenly" but some will be better than others, as long as you are a member of the society before a collapse.

 

[Sonya_6]

Sonya,
An EMP event from solar activity will be a very long term event. It could last half a century and 90 to 95% of the population will die in modern societies. The "road warrior" levels of chaos would disappear after the first few months because there won't be enough food to support them. Even turning to cannibalism will only last a short time. Those who are alive after the first year will be those who have prepared "gardens" or small farms that are large enough to supply all the needed food. At first there will be looters and even large gangs but they won't last long because of disease and food shortage.

Yes it will be horrible for a couple of years, but an EMP will NOT wipe out the population or civilization in places like China, Russia, etc...

I mention those two countries in particular because they would have both the interest and the resources to colonize parts of the US if all heck broke loose. This country has a LOT of land and natural resources, someone will want that and they will show up. Not necessarily a hostile takeover, but when the majority of the population died off they would show up and start setting up operations in various places.

When organized outside forces start to move in civility will be restored slowly but surely, and it won't take 100 years as the first to arrive will have the advantage over others.

 

[SheepDog]

China and Russia are both electronic/electrical nations. If we are hit by a very bad solar mass ejection it could take the entire electrical grid down, world wide, leaving no way to recover other than starting with hand built steam engines and wood forges. The event itself will not kill anyone but those dependent on the electrical grid for medications and treatment will die quickly without it. There will be no mass transportation because the fuel cannot be pumped without electricity. No transportation means no food to the cities and no emergency medical care. Most of the world won't have drinking water or sanitation because it is all powered by electricity. Some of the third world countries won't feel it as bad as others but the food and medicine that is supplied world wide would be gone, unavailable or used up without the ability to make more. People will die of thirst, hunger, and disease within a short time. Some will last as long as six months to a year but fewer than you might think. Nobody will be moving without the fuel that mass transportation powers. Thinking that China or Russia could have fuel, food and water to travel halfway around the world to occupy another place that has no power, fuel, food or water is almost funny. The fact is that most of the modern world would die in the first months keeps it from being funny.

 

[Sonya_6]

Thinking that China or Russia could have fuel, food and water to travel halfway around the world to occupy another place that has no power, fuel, food or water is almost funny. The fact is that most of the modern world would die in the first months keeps it from being funny.

Ahhh...well I don't know about a CME that affects the entire planet, I see the likelihood of a regional CME or an EMP to be more likely (seeing as how an EMP would be an easy and "clean" way to knock the wind out of the US without causing global contamination).

 

[SheepDog]

OK, I see, you are talking about an HEMP. You are confused about the solar event that causes damage. If a solar EMP has enough strength to affect the USA it will, at the same time, affect the rest of the northern hemisphere or the entire world. We are all connected to the same magnetic field and any solar event affects the entire magnetosphere not just over one country.
An HEMP that is targeted over the middle of our country and is powerful enough to - let me phrase that better... If it is detonated over the middle of our country at a high enough altitude that it affects the entire USA then the southern half of Canada and most of Mexico will all be without electronics for sure. It is very likely that the E2 and E3 pulses that follow the E1 pulse will damage or destroy all the electrical infrastructure after the E1 has taken out the high speed switches, control system computers along with all the electronics from shore to shore. Now our military won't be completely incapacitated because we have troops, planes and ships all over the world. The military stockpiles a moderate supply of goods to be battle ready and will likely be using that to keep the storage facilities at all our nuclear generators from turning to burning radioactive puddles. They need to power their cooling pumps to prevent what happened at Fukashima, with both the active (but shut down) core and the stored spent fuel rods that are kept in cooling tanks.
Some friends of mine and I think about what might happen if...
We decided to figure out the safest way to take the USA without a war. It takes four players and it would have to be orchestrated at the highest levels in each of the countries involved. China and Russia need to be together on this to keep the risk to themselves low. China gives a Russian Designed HEMP device to North Korea and Provide them with many good reasons to use it. China provides three dimensional coordinates to the most effective detonation point and promise that if they take credit for the attack they will have the full support of China. I will try to shorten this.
NK puts the bomb in orbit and detonates it perfectly. The entire USA goes black. Communications are down backup generators don't start and have to be started manually. The state governors use ham radio to contact the national guard and they mak contact with as many members as they can and begin to deploy. Within a few days there are riots in the streets and store shelves are empty and the warehouses are full of rotting food and dried goods. They realize now that the entire USA has been hit in the worst way. The national guard gets the army and the army contacts the feds. Everyone wants to calm the panic and the president is piped by ham radio all over the USA with a message of hope and the word that the problem is being addressed. Russia and China call the UN to help in the recovery and rebuilding of the infrastructure in the USA. The UN responds with nearly unanimous support. Chinese and Russian troops don their blue helmets and hit the ground running. NK announces it was the perpetrator and China strikes them before anyone can think too hard about it. North Korea is completely gone in a non-nuclear attack that wipes out the entire government and most of their military might. (what little they had)
China is helping with military rescues and supplying radios and key gear while Russia is quietly taking out the command and control folks. About two weeks into this China turns the Russians in and the UN takes action against them. The non-military force of the world is brought to bear on the Russian government and they find themselves alone with China at their throat.
China is the "good guy" and with the rest of the UN they help in the recovery, keeping a running tab of what we owe them. When it is time to leave the Chinese have made deals with industry and government to allow immigration on a large scale and to build businesses in the USA.
All is well until the next EMP hits only this time it is a hack from the Chinese and none of the Chinese facilities are affected. The hack affects the power grid, military communications, all military systems and the effect is world wide for all USA forces, bases and ships. The UN is again asked to help but this time China vetoes it. They quickly and quietly bring in support for their businesses and replace the government. Martial law is declared and the confiscate guns wherever there is a list. Welcome to the Socialist Republic of the USA.
There is a lot more that goes on in the middle but the end is the point of this mental exercise. This is not a prediction it is just one way the we could be taken over without a shot being fired. well, until they come for our guns... But THAT is a different story.

 

[CrackbottomLouis]

I plan to vanish like a fart in the wind and hunker down for the first year with close family. After that Ill see about forming groups for mutual benefit with those that had the forthought to prepare or were tough enough to survive. I keep my options open though. No plan survives contact.

 

[Flight]

I get all my info from The walking dead. lol

 

[SheepDog]

I thought they couldn't talk... Do they know ASL? Do YOU know ASL?
Can they walk? LOOK! A SQUIRREL!

 

[Sourdough]

I plan to vanish like a fart in the wind and hunker down for the first year with close family. After that Ill see about forming groups for mutual benefit with those that had the forthought to prepare or were tough enough to survive. I keep my options open though. No plan survives contact.

That is also my plan.........No human contact for six months. Retreat deep into the wilderness. Go where others can't survive.

 

[The Innkeeper]

There are advantages and disadvantages to a group. A person can certainly survive solo, but I want to do more than survive. I want to rebuild. Admittedly you have to survive to rebuild and it won’t be a quick process.

The make up of a group will determine how well it can do (assuming of course they survive whatever the event is, even being prepared is not a guarantee. You could be standing at ground zero, run over by a bus, catch a bug or whatever). Group dynamics are a field of study all on their own.

There are people here that (taken at face value ... but for the sake of discussion) that I would be comfortable grouping with. There are others I am glad to see on the forum but would never turn my back on ... no I am not going to name names. That doesnt mean there wouldn’t be issues under stress, every group has stress related issues to work through, even marriages and I have more than 40 years boots on the field experience there.

I am not part of a group but I do have a network of likeminded people I trust that could form the nucleus of such a group if need be.

I have spent enough time in the bush to go off and survive by myself for extended periods if I had to. I also know myself well enough to know that wouldn’t be what was best for my personal mental health.to each their own

 

[Grimm]

I get all my info from The walking dead. lol

Always check the freezer for hidden supplies... Like Glen did before the group made it to Terminus.

"Everything useful is either taken or hidden."

 

[Grimm]

There are advantages and disadvantages to a group. A person can certainly survive solo, but I want to do more than survive. I want to rebuild. Admittedly you have to survive to rebuild and it won’t be a quick process.

The make up of a group will determine how well it can do (assuming of course they survive whatever the event is, even being prepared is not a guarantee. You could be standing at ground zero, run over by a bus, catch a bug or whatever). Group dynamics are a field of study all on their own.

There are people here that (taken at face value ... but for the sake of discussion) that I would be comfortable grouping with. There are others I am glad to see on the forum but would never turn my back on ... no I am not going to name names. That doesnt mean there wouldn’t be issues under stress, every group has stress related issues to work through, even marriages and I have more than 40 years boots on the field experience there.

I am not part of a group but I do have a network of likeminded people I trust that could form the nucleus of such a group if need be.

I have spent enough time in the bush to go off and survive by myself for extended periods if I had to. I also know myself well enough to know that wouldn’t be what was best for my personal mental health.to each their own

I already know I'm on your don't turn your back on list. I'm on everyone's list. Just ask Peaches.

 

[The Innkeeper]

I already know I'm on your don't turn your back on list. I'm on everyone's list. Just ask Peaches.

nah you don’t frighten me

 

[TMT Tactical]

Well she scares the heck out of me. BUT then everybody scares me. I am a lover, not a fighter. ALSO a bushwhacker too. Fair fight is an oxymoron, for morons.

I already know I'm on your don't turn your back on list. I'm on everyone's list. Just ask Peaches.

nah you don’t frighten me

 

[The Innkeeper]

Well she scares the heck out of me. BUT then everybody scares me. I am a lover, not a fighter. ALSO a bushwhacker too. Fair fight is an oxymoron, for morons.

what frightens me is self important, unteachable experts and people who are all hat and no horse. Typically those kind of people are not ones I can work with. Snivelling butt kissers and politicians are on the list as well. I sure there are plenty of people who woulD find me difficult as well, so it all balances out.

 

[TMT Tactical]

Those that are ALWAYS right scare me the most. Can"t reason with them and they cannot see any options but there own path. Safer to be a group of one, at least until the dust settles out.