It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Survival Vs. Social Instincts - Which Do You Choose?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on May, 29 2007 @ 12:00 AM
citizen smith, excellent idea! They earn their way in. And your resources are not reduced at the same time.

And, if they accomplish the task, you know they are capable of being an asset to the group as a whole. Not to mention, if it's agreed on beforehand by the founders of the group as a way to allow in new recruits, nobody in the core group can complain over a new member.

I had never considered that idea. This is how we can all learn. Sharing useful strategies can increase our odds in a sit-x. This is the ultimate game of 'survivor', where early strategies pay you back with a longer life.

The same thing could apply to a skill. A doctor, or even a medical student, would have a worthwhile basic skill that would add to the group's safety. A good dentist, a meteorologist, any skill that would further the survivability of the whole 'tribe'.

And those that interred on skill alone would be on probation until they proved they could really perform the skill that they claimed.

Love it. Keep those ideas flowing.

posted on May, 29 2007 @ 12:04 AM
Heavy is the head that wears the crown. Sorry about your luck kid but if in a snap decision if I see you as a threat you are going down. If you give me enough of a chance to determine if you were just spooked up like a deer and don't mean harm. I might just take you in.

Same goes for adults and pretty women. Odds of survival are dependent on making choices that are right at the moment as well as for the future. A shot to wound or frighten could just as easily get you shot to be killed. Got to see it from their eyes too, you know.

[edit on 29-5-2007 by Ahabstar]

posted on May, 29 2007 @ 12:56 AM
What would be the ideal number of members for a group? How many would be a bare-minimum for efficiency and survival?

posted on May, 29 2007 @ 02:21 AM
Pick his freaken head of then say. "BOOM HEADSHOT!".

Seriously though provided he was trying to kill me and it was pretty much the end of the world and there were no police or anything, Id shoot him. Age knows no bounds, and a 14 year old kid is not mentally retarded and is capable of making decisions himself.

[edit on 29-5-2007 by PisTonZOR]

posted on May, 29 2007 @ 04:31 AM

Originally posted by citizen smith
What would be the ideal number of members for a group? How many would be a bare-minimum for efficiency and survival?

Based on a military recon experience six is a bare minimum if you plan to keep a 24/7 watch over your base. i'd say 8-15 would be good, above that you'll need to start figuring out a command structure to keep things organised. Especially if you're moving.

posted on May, 29 2007 @ 07:56 AM
You are so right, Ahabstar, heavy is the head that wears the crown. And these are the things that the leaders in sit-x are going to be facing.

Personally, I'm not going to be in a group that hasn't taken the time to settle a certain amount of these questions ahead of time.

PisTonZor,In sit-x, the age of adulthood has to be redefined. Our society has the luxury of a prolonged childhood, but it has seldom in history been as long as it is now.

northwolf, some things are eternal, and those numbers seem to match what I remember from 40 years ago. In sit-x, when there's no modern 'gadgets of war', it all goes back to the basics.

Citizen Smith, again you're showing that trait of thinking ahead. I like that.

posted on May, 29 2007 @ 09:59 AM
i would have to shoot him. Self defence, escape and evade would be option number 1 but if thats cut off. Its him or me, and it aint me.

posted on May, 29 2007 @ 10:17 AM

Originally posted by seagull
A choice between the life of a 14 year old kid whose trying to prevent me and mine from eating, or from sleeping out of the weather.

As big a fan as I am of fair play, it's not a contest. I'd slice the kid a new one, and carry the burden for the rest of my days. But my family comes first, second, and always.

totally agree with you there man. family first. you threaten my family with harm, your gonna see a whole new pain.

posted on May, 29 2007 @ 05:32 PM
It would be a very different situation that one, what if he is attacking you to defend his family or something like that? I would shoot him if he shot at me though. Bust a cap in his puck @ss, but seriously, negotiation would take place first, If he was lucky.

posted on May, 29 2007 @ 07:06 PM
Cydonian, yes, if there is time to talk, then talk is always better. But the reason I started this thread was so that people could wrap their minds around the facts of survival faster.

When there is lead in the air, there's not a lot of time for reaching decisions. And it is good that you are past that point. I fear that many are not.

posted on May, 30 2007 @ 12:57 AM
In a situation such as is being described in this thread, aim for the center of the body and say goodnight. Head shots are tricky for people who have extensive firearm training unless your at the good end of a rifle and at distance from your target so as not to draw return fire from anyone else that might be with him/her. Yes I said her, in armed conflict you can not allow a persons age or sex come into your thinking if you sense that they are up to no good then repel all borders. One thing that must be asked though is how did this person get so close to you to begin with. If you are in some sort of a group of people all working for the good of the tribe this would to me imply a compound of some sort. There should be anti-intrusion devices and some sort of roving patrols that would more than likley pull second duty as hunting party. The point being no one should be able to get that close to the women and childern and the core of the group without having been watched covertly to determine what thier intentions are. If friendly offer food if not give them hell.

posted on May, 30 2007 @ 01:37 AM
This one is easy for me. Yes. The aftermath is a bitch. It can be a VERY fine line between legal and WOOPS. Get your CHL, take a class at a place like Thunder Ranch...And keep fighting....A quality 1911 by Wilson or Les Baer under that shirt will keep you alive.

Survival......A good AR-15 and 12 mags (at least). Trijicon TA01-NSN and if Ok in your state a good can from Gemtech, AWC,AAC, or SWR. Forget the Surefire unless you can crap lithium batteries. 6 CLOSE friends...2 is a opportunity, 1 is none. Some kind of farming collective I guess, and 24 hour several dogs, wire, and whatever. Head shot idea stupid. shoot to wound, let their buddies come out and gut shoot another. Max 2 shots and haul ass....keep moving around your target trying to flank. Keep at least 200 yrds away and don’t silhouette yourself on ridge lines and if possible move in creeks, or low parts of the land. lol....What the hell was I talking about

[edit on 30-5-2007 by TXMACHINEGUNDLR]

posted on May, 30 2007 @ 09:45 AM
sun tsu, I agree that ideally one should never be surprised. But war is never an ideal environment, and surprise is always a possibility, at any level. I intended only bring up the subject of mentally being prepared to take on those generally thought of as non combatants.

txmachinegunnerdlr, yes, start preparing now, as if your life depended on getting it right. Because it does. You can never be prepared too soon, but you sure will be in a world of *&#$%* by being too late.

posted on May, 30 2007 @ 05:36 PM
Great advice about never being to early to be prepared.Perhaps I went a little overboard and of topic but I firmly believe that in a survival situation that everyone is a combatant until proven otherwise.Great thread.

posted on May, 30 2007 @ 08:56 PM
Yes, under extreme conditions, sit-x, one must err on the side of staying alive.

And you didn't really go overboard. Trust me, I've seen overboard here!

But if the idea of what may have to be done in the name of survival seems enough to drive you overboard just talking about it, think what it will be like when/if it is in your face happening.

I think it's important to think on these things now, rather than later so that a person is settled in their mind on the matter.

Another thing that troubles me, is triage. When do you let one of your own group die because help is not a good option for the safety of the rest of the members?

posted on May, 31 2007 @ 02:12 AM
There you have hit on one of the toughest items on the very long list of things to contemplate about survival situations. Triage, I am currently rated to teach cpr,defibulation, first aid-level one and have been thru combat first aid courses and this subject only gets harder the closer that you are with the victum. I think that denial would probably be the frist obstacle to overcome when looking at family or friends with serious life threating injuries. Do you waste your limited supplies on a hopless struggle to treat an injury that if it was some one you did'nt know you would have no doubt about what action to take. There would seem to be only one correct answer, trust your training. I recomend to every one who is truly intrested in realy surviving to learn basic first aid for starters, and build upon this knowledge. The life it saves could be dear to you.

posted on May, 31 2007 @ 06:36 AM
sun tsu, you are so right. In this age when the Red Cross will teach you freely on such things, there is no reason not to take a course in at least basic first aid and CPR.

Every member of the family old enough to be appropriate, ought to take all the red cross courses they can. By having more than one person in your group able to perform life saving skills, you greatly increase the chance that a needed skill will readily be at hand when needed.

And if sit-x never happens, you still have a valuable skill gained.

You are living up to your namesake sun tsu.

posted on Jun, 1 2007 @ 05:34 AM
Sorry but I'd just stiff him. Sod this "shoot to wound" rubbish. Aim centre mass, keep firing until they go down. As has already been mentioned morals are a luxury that you just can't afford. I think that if you asked anyone on this forum who has served in Iraq or Afghanistan about how dangerous kids can be you'll get some interesting answers.

There's quite a good army recruitment advert on TV in the UK at the minute that demonstrates this quite well. A section is patrolling down a street in Iraq. A football lands by the front man. A child of about 10 shouts at him to come over and kick the ball back. As the soldier runs forward to kick it back the section commander calls at hm to stop. The child runs off when the soldier gets to a certain point, and then there is an explosion.

I don't care if he's old enough to shave or not. If he's old enough to point a weapon then he's fair game.

The ideas of the innocence of children is a throwback from the Victorian era. Weapons are easier to use by unskilled, weak people these days. Placing such a weapon in the hands of a person who probably has an under developed sense of morals and decision making (like a child) in a survival situation is asking for trouble.

As for morals, I'd like to quote a certain Armold J. Rimmer (Red Dwarf)

"Of course I'd shoot him in the back. It's only a pity he's awake".

posted on Jun, 1 2007 @ 07:39 AM
Paddy, kid's that are involved in war go back a lot further than these recent conflicts. It's only been in the last few centuries that we've had the luxury to let children have such a prolonged childhood.

I was in the service in the 60s, and was shocked to think that children would, or could, be a threat before they were old enough to wear long pants. This is the very reason I started this thread.

There are a lot of things about real survival in sit-x that are unpleasant to contemplate, and this is just one of them. But, in the 'big crunch', there will be times that this has to faced.

Oh, I wish 'Red Dwarf' still came on over here. Good laughs.

posted on Jun, 1 2007 @ 08:10 AM
Well said mate. You would no doubt have served some time in Vietnam, so you will know exactly where I'm coming from. It's a messed up world that we live in, but in a survival scenario we're all going to have to go back to basics. That means survival of the fittest. The way I see it those who don't acknowledge this quick enough will be the first to fall. It's a dog eat dog world out there, and if you're not ruthless enough then you'll be dead.

I'll be easy to spot if it all goes wrong. I'll be the one taking the water and ammo from the bodies of the people on the moral high ground.

[edit on 1-6-2007 by PaddyInf]

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in