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.


Is it better to run to the hills, run to the cities, or run to the suburbs?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 1 2008 @ 03:06 AM
generally speaking, i think running to any place is a bad survival strategy. obviously there are exceptions, like the poster who has family in the country and plans to scramble his way back to his ancestral home. that's fine, that's a good strategy. key being he's heading not so much to a location as to a social group.

and that's going to be the central factor IMO to any survival beyond a few days to months. flat out, the vast majority of us are going to need a communal group to have any realistic chance of surviving sitx. sure, there are a few who can manage a lone-wolf nature boy survival campaign. but damn, that's a long road fraught with plenty of hard cheese.

now i'm a control freak so i gotta admit that the lone-wolf route resonates with me on a lot of levels. but when i think analytically, i come back to communal living. without a social network, your long-term survival odds are slim. what happens when you get sick or injured? what happens when you've fired your last round? what happens when those two b*stards get the drop on you?

nothing good, that's what.

i don't care WHERE you're at after sitx hits, if you've got a group that include a health care professional, an engineer, that dude who worked at radio shack, mrs. jones who knows how to garden, that survivalist fella (here's where a lot of you will fall in) who has some guns gear and knowledge, the old ham radio operator and the five-star chef, your survival prospects have just gone up exponentially. as has the quality of your life.

survival, like getting a job as a longshoreman, is all about who you know.

running is a strategy of last resort. every location has survival potential, positives and negatives, that i won't bother pointing out.

so be the man with the plan. you can do more over the next two weeks to increase your survival quotient by making some phone calls and having some long conversations over a few cold drafts than you can over the next year of googling, fretting, and hoarding (not that those things don't have their place, they do).

start building your group, formally or informally. those who are of like mind, network mainly with them at first. develop your strategy, articulate your roles. then, attract as many skill sets as you can into your group. i can't tell you how many times i've told someone at a party or over a lunch that 'when the SHTF, you come here with your family. i've got a group of good people, we can use you, we can help you.' most times they're non-committal of course or unimpressed, but i guarantee you when it goes down and they're trying to figure out what to do with the wife and kids, that conversation we had will pop into his head.

and voila, we've just added another asset.

good luck.

posted on May, 1 2008 @ 03:11 AM
reply to post by SecretGoldfish

In other words 'safety in numbers'? Perhaps. Don't want the moochers tho.

posted on May, 1 2008 @ 03:56 AM
then don't invite any moochers. that's why you set your group up beforehand rather than taking whatever straggler walks in off the street.

everyone who got an invite got one for a reason, sometimes big sometimes small. one guy got an invite just because he knew how to brew some really decent beer.

but how you deal with stragglers and disappointments is something you'll need to address before the fact rather than after. IMO there will be little in the way of true dead weight in most cases. but it's a concern.

i moved away from our group a few months ago and a bit exposed right now (finding this forum has brought back some anxiety). we live on an army base now, which brings an inherent structure, but still.

[edit on 1-5-2008 by SecretGoldfish]

[edit on 1-5-2008 by SecretGoldfish]

posted on May, 2 2008 @ 12:55 AM
Dont run. Unless chased by the law. Then only move in bad weather. If survival....Build up your castle. Much easier too survive off what you know. Plus when people get hungry they get dumb. So people trying to get into your castle will be easy to take out.....They umm..errr... People jerky my friend

posted on May, 3 2008 @ 12:53 AM

Originally posted by murkywater

1. The City: Per capita/per square mile; where are people murdered right now? Where are most crimes commited per capita in a given area. Obviously in "the city". Now, people here and today will rape your children, rob you, kill you and do all sort of sick things---and do it JUST FOR THE HELL OF IT. Imagine these same people KILLING OUT OF NECESSITY for food, sexual pleasure and resources in a lawless society. The Urban areas after Peak Oil will be HELL ON EARTH.

I completely agree with this. In a complete societal collapse, if a large portion of a city isn't killed in the initiating event - you don't wanna be there. It would no longer be a question of morals if you kill someone. A lion that kills a gazelle is not immoral. With no society we're not reverting to The Middle Ages. We're talking caveman ****.

The problem is, speaking about the US especially, where are the hills?

To put it in perspective (the US night sky):

Any where East of the Mississisppi is dangerous. Even minor population centers can't sustain their populations when the trains, plains, ane most importantly over the road trucking stop. Not to mention clean water, waste management and fuel for light and heating. As St. Udio stated earlier in the thread, even the wild game populations will drastically decrease without proper management.

Really, to me the only truly safe option is to head to the hills before something major goes down. And I don't mean the Appalachians or the farmland 35 minutes outside of a city. I mean like Alaska. Unfortunately, that's probably not an option for most people.

posted on May, 3 2008 @ 04:48 AM

Originally posted by TheRedneck

If no one is there, leave immediately. They may indeed be gone, or they may be holed up inside waiting. Or a neighbor could be watching.


With a shotgun shell set up next to a trip wire no doubt.

Thanks for the advice, Redneck - i ask out of nessecity, it's not the kind of thing i want to be thinking to myself when i'm half starved and hiding out in the woods.

posted on May, 3 2008 @ 06:52 AM
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant

With a shotgun shell set up next to a trip wire no doubt.

Ah, you bring back memories with that! The old trip wires were used around here in my lifetime, since we had a decent number of the old moonshiners in the area. I once found a still, not working, but it looked operational, back up in the mountains a ways behind my house. I simply backtracked out and went another direction when I realized what it was.

I have of course heard about the shotgun shells being used, buit tin cans were a more common thing during that time period, and probably will be in the future. So another word of advise: be aware of what's around you and where you are going. Remember thsat ammo will quite probably become scarce, so just make yourself not worth shooting.


posted on May, 3 2008 @ 08:32 AM
reply to post by TheRedneck

Well, that's why i don't intend to be moving around during the dark - unless some wild animal decides to pick a fight with me of course (in which case if i'm in the sort of environment we're discussing, i get a meal).

p.s; Oh, i intend to be as peaceful as possible - you won't see a single weapon on me unless i want you to.

From what you have said, it does seem as if hiding out in the woods would be a bad idea, so that leaves me with plains, cities, suburbia and mountains.

I'll probably end up setting myself up in a cave somewhere to be honest, at least then i'd have a good idea of what's coming from my vantage point in the mountains.

posted on May, 3 2008 @ 02:18 PM

Originally posted by murkywater

Simply put:

1. The City: Per capita/per square mile; where are people murdered right now? Where are most crimes commited per capita in a given area. Obviously in "the city". Now, people here and today will rape your children, rob you, kill you and do all sort of sick things---and do it JUST FOR THE HELL OF IT. Imagine these same people KILLING OUT OF NECESSITY for food, sexual pleasure and resources in a lawless society. The Urban areas after Peak Oil will be HELL ON EARTH.

There are a few FACTS you havent taken into consideration. There is more killing in the citys because there are more people in the city. if the people are not there the killing is not there.

There is this constant battle between so called country people and so called city people. People are people. we all have the same thing in common. We want to live. SHTF on a national basis and the stores run out of supplies, people will leave the city in droves. as I said no people no killing. Of course not every body will leave those that are left will be the sick and old. there will be at first some street gangs left but once starvation sets in they will bug out to the country then there the country folks problem. just remember all people want the same thing no matter ware they come from.

posted on May, 3 2008 @ 03:52 PM

Originally posted by SecretGoldfish
survival, like getting a job as a longshoreman, is all about who you know.

running is a strategy of last resort. every location has survival potential, positives and negatives, that i won't bother pointing out.

Thanks for the great tip.
Best post in this thread i have seen so far.
And ive seen some good ones here

posted on May, 3 2008 @ 04:36 PM
Do you know how long most prisoners stay free following a jail break? About 72 hours.

That's how long it takes law enforcement to figure out where you mama lives, where your girlfriend(s) live(s), and where your favorite bar is. If you run, they'll check surrounding states to see where you've bought hunting / fishing licenses, and where you bought gas near wilderness areas.

Why do I bring this up, when the whole country will be in motion, and no law enforcement around?

Only to remind you how predictable we all are. Most city dwellers, when thinking of "fleeing to the hills," have a specific spot in mind: a place they've been on vacation, as hunting, fishing or backpacking.

So anyplace you or tourists would go like those should be stricken from your list. You'd be better off picking an old farmstead in rural kansas, with it's own windmill and a corall, than to pick a national park, with a paved road leading right into the middle of it.

Since you wont get shot at by homeowners on public land, you can expect most of that land to be stripped of all wildlife, before being claimed by squatters who will shoot you for encroaching on "their" land. Likewise, as others have noted, most rivers in the USA and near cities everywhere only have fish because the government stocks them with grain-fed fingerlings. After a few months, all the domesticated fish will be fished out, and any survivors will be EXTREMELY cagey about hitting any artificial lure you present.

YOu might have better luck finding food by going where people produce food right now. I suspect most farmers will continue farming, however much on a reduced scale. I also suspect most people will stay put if they have any reason at all to do so; which means that areas with a lot of "transients" will be much more dangerous---along interstates, near major bridges near "wilderness areas" that appear on maps and roadsigns.

Incedentally, this was the situation in the 1930's. Hobos were distrusted, and the areas around railroads and bridges were not safe after dark or alone.

As a footnote, tough times will make beards and other facial hair UN-fashionable. When I was young I worked for an old rancher who lived by a railroad. He would not hire anyone with facial hair, just on principle. Too many bad experience with "hoboes" in the great depression. Just like with the ancient Romans. They were all clean-shaven, to show that they had the sharp blades and liesure to maintain that clean, close shave.

I'm not about to start shaving, though.

posted on May, 3 2008 @ 11:32 PM
reply to post by dr_strangecraft

Farming as we know it will be little more than a memory if STHF... farmers rely on seed from the seed stores, fertilizer, and loads of diesel fuel to keep their farms running. Should these things become unavailable, the farms will be producing only enough food for themselves and possibly a few neighbors. Our present reliance on technology is what will make this coming storm worse than 1929. How many farms do you know that plow the land with mules as they did back then? I know of only two places that even have mules left, and neither works them.


[edit on 3-5-2008 by TheRedneck]

posted on May, 4 2008 @ 09:59 PM

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by dr_strangecraft

As far as seed goes, wheat is self-fertilizing, and a grain exchange with your neighbors will keep it fertile indefinitely.

I've got friends with mules. I can name six different mules without even trying.

But I know what you mean. The average american farm worker feeds 300 people. Up from 45 people before steam engines were introduced into farming and grain processing.

I don't think farming will cease. I think that more people will become farmers, as each farm produces radically less---due to a shortage of power, not seed. Watch machine power be temporarily replaced with human power, which means that instead of 1 person farming 1200 acres, you get 120 people farming 1200 acres.


posted on May, 4 2008 @ 10:24 PM

Originally posted by SystemiK
While talking about a SitX etc., I often hear "city folk" saying "no prob dude, I'll just head for the hills with my tent and my rifle and live off the land". Sounds good enough eh?

Though I'll never forget sitting in a bar one day years ago having this type of a conversation with a couple of seasoned outdoorsman (railroad guys if I recall correctly). They were talking about living off the deer population and one of them said "I can tell you one thing, if I need that deer to survive and I see you in my scope I wouldn't think twice about blowing your head off". I can see this kind of thinking becoming pretty common in an all out societal collapse.

Something you should keep in mind if you are one of those planning to head for the hills. It could turn out to be a quite different ballgame than just "chillin in the hills" and "livin off the land". Just a thought.....

Good point you made here... I can see this happening... Farmers and such are very protective of their crops and live stock... It would be like a wolf coming in and killing your goats or cows... You'd shoot the bastard the next time you saw it... My solution to this problem is to not hunt for big game animals, be very aware of your surroundings and if unsure find out if there is anyone protecting the area... Fish mostly, eat berries, roots, rabbits, birds, eggs and bugs if you need too... Stay on the move at all times would be best... Trying to settle down and raise stock would be more dangerous for fear of others trying to steal or kill you to get what you have... If you are backpacking you're probably going to last longer...

But I'm glad you brought my attention to this very plausible situation... Thanks!

To the OP... The cities will not have any food, medicine or anything if they are not functioning... The food will be gone fast as people hoard and try to stock up, then people will get really hungry/thirsty and will go after the ones who hoard... They will live this way until all resources are consumed at which point anyone who has moved on and has tried to settle is now in danger... They'll get attacked and taken out, then people will start to die from starvation, in the end only a hand full will make it... If the NWO system is operating at this time, anyone involved with that system will be eating genetically grown foods, will have microprocessors in them and will more or less as slaves... Ever played the game Half-Life2? Also if the NWO is functioning they will be out to destroy all who are not part of the system... At the same time you'll have planetary issues, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornado's, volcanoes, flooding etc... So the safest place to be would not be the mountains or the desserts, but more near the upper center of the country... Lincoln City is a meeting spot for me and a few buddies.. That way is doo doo hit's the fan, we have a central meetings pot in what should be a safe spot... However, must avoid getting picked up by the NWO too, so it's hard to say... Not in the city, the flatter the country the better, not mountains or near fault lines... Someplace that has a moderate climate, but doesn't have to be, Canada is a good spot, but it could get very cold there...

Some good info...
What will the end of the world be like?
I think we're in trouble...
System Crash, No Medications..

[edit on 4-5-2008 by ElectricUncleSam]

posted on May, 4 2008 @ 10:27 PM

Originally posted by St Udio
I never really understood why heading-for-the-hills was an option...
most all lakes, rivers, ponds are polluted & the fishing in a hole-in-the-wall retreat is most lakely sparse... 90% (just my guess) of outdooey areas have fish stocked and had game wardens who aided in the 'plentiful' game and deer populations as an example...

If a SituationX does go down, then there isn't any one left to transport the fish from the fish nursery to the tourist fishing hole/lake/stream/pond...
And the deer, pheasant, & other normally plentiful game will not be there because of game management is out of business, so any managed game populations won't be around in a short time...and turn that once garden-of-eden into just another hell hole.

I trust the rivers and lakes here in my town more than I would in a city. As for game, I think there are more deer, rabbit, and squirrels around here than there are people. Especially the rabbits and squirrels. But we also have turkey, raccoons, opossum, and many other species of wildlife. If sitx ever occurs I'm staying right here. We have our differences in this town but when one of us needs help we tend to band together and help. Of course there'll be trouble makers we'll need to eliminate but I can live with that.

posted on May, 4 2008 @ 10:27 PM
Interesting thread. And some great points have been made.

In many urban areas simply getting out of the city would be a daunting task and you and everybody else may ahve the same idea as well.

Also excellent point made that those in the hills will welcome refugees with open arms. More likely it will be with a well aimed 30-30 shot to protect thier ability to survive.

posted on May, 5 2008 @ 08:35 AM
Flat out, there is just no way to support all the bellies in the world as a hunter/gatherer society. not even close, not even remotely close to being close. there are going to be 7 BILLION people walking around soon. 99.9% of them are dependent on modern ag, modern feedlots, and modern ocean harvesting for their calories.

when those are gone, there is just not going to be any place to go to and carve out your niche. there's not going to be any place to run to. there just ain't.

exceptions? sure, every rule has 'em, but not many. good luck.

when 9 out of every 10 bodies are cold, lop another 9 out of 10 from the herd and then maybe you can get to a sustainable HG population level.

your odds of surviving in the city are as bad as anywhere else. some notable hardships in the city, some benefits as well.

now obviously this post doesn't apply to everyone. but those of us in a city or suburb or town with a group of people we already know, no matter how crappy times get we're almost certainly better off staying put than running. and like i said earlier, there are some things you can do to jack up your chances quite a bit if you just put in a little work sooner rather than later.

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 04:01 AM
Well considering I'm currently single and both my last girlfriends couldn't keep up with me anyway as I can easily move 10+ miles a day in the mountains or 50-60 on my pedal mountain bike on logging roads.
Unless something changes and I meet an amazon beauty prior, I'm going lone wolf - but that's not the only reason.

Likewise most of the population of the U.S. couldn't handle the rugged mountains where I will be. (They ain't hills) While that leaves quite a few mountaineers - I suspect that's quite a bit less than 10% of the population.

I read through all these post and I have to say thank you for reminding me to be a bit better prepared, but one thing it seems you guys have left out of your decision making process is that it is very likely that we will have some SARS type viral infection going around - in fact that might be what causes the whole problem in the first place.

Now these type of viruses are spread through close human contact, touching, coughing and sneezing is all it takes to spread. So, those living in the city now or when this happens will likely already be infected before they get a chance to get away.

Being in a Commune and allowing others in your group to come in from the City's will put your entire community at risk. If you going to do this your better off with small groups and those who have not been in quarantine zones before joing your group.

Again that's for all the tips. I still need some gear, but I do have a pretty good backpacking/camping setups as I both car camp and occasionally backpack. I think the best setup would be have your car camp type gear in a cave or good shelter position and then be mobile with your backpack gear just in case you need to be move quickly, but can't do it on the roads.

I don't think any homes or farm type situations are going to be all that safe, you need 24 hour surveillance as you would be prime A1 targets. Maybe you could defend yourselves against singles and small groups, but what if a few hundred decided to raid you - you'd be SOL unless you have a very hardened well defended site. So, unless your a multimillionaire who has one of the concrete and rock fortified homes with plenty of friends to guard your better off digging an unseen bunker that wouldn't become a main target.

No doubt I may hook up with a few similar individuals, but bottom line the old , sick & weak shall parish and if they are in your party they will be a burden. With the excepting of looking out for your own kids I would not allow any who cannot fend for themselves.

[edit on 6-5-2008 by verylowfrequency]

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in