To Group or Not,When Sit-X Happens

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 11:58 PM
link   
First excuse the punctuation was never good at that, it may turn into one long sentence.

I have a thought, when the sh!t hits the fan and everything collapses , I'm taking it anything electrical wont work, for us lot on the surface anyways. no computer, no bank cards all that sort of stuff.
and we are forced to turn into hunter gatherers, or be detained in these detention camps ( bugger that ) then the way i see it this little community will longer exist, no more contact with like minded folk. that will be to bad as i really enjoy and learn a lot of this site and others like it.
what I'm getting at is, i can understand that it will probably be everyone for them selves for a while, but when things settle down a bit and we all fall into this living for the day, growing food, killing game, collecting water type of stuff.
It might be a good idea to turn to others the same, maybe build a community. all group together. somewhere ( is this a good idea ) i know they'll be some who wouldn't want this and prefer to be on there own, but before the SHTF maybe we as an ATS community, should come up with a place that we could all meet up at, i know its not very realistic as the world is a very big place and transport will be a huge problem, but if we have anything left after the SHTF it's time, it would be a good thing to aim for,
Sounds all idealistic and romantic i know, but it would suck to be on your own or even with the few people you plan on surviving with, just a thought at this point and would like some feedback on it, or expansion on the idea,
i for one live i the southern hemisphere, but if i had the way, would quite happily spend 6 months traveling to a point that other people were gathering to start again, sure beats being on your own.
the big plus i see is Safety In Numbers.




posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 12:43 AM
link   
You can not stay awake 24/7. You will need people to help you survive. It's really that simple.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Stay seperate in the beginning, group together once the storm has passed.

The opening stage of a NWO enslavement mission will be targeting groups, so it's quite a bad idea to stick together, regardless of whether or not you have the capability to defend yourselves against cruise missiles and the ilk.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 01:29 AM
link   
If I had the means, I would be preparing and stockpiling to support a platoon-sized element. This should be a big enough group to be completely self-contained, or enough so to produce the things that make life comfortable, as well as a formidable first-contact opponent once the members of the group were trained. Such a group would also happen to be small enough to be highly mobile if necessary.

Even children, starting from 12-14 years of age would be armed fighters. Everyone would have their jobs to do day to day, but would be able to fight as a unit as well.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Such a group would also happen to be small enough to be highly mobile if necessary.




That's the problem with the type of SitX whereby we are being actively hunted down and enslaved/exterminated, i feel.

It doesn't matter how mobile you are, if you are in a group near the beginning you have to be prepared for the event of targeted strikes on your position.

Those fighters, warships and submarines aren't just going to go away because there isn't an acting political or commanding element anymore.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 01:59 AM
link   
I agree with Anti-Tyrant, but for different reasons. If someone survives the storm he’s good enough to keep him with you. Evolution laws. Ok, I’m a bad person, but it’s about survival what we are talking about. I think it depends on the precautions you've taken. Groups have some advantages but can be very difficult in some circumstances. What will you do if there’s a year of poor harvest? Your stock probably won’t last until the next harvest and you can’t depend on hunting, fishing if you are in a big group of people. A group of people will attract attention of unwanted people for sure, but if you prefer to stay unnoticed you’ll be better alone. I think there’s no safety in the numbers.

In the other hand there’re a lot of chances that you get ill/hurt in this situations, and what happens if you’re alone? And you’ll probably be short of food a lot of times, because it’s hard to work the land only by yourself.
In my plan we are only two people, very well trained. If everything goes as planned, the fourth year we will be able to provide food to a third one with almost no risk.

(edit: sorry about my english)


[edit on 4-7-2008 by nsk123]



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by nsk123
I think there’s no safety in the numbers.


Not when there are weapons in existence which are designed to work against that advantage (like biological plagues, for example), no.



Originally posted by nsk123
In the other hand there’re a lot of chances that you get ill/hurt in this situations, and what happens if you’re alone?


That would be one reason to go looking for other people.

Of course, if they do decide to help to heal you, then one would feel a debt would be required for doing so.

In which case, that group would gain perhaps one of it's most valuable fighters with which to defend themselves in the coming battles.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 02:09 AM
link   
I agree with the above posters. If SHTF, it would not be wise to go alone, in the long term. It is important to remember that there will be no law, and no order. As a single target, you better be damn good at hiding, or travel in a larger group to avoid being targeted.

Let it be known that a Sit-X doesn't have to be some sort of NWO enslavement program, such as some say, but could likely even be a natural disaster, like hurricanes or earthquakes. Yet again, this is ATS, so I am sure that some believe that the NWO is behind all the hurricanes, with some secret weather program. xD

But, for matters of survival, I'll assume that it's not.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by MahNameABorat
I agree with the above posters. If SHTF, it would not be wise to go alone, in the long term. It is important to remember that there will be no law, and no order. As a single target, you better be damn good at hiding, or travel in a larger group to avoid being targeted.


Larger groups have larger quantities of supplies, thus making them more of a target than a single person.

And yes, i am damn good at hiding.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by trekker
 


I understand what your saying, that after a period of madness once the survivors had all settled down, would they group together and help each other ?

Live as a community as we would all be striving for common goals? I suppose it could happen with like minded people, but you've got to remember that at the end of the day, in situations like SitX most if not all people will always have themselves in mind.

What I'm getting at is, we as humans are naturally greedy and in a survival situation, especially were one has a family involved to support and provide for, it would be quite easy for many people in that said community to rip off other people and only think about themselves.

Take advantage is the word I was looking for.

I do think it would be a good idea to have a small number of like minded friend who you could trust with your life, who have similar interests & knowledge in survival etc Then when the SHTF you could group together and depend on each other. But, like I said you would have to be able to TRUST these people.

[edit on 4-7-2008 by Death_Kron]



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Death_Kron
 


I think your the first to actually get what i was saying.
im looking in to the future, would civalisation rebuild, would villages start to form. #### the government thing, but bands of people connecting agian.
or like i said up top, a place for us all to get together and take it from there, once the hard parts over, couple years i reckon.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 04:49 AM
link   
To the OP, If I was you I would stay exactly where you are - New Zealand is 'considered' one of the 'safer' areas of the World.

As for groups and suchlike, it depends on what/which Situation X you are envisaging.

In times of natural disaster most people the world over help each other out with whatever they can.

If you are looking at a breakdown of civilisation scenario then I would plump for a small group of like minded people. Think of it this way, the Special Forces always act in small groups and are disproportionate to their size. Again though, this is going to depend on where in the world you live.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 05:06 AM
link   
My partner and I have discussed this at length. In the end we decided it is best for us to go at it alone.

We live in a very urban area and our number one priority in a sitx would be to get the hell out of dodge.

He is the ONLY person that I feel I can fully trust with my life. I cannot imagine having to depend on others to be strong, or quick, or to look out for my best intrests. As a woman I feel my best bet would be to stick to my man.

That being said we've also discussed what would happen should he be injured to the point where death is likely or even killed. I don't want to be alone and I can't trust anyone else so we've decided that should anything happen to him I'd follow him by my own hand.

Now as far as long term survival I can understand the lure of a group, perhaps in the misguided ( imhp ) idea of rebuilding society. As our surival plan involves getting to a very remote area, very quickly ( already chosen and scouted out) I don't see that for us it would be an issue. I think should we make it to our spot we'd live the rest of our lives alone struggling to make our lives as meaningful as possible.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 05:20 AM
link   
To reference the Bible.....

When the SHTF, it will be be friend against friend, Father against son, etc.....

I agree with go it alone or immediate family for awhile then group up
after the dust settles.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Safety in numbers..perhaps.
But a larger group attracts more attention, and requires more resources to sustain.
Not to mention, how well do you know the people you want to team up with?
Are they reliable in a bad situation, or do they crack under pressure?
Do they have an are of expertise that would benefit the group as a whole, or would they be dead weight, draining supplies from those who earn their keep?
Very hard decisions to make.
I would opt for a small group. Chose those wisely, with a multitude of knowledge. Especially if one person is injured or killed, you need someone else who has their skills.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by RubyGloom
Safety in numbers..perhaps.
But a larger group attracts more attention, and requires more resources to sustain.



Thus making you a target for other large groups, and of course, the group you're in may choose to target other large groups as well.

The trouble with large groups is that you're more or less guarenteed that you're going to end up in a fight, which is something i would like to avoid.

I mean, let's face it - if one person alone is a target, then how big of a damn target will 12 be?



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant
 


I agree. However, even a small group can be a target if you have something the larger group wants. Fighting over resources will be evident no matter what the size of group you are in.
Obviously, a larger group needs more, and might be brazen enough to go after it no matter what.
Gang mentality will be prevalent. Especially in larger cities, but that does not mean it won't spread to more rural areas. No where will be 100% safe. That is the illusion.
One must decide whether it is in their best interest to team up or not, based on situation, location, and resources needed. Very hard to plan ahead for some of that. Too many unknowns and variables.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by RubyGloom
No where will be 100% safe. That is the illusion.


That, my friend, has always been the illusion.

There is no such thing as 100% safe, no matter where you are or what you are doing.

The establishment lies to us when they say they can protect us.


Originally posted by RubyGloom
One must decide whether it is in their best interest to team up or not, based on situation, location, and resources needed. Very hard to plan ahead for some of that. Too many unknowns and variables.


Undoubtedly.

If the threat is something which is not human-orientated like climate change or alien invasion or something equally as un-stoppable, i'll be more than willing to side with my fellow humans.

In the case of an NWO incursion though, i'll become a ghost, and watch from afar.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 07:10 AM
link   
It depends on how you want to live, if you wish to be nomadic and a scavenger alone would most likely suit you. You could move fast and you could hide easily, but it would be more difficult to raise a family this way.

If you wish to farm, a group would be best suited for this task, you could harness the power of water for mills and irrigation, and well farming is labor intensive. Plus you would need a group to defend what you have built, so I would build on a hill with a spring.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


Nomadic may work in the beginning.
I wouldn't chose farming unless you had the ability to build nothing less than a fort, and guarded, around it.
That would be the only way to keep the other nomads..out.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join