It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Rambo would be 'first to die in a disaster'

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 01:29 AM
link   
According to Robert Gonzales, author of Deep Survival, over confident action hero wannabees are usually the first to die in a disaster situation. Those that keep their head down, but retain a strong and quiet will to live will get much further.

www.news.com.au...

Gonzales says those that quickly accept the reality of the situation, rather than dwell in denial, will increase their chances of survival. Also quick, critical thinking and being calm help tremendously.

This should all be common sense to most people, but it is definitely worth remembering if the unthinkable happens.




posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 01:47 AM
link   
I would have to agree. Depending on the situation, but its always best to remain calm and not allow emotions to control your actions.

Adaptation is key to survival, not brute strength



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 03:11 AM
link   
The character Rambo was a green beret so if he was actually real I'm sure he'd survive longer than most.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 03:58 AM
link   
Also, Rambo (I) was being aggressivley persuded as opposed to "disappering " to the high ground. For the first 3/4's of the movie
he was in survival defense mode until he left the old mine shaft.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 04:18 AM
link   
I don't think the guy means "Rambo" specifically, he says acting "like Rambo" will get you killed. Which for most of us will certainly be true.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 04:24 AM
link   
I don't think the guy means "Rambo" specifically, he says acting "like Rambo" will get you killed. Which for most of us will certainly be true.
 


Ok, How does Rambo act?

-Walking across country minding his own business?
-Run from danger?
-Defend himself when cornered?
-Find shelter and food?
-or........Attack the aggressors? Which I assume is where he is being sterotyped.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinktip
 


It's the Rambo "stereotype" the chap is on about. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. Everyone knows that the term "Rambo" has entered the English language as a way to describe someone.

EDIT: Why are you so defensive of Rambo anyway? Do you have posters on your wall or something?

[edit on 9/9/08 by stumason]



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Pinktip
 


EDIT: Why are you so defensive of Rambo anyway? Do you have posters on your wall or something?

[edit on 9/9/08 by stumason]


Well, some of us love Rambo. Some have posters on the wall, and others have shrines dedicated to the greatness of Sylvester Stallone. I don't care what anyone thinks. D-Tox was a good film.

On topic, if you attempt to act heroic, you'll be the first to die. Ironically, the tagline for D-Tox was "survival is a killer". Ah, happy coincidences.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Here is another article on the subject (evidently news.com.au got the story originally from CNN).

edition.cnn.com...

Also I noticed the author's name is Laurence Gonzales. The original article refers to him as Robert for some reason.

That aside, I do think the above articles refer to people taking it upon themselves to behave like Rambo in dangerous situations. People becoming brash alpha-types without years of training and experience (like the fictional character Rambo) actually endanger themselves and others.

The author of the book encourages people to take in the situation, quickly process what needs to be done while staying calm and resilient. Just as he's not promoting arming yourself to the teeth & blowing the enemy to kingdom come, he's also not promoting being a coward and running away from danger in a panic. What he's saying is be somewhere in between, and be smart, decisive, and calm.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 07:20 AM
link   
I think hitting a guy in the face with an arrow and watching him fall back onto a landmine and blow the @#$% up would be worth not surviving the long-haul.

Then there's creeping up on a jeep driver and getting him with the mounted machine gun point blank in the face. That was pretty cool too. Well worth it.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evasius
According to Robert Gonzales, author of Deep Survival, over confident action hero wannabees are usually the first to die in a disaster situation. Those that keep their head down, but retain a strong and quiet will to live will get much further.

www.news.com.au...

Gonzales says those that quickly accept the reality of the situation, rather than dwell in denial, will increase their chances of survival. Also quick, critical thinking and being calm help tremendously.

This should all be common sense to most people, but it is definitely worth remembering if the unthinkable happens.



This is debatable and I question whether on if this author has given a biased article and not fully explored the ways on this.
The action-hero type will probably be the type of guy / gal who would risk his/her own neck to plunge back in looking for more survivors / rescue anyone trapped, that sorta thing. While those that keep their heads down and meekly accept their lot may find they suffer the most from distress and 'survival-fatigue / shell shock' through their inactions...
The Rambo films tend to focus on an aggressive approach towards aggressive antagonists, not quite a 'survival type' situation (first Rambo film excepted).
Most survival films do not even feature the action hero type of guy in them (Flight Of the Phoenix being one possible exception?).
A solo spec ops type-a-guy might be very capable of self-rescue and survival no doubt with ease.
But with others of a civilian persuasion in tow, wounded etc the scenario becomes more complex.
Clever action hero types may actually be a boon for survivors as his/her leadership, charisma and delegation for survivors to work together and get out of the hostile environment etc.
Conversly the group may reject an authoritarian type who gives out orders.
On the other hand a maverick, go-at-it-alone rambo-type who trusts his own training and experience to carry the day might carry the day. It all comes down to the variables, people and what he is capable of.
So I would say the rambo approach would work, if the person could apply the energy and mentality to the task at hand AND the overall result; ie escape from the danger, return to civilisation with all survivors and no casualties.





[edit on 9-9-2008 by WatchRider]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 12:05 AM
link   
By drawing attention to ones self you also draw bullets nd danger. simple phisics



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   
If such a situation was requiring stealth then yes I agree, but in a civil disaster / emergency as opposed to warfare etc the 'rambo approach' does not usually mean gun battles and firefights...



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 03:39 AM
link   
TextText

The action-hero type will probably be the type of guy / gal who would risk his/her own neck to plunge back in looking for more survivors / rescue anyone trapped, that sorta thing.


As a ex firefighter/EMT this is someone we put in a body bag. never plunge into trouble. think through every move.

The action hero wannabees will meet the criminal element type survivor and get wasted.
The rambo type always runs the risk of catching a lucky bullet from the bad guy.

Then the criminal element type will meet (they won't really see them) the hunter, trapper, sniper, type and get wasted.

The hunter, trapper, sniper, type will get along with the AGricultural survivor type because they will trade meat and other things they collect as they move around the country to the AG survivors for what they need.(a base to resupply and rest)

The AG types will support the hunter types because they act as a warning system of trouble in the area. scouts. and to prevent a warlord criminal type from taking over there area,
The hunter types will support the AG types so that he has support over a large area by using more then one AG group for support.

The hunter type will let the AG types run there villages anyway they want but if the hunter type sees thing he does not like he may make suggestions
and if the AG types get out-of hand he will just abandon them.

The hunter types may have 3 or more AG type groups that they move around to when they are in a large area.

The hunter types will work in small groups of two to five and look around abandoned towns, cities, and other areas for useful items that they or the AG types need.

The hunter types will deal with the warlord, criminal types by using traps set with IEDs, sniping from long range, or any other method not involving head on attack to limit the risk of a lucky bullet taking them out.
the hunter uses stealth to take game.
not brute force.

The hunter types will most likely be combat veterans but may just be skilled hunters.

If you are a AG type survivor you want this hunter type around.


I am a hunter type.


[edit on 12-9-2008 by ANNED]

[edit on 12-9-2008 by ANNED]



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Hilarious the amount of heat this thread has generated.

I see "rambo" as referring to a person who is needlessly confrontational, who sees everyone as a potential threat, and is focused on violence at the expense of fieldcraft.


Longtime readers of this board will recognize that I think this is a HUGE problem for the survival community. It's why I now refer to myself as a "self-sufficiency enthusiast" or "sufficientist" rather than a "survivalist."

Just take a look at the threads regarding a bug out bag. Notice how many of the posters advocate bugging out even when the scenario doesn't call for it; i.e., bugging out during an economic collapse, thus leaving all your best garage-sale and barter items for someone else to dispose of.

I was actually castigated for suggesting that you keep a supply of currency, ID, and property titles with your bug out gear. I guess most of them plan to "rambo the hurricane." instead of just checking into a hotel in a city out of range of the storm. . . .

The image that keeps coming to mind is when TSHTF, all of the survivalists driving to Yosemite National Park, where they blow each other to smithereens in the first two weeks of the scenario. By then, the rest of us will probably have a trade network in place.

all the bets.
.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Someone please remove the good Dr's rose-tinted glasses.


Survivalists such as myself do not consider abandonment a first class choice. However, given that a lot of homes cannot be defended adequately and the SITX may mean BOB and bugging out I think you can see it from our point of view.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvasiusPeople becoming brash alpha-types without years of training and experience (like the fictional character Rambo) actually endanger themselves and others.


IT seems as those the clarifying phrase is.. 'without years of training and experience'.

Sure, if you have years of training and experience, any Rambo can survive, but if you become a Rambo without training and experience, you might as well dig your own grave..



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by WatchRider
Someone please remove the good Dr's rose-tinted glasses.



I suspect that my glasses have less tint than most people's, even many posters here. I get paid to predict the future in financial markets, and so have made a particular study of recessions, depressions, wars, famines, and the collapse of civilizations. My graduate work helped feed into that whole question from an anthropological perspective.




Survivalists such as myself do not consider abandonment a first class choice. However, given that a lot of homes cannot be defended adequately and the SITX may mean BOB and bugging out I think you can see it from our point of view.


Definitely. I have a bugout bag, and my family could be gone from this home in under an hour, never to return; we would do so with food, water, medical supplies, cash, arms, financial documents, and a plan that could take us in three different directions where shelter awaits----if, as you said, it turns out that our current position is indefensible.

I've also prepared for contravening scenarios, where leaving would only make us more vulnerable to social predators. The US "Great Depression" is an example of such a situation. The few people who actually starved/froze to death between 1933 and 1938 were almost exclusively hoboes. Even in the refugee camps ( "hoovervilles" ) of California, Chicago, and Washington DC., only a handful of people starved or froze to death. Like the pioneers of the preceding century, the fatalities were generally trying to cross the american plains, rockies or southwest desert by "hitching" on trains or with passers-by.

Don't get me wrong, I'm prepared to deal with violence, and dissuade predators and angry mobs. But those are individual crisis points in an arc of a collapsing civilization. You can hide from an angry mob, or even rampaging soldiery and human trafficers.

You cannot hide from hunger.

Think about New Orleans and Katrina. Only the people with no preparation, and no ability to leave, were caught up in crowd violence, or were even hassled by mercenaries and militias. There, waterborne disease and hunger would be your biggest problems, not what is going on at the Superdome.


all the best.

[edit on 13-9-2008 by dr_strangecraft]



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join