Saturday, July 14, 2018

RE: Maybe I Haven't Been Clear by Aesop

Our friend Aesop wrote an interesting post. I read it and came to a very different conclusion than I believe he was getting at. I was reminded about something our friend Commander Zero said long ago. What is the very first rule of surviving a disaster?

Don't Be There!

Some disasters, particularly hurricanes, are fairly predictable inside 2-3 days. Lots of riots have a lead up time. If a disaster is coming go somewhere else.

There are pros and cons to living in different areas. However once you factor in that the two supposed survivalist havens are overdue for massive events, volcanic and seismic respectively, the intellectually honest are a but easier going on folks living in other areas. Also the inland PNW has real fire issues. What I am getting at is that wherever you live something could happen that makes it untenable.

Inevitably someone will say "Don't be a refugee" or "I've seen 'The Road'".

First of all dial the drama down. By far the realistic threats that face us are localized or regional. Stop worrying about some doomer porn scenario. Driving the family hauler to a Best Western 2 towns over is the realistic situation for most of these 'refugees'. Second even in a full on unlikely situation obviously one does not choose to become a refugee because it sounds like fun. One chooses to become a refugee because it seems like what's at home is even less fun.

Natural disasters are self explanatory. If a huge armed mob is killing everyone who looks like you and they are one town over you should pack quickly then drive in the opposite direction. Unless you have terminal cancer and want the mob to kill you in a blaze of glory the answer is to leave. Personally I would rather lose my stuff then shoot some guys who don't matter anyway, have them shoot me, and then terrible things happen to my family.

The point is that if things get bad you take your .45 and wad of cash then go somewhere else. Somewhere less disastery. People have some fantasy of bug out camping or escape and evasion or whatever. In reality a cheap motel room 250 miles the other direction of the disaster is usually the answer.

It is good to have supplies and plans and all that. Many situations are solved by just staying home. However if nuclear aids meteors are scheduled to land on your house in a day you should spend most of that day getting away from your house. Having plans to bring some survival gear, guns in case things get sporting, etc is important. However the most important part of that survival kit will be the visa that buys the motel room and pizza. Being honest your bug out bag could be a suitcase or a Rubbermaid tote. Discussion of whether the rifle that will sit in the corner by your bed should be an AKM or AR is fun, we all like guns, but probably not the most important thing to focus on.

The point here is that we should, with reason, try to avoid being in areas where we will face disasters. When faced by disasters vote with your legs and get the heck out. To paraphrase Tamra "Don't be there, so you don't have to do that."

Most of the time the answer is to stay home, except when it is not. When it is time to leave better to go a week early than try to go a day late.


Aesop said...

That one was the final string of three successive posts.

The first one was a riff off of Sam Culper's over at FO, where he talked about billionaires wondering how they were going to control their "private retreat security force" when money was no good any more.

To which I responded logically that those billionaires were going to be eaten for lunch if money and society goes away, so the whole exercise is a fool's errand.

I got to the post you referenced after a series of commenters kept trying to move the goalposts of success to change the debate.

Theother Ryan said...

I see. I tracked that discussion at a couple places and was generally nonplussed by it. I concur with your assessment.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Popular Posts