Retail outlets in a SHTF situation opinions..

[Accidentman]

Hi.

If the power went down tomorrow, nationally, and via wind up radios or car broadcasts we were to hear it is gone for the foreseeable future, where would you suggest going ?

I live in a flat, unable to store much of anything, and my idea would be for 50 or so like minded people to take over our local B&Q Warehouse (I would say that, it is 2 miles from me, but please hear me out).

Most people would want to be with their loved ones and raid food stores, but a B&Q is easy to defend (the large ones slightly out of town even more so) and are unlikely to be open.

Probably half of 50 motivated people could take over and defend one (they have hundreds of one ton pallets to reinforce the perimeter from ram raids and enough hand tools to arm an army).

They are covered for warmth, sell water butts for collecting rain water, sell compost and seeds for growing food, sell nets and wood and have large roof areas for catching birds, the diy side of things could easily make shelters inside for individual family's, it is win win other than the food side of things, which would have to be bought with you to survive initially.

Also, unlike the sheep rioting and looting food stores, stealing high end TV's and cars, and burning down buildings, we would be defending the place, not running out of the store stealing the stuff, so police involvement is likely to be low.

You would just need to bring as much food with you as possible, but even I can make a bow and arrow or an animal trap from B&Q items.

Any thoughts on this ?

Are there 49 other people in Nottingham prepared to join me if the srdhtf (sxxx really did hit the fan)?

[TwoDo]

Most people would want to be with their loved ones and raid food stores, but a B&Q is easy to defend (the large ones slightly out of town even more so) and are unlikely to be open.

As you say, food is a problem, 50 people take a lot of feeding. Most people don't have 3 days of food - let alone a week. The week worth of food you brought for your family would quickly be divided up 50 ways and then you would have nothing.

There are lots of other problems with this plan, and I don't advocate it for a moment, but hypothetically if you were to pursue it, an agricultural supplies store like a CountryWide would probably be a better bet. It contains all of the things you mentioned in a B+Q (hand tools, water butts, defensible perimeter etc) and also pallets of edible food. Admittedly it is dog food and chicken feed but it would keep you alive.

Some thoughts on potential issues when collecting a group for mutual defense (as I see it)

Lack of bindings: A group of randomly collected people post SHTF will still be individuals with no loyalty to the extended group. For example, not one of them would die to save the group - contrast that with a true tribe where the bonds are so strong any member would die if it was necessary to save the extended family. You could not trust them to guard the perimeter and not let outsiders through.

Lack of established power structure. No way can a small group under pressure be a democracy. Any attempt to implement that will either get the group wiped out or they will coalesce under a strong leader who may or may not pay attention to the opinions of the other members. This is the standard model of small human societies and it will take time to sort it self out before the group becomes effective. I would imagine that the eventual leader would be very ruthless. In other words you do what your told or you get a beating, challenge the leader and get killed. If you don't like it you can leave - which works as a motivator as long as leaving is worse than staying. If the SHTF lasts long enough, eventually you get a feudal society as the classes layer up and you have no choice.

Free riders. Any random group is going to have people that feel entitled to the results of the efforts of others. This is especially true these days. Nowadays it is widely held as a truism that if a person needs something, then somebody else has a duty of care to provide that thing and if they won't provide it willingly then it is ok to just take it. Any group beginning to to self organize will be inundated with the the helpless, the feckless and the useless of all stripes seeking to bolt themselves on and hence be "looked after".

Lack of warriors. There is a reason why traditional small human societies have a plentiful supply of young male warrior types. Any tribe that didn't have a copious supply of them, or had insufficiently aggressive ones, soon found their men replaced with other men that damn well would breed some.

Interestingly enough groups like travellers, gypsies, motorcycle gangs etc have few of these problems. They already have group loyalty, established power structures, ruthless leaders, a collection of agressive young men and while they may, or may not, milk external sources for all they are worth anybody within the group that doesn't pull his weight soon finds their behaviour corrected. IMHO A big problem post SHTF will be a) avoiding being made a serf for one of those groups, b) keeping the resources of any group you may belong to from falling into the hands of such ruthless groups.

[Accidentman]

Good points TwoDo.

I did say ''the food side of things, which would have to be bought with you to survive initially'' hence the people there would have maybe a weeks worth of food, collectively.

A group of randomly collected people post SHTF will still be individuals with no loyalty : I thought that was the point of joining this site, to meet like minded people with a common aim of survival (we are all here for that I guess).

Lack of established power structure: I see your point, but better as a group maybe, where you have options, than alone. I doubt anyone here is going to fall into a madmans sense of the community and would rather leave a bad group than stay.
You are talking to Preppers remember, on a Preppers forum, not to scared sheep who happened to find their way there.

Any group beginning to to self organize will be inundated with the the helpless, the feckless and the useless of all stripes seeking to bolt themselves on and hence be "looked after'' : Again, good point, but is that not why it is discussed to have bug out locations that are remote or defensible? And realistically would we not all do the best we can for our fellow man if they are in need of help ? Being a survivor does not mean losing your humanity, because if it does then I am in the wrong place right now.

You also say ''IMHO A big problem post SHTF will be a) avoiding being made a serf for one of those groups, b) keeping the resources of any group you may belong to from falling into the hands of such ruthless groups.''

That comment is simply wrong. You are not a surf if you have skills to aid survival, whether now or learnt at the time, and defending your group is what this is all about, it is about survival.

I do not know where you are coming from, but you seem quite negative to allowing people to survive.

Maybe Two will Do.

[Plymtom]

Are there 49 other people in Nottingham prepared to join me if the srdhtf (sxxx really did hit the fan)?

If sites like this keep growing then eventually perhaps, till then it's a scenario you can play with, Nottingham is pretty big initially at any rate SHTF I'd recomend a low profile.

[Accidentman]

Are there 49 other people in Nottingham prepared to join me if the srdhtf (sxxx really did hit the fan)?

If sites like this keep growing then eventually perhaps, till then it's a scenario you can play with, Nottingham is pretty big initially at any rate SHTF I'd recomend a low profile.

Thanks Plymtom, but in the scheme of things Nottingham is tiny, and very near some forests and main motorways.

It is not like Scotland, that though remote is full of navy nuclear bases, or the south that is over populated, it is part of the forgotten midlands with just a couple of airbases in Lincolnshire and free to roam to the west towards Wales.

You are right however, sites like this need to grow to make group survival realistic, certainly in Nottingham anyway

[lasttruebreed]

like Twodo says be wary of random people. Far to many people these days are used to getting everything handed to them and not having to do dam thing for it.

[diamond lil]

I don't think Scotland is full of nuclear bases - is it not just Coulport/Faslane on the Clyde?

[MrPickles]

Hi.



Also, unlike the sheep rioting and looting food stores, stealing high end TV's and cars, and burning down buildings, we would be defending the place, not running out of the store stealing the stuff, so police involvement is likely to be low.

From the police point of view is kinda same. If you are in a place what you don't own an that place is closed is burglary.

We are also living in a flat. But storing some extra rice and pasta not taking up to much space. And we have an allotment garden where we have a shed for storing stuff and we are growing are own veg. And there is a big fence so it is kinda good bug out place.

[TwoDo]

I do not know where you are coming from, but you seem quite negative to allowing people to survive.

I did not mean to offend - my apologies if I have done so. My comments were directed at issues related to surviving the stated SHTF scenario - one in which the rule of law has sufficiently broken down for a group of people to occupy retail premises for weeks without attracting the attention of the police or army. This scenario is indicative of the total collapse of central authority and hence is about as serious a SHTF situation as can be had. In such a situation probably 50% of people in the country would be dead in six months. Violence would get some - but most likely disease and malnutrition would take the majority. I may appear to be negative - but really I am just intending to be realistic.

A group of randomly collected people post SHTF will still be individuals with no loyalty : I thought that was the point of joining this site, to meet like minded people with a common aim of survival (we are all here for that I guess).

It's not as simple as that. To get individuals to bond as a cohesive unit is quite hard to do and to do it quickly requires shared trauma and absolutely rigorous discipline. The military have studied this extensively and have it down to a fine art. I was a soldier once, and at the start of the basic training nobody would have been willing to sacrifice themselves for the group. Everybody was a volunteer, yet nobody in the first month would have charged uphill into machine guns, by the end they all would have. My point is, there is way more to building a group which will effectively defend itself (which the scenario calls for) than just collecting people who want to be there. Even members of this site, and there are some good people here, would probably not gell into a cohesive group for some time.

Any group beginning to to self organize will be inundated with the the helpless, the feckless and the useless of all stripes seeking to bolt themselves on and hence be "looked after'' : Again, good point, but is that not why it is discussed to have bug out locations that are remote or defensible? And realistically would we not all do the best we can for our fellow man if they are in need of help ? Being a survivor does not mean losing your humanity, because if it does then I am in the wrong place right now.

I am just being realistic. In the specified scenario the dieoff will be epic. There simply would not be the resources for even worthy charity cases let alone taking in just anybody who wants to join. I would suggest that it is probable groups would have to reject people with otherwise useful skills simply because of lack of resources. "Oh, your a doctor, sorry we already have a paramedic and a midwife. Better luck elsewhere - move along now.". Any group that does not do this will simply fall apart or have its resources taken by another more efficient group.

You also say ''IMHO A big problem post SHTF will be a) avoiding being made a serf for one of those groups, b) keeping the resources of any group you may belong to from falling into the hands of such ruthless groups.'' That comment is simply wrong. You are not a surf if you have skills to aid survival, whether now or learnt at the time, and defending your group is what this is all about, it is about survival.

I strongly disagree that my comment is erroneous. There are plenty of cases, even today, (in africa mostly) where in the absence of central authority warlords seize control of an area and run it how they like (and they don't run it pretty). When the roman empire left Britain you got the dark ages then feudalism. IMHO, in a dire SHTF situation such as the above scenario, if one survives the initial die-off the big problem will be keeping the roving bands of thugs from deciding that you'll do nicely as an unpaid worker as they build their powerbase.

I do not know where you are coming from, but you seem quite negative to allowing people to survive.

I think possibly your annoyance is due to the fact that I commented on the downsides to your proposed solution without offering any solution of my own. Please don't take personal offense, there are always downsides to every solution, and actually I really was trying to be constructive, offer comments and learn the opinions of others in this forum.

It is hard to say what a better strategy would be, given the specified scenario - lots of times there are just no good options. For me, probably I would try to lay low in my rural location, gather my family in (an already bonded group) and attempt to survive the initial die-off based on stored supplies. As things start to stabilize and the survivors have all adopted rather more hard nosed ideas regarding just what they might have to do to stay alive I would add select people into the family group and attempt to loosely align my group with others and form a community. In the given scenario, I think a being a member of a group would be absolutely essential in the long term. It is just that I would prefer to let the dust settle a bit before expanding beyond the extended family - but that is just my opinion.

[bigdan]

where to go ? its a complex question, i havnt worked out the perfect plan or place yet ,but i think it will all become obvious when the shtf. i hope that my extended family and friends group will all band together without too many problems . all my family members are proficient in firearms handling and some of my friends are too .
i know ive harped on about this in other threads but post shtf ,gun ownership may very well mean being able to ride the social tsunami that will follow. they are not the be all and end all as a sharp tongue and being able to pre empt i situation will probably get you out of more trouble, but its got to help.