TS has HTF...a question, what would you do?

We Are at post TSHTF.
Location for arguments sake is USA. (can be answered by anyone)
You location (retreat) has been found for arguments sake!

You the reader are going to be referred to, in this question as the have’s, I am the have nots.


Rights lets get going,
Complete TSHTF has taken place, the preppers (have’s) have all started to make their way with their friends & family to their retreat.
Each one looking out for each other.
Everyone has a place within the group and everyone has a job to do.


You have planned for this ..it has finally happened, but never in your wildest dreams did you imagine it was going to happen this quickly, never did you imagine that it was going to turn society against each other so easily.

You stop off at various locations to pick up supplies that were hidden along the route to your retreat, in the event that this would happen.


You, your family and friends throughout journey listen to radios and hear of the unspeakable things that are happening right now, in major cities and towns, you all think “how lucky you are to have got out” women and children within your group are in tears, they have left friends behind, "are they gonna be ok?, a million and one questions are asked, are we gonna be ok dad? Will we see so & so again? Whats happening? (you get the drift)."


Along the route you pass people who are thinking this is all going to be over in a dayor two, the lights will come back on and we will be back to normal?


You are running on adrenalin , the practise pays off, you are out of the immediate danger zone, but you are not yet safe!
Money virtually overnight has become worthless..the man who stashed away paper money is shortly going to become the Richest Man in the Graveyard!

You arrive at your retreat, after a quick recon, again everyone has a place and job to do, they know it off by heart, but the kids and some of the women are still asking the questions, questions you don’t really want to answer!, you have more to think about now.

A couple of days go by, you are getting updated as much as possible by the radios you managed to stash away, things on the “outside” are looking grim.
Murder, riots, looting, everything that you EXPECTED (but didnt want to) was happening in the big towns and cities, it was going on right now.
You are quiet safe in your retreat, you know the lay of the land, the area, the do’s and donts, you have been over the what if’s so many times!

One of the look-outs report a vehicle approaching, everyone is now on guard, the vehicle comes right upto your retreat, your immediate response kicks in, and a number of questions race thru your mind, who are they? what do they want? are they armed?.
However it turns out to be a family (me), (the have-nots) mum, dad and two kids, the kids are teen and a young adult 19 for eg.

You have contact with the "have nots", you establish the following, they are NOT a threat, they are unarmed, they are genuine, thay have enough supplies if left on their own to last the family for around 1 month.
You know that this is going to last longer than a month, your instincts are telling you that, you and your group are much better prepared than the "have-nots"...both you and the "have-nots" know this!


However they are scared, as are people within your group, they don’t want to be left on their own they want the comfort and safety of being a part of a group…your group.

Certain instincts are beginning to kick in.
1) we should help them ..after all there are only four of them, you look at the have-nots children, your own are just the same, scared!!!
2) but the have-nots dont have any skills to offer the group?
3) if the have-nots are allowed to stay, they will pick up skills, surely?
4) although they have only 1 months supply for the family, it could be added to the groups supply?
5) we cant send them out....to persih...or can we...."dog eat dog"?


The group decide to hold a meeting on whether to allow the "have nots" family in, or send them on their way.

WHAT DO YOU DECIDE AND WHY?

I am going to say ''let them become part of the group''.

Survival skills can be taught. Everyone has a skill or some knowledge, whatever their trade or profession to contribute no matter how insignificant it may seem at the time.

It will boost the numbers to help with 'watches', defence, foraging, morale, not to mention that it would likely divide your family/friends if you decided to kick them out.

A lot would depend on where your retreat was, how remote it is, how prepared you are for sustained living, what the local resources are like, etc etc. If for example you were/are going to farm some land nearby, forage in nearby woods, hunt local game, fish the nearby river etc, then having a few more mouths to feed would not be a major problem, plus you would have the added bonus of an extra labour/defence force.

Like i said, everyone has something useful to add to any group. It might be that the woman of the 'new' group is the best cook this side of the Rockies and could turn the most dour looking ingredients into a gourmet meal. The 19 year old or the younger teenager may turn out to be a 'natural' marksman with a hunting rifle.

Its not always about logistics in these types of scenarios, its also about ethics and morality. Could you live with yourself if you turned them away, later to discover that they died a few weeks later just a few miles from your retreat?

Intreging senerio. Well I would say it would depend on the person and their personalities and sense of priority and even morality.

But if it was me... well humm?? Now that I think about it, well you know what they say if your have stocked up food and water have enough for you and yours and then some should your neighbors decide they need help. Then again there is Stregnth in numbers aswell as instability.

If the have nots are some fundamental religious folks who are hesterical then I'd say go with god you'll have a better chance on that path. If they are like minded with a mellow but structured attitude then sure why not.

There's just to many possibilties and should you be the one to make that choice, the only one then then its not enough to have to worry about yours but someone elses, good way to stress out an already stressed out situation.

Your got scared people behind you and scared people in front of you, talk about being between two rocks yet you are the hard place the question is how long tell you brake.
Tough call.

If this was the situation I'd lean more towards letting them in, like Wotan said survival skills can be taught and in a situation like that anyone would jump at the chance to learn.

Plus extra people would come in handy labourwise, if the population was truly decimated communities would have to form to rebuild civilisation, you could always turn them away later if they turned out to be a bunch of spongers, if they were honest, hard working people it would add strength to your group and everyone would benefit.

Good thread, interesting scenario this is the kind of thing people should think about in case there ever in this situationup:

It wouldn't be a black and white situation. The type of SitX is a big influence
. I know the anarchy is what seems to be arising but other influences come into it.
There could be no yes or no out of hand.
It is, like most things in life, shades of grey through the spectrum.

This would be my suggestion to the group

I would not automatically let them join as a full member of group, out of hand. I'd allow them limited protection for a week (not telling them that) and see how they behave.
I'd select a reasonable, friendly person from the group to live with them under our watchful eye and have his asses what skills they have.
That way they don't get scared and rattled that we're bullying or intimidating etc.
All under the watchful eye of some of the others to see they ain't up to no good.
Them having a months supply of food is good.
It means that they may have other items to trade and barter with.
A clever man would of invested his money in precious metals like gold and silver so this can be used as a trade for food and protection too.

If I was a dude with a family wanting to join another survivalist group and was embraced with open arms by strangers I'd be almost certain to think of finding a safer place.
Any group that has no waryness in violent times is a target for when violence comes along. I'd welcome the opportunity to be tested for who I was and what I could offer, if only being a good decent person to join and learn from the group.

After the week is up and all seems well with them welcome them and no sign of plague of illness suddenly appears then I'd gather the group. Ask what they think of letting them join. If all are in agreement (and I mean ALL, any nos mean a majority vote will create factions) then into the shelter they come
I'd make it clear that their vehicle belongs to all members of the group now, not just them. A vehicle, for example makes a good tool for barracade construction etc
The allowance of food and water, supplies and joining a strong group would more than make up for that.
They'll be such a pool of vehicles that the spare parts will benefit all too.

I would let them in with the understanding that they become productive members of the community and adhered to the preset rules.

They must agree to leave the camp if any of them caused a problem or did not do their share of work.

My personality being what it is it would be difficult to turn anyone away. Nor would it be difficult to eliminate anyone that became a threat. This may seem hard but the name of the game is survival.

Get them to hunker down and join in. A months supplies is alot, and extra hands are always needed for manual work if nothing else.

Sure, too many is cumbersome, but a larger group is better able to defend itself.

I think it would be rather foolish to unconditionally accept them into your group. They're strangers, and you know nothing about them aside from their outward appearances and what they have told you.

They could very well be a scouting party sent to infiltrate your group. I'd need a few questions answered before I decided on any course of action..

• First of all, How did they find our retreat? Surely, if we made such extensive preps we picked a remote location that wasn't easily seen by the casual observer. Knowing the answer to this question would help us conceal our site better too.
  
• Why do they have a month's worth of food, yet no weapons to defend themselves?
• Are they pacifist and opposed to guns, violence, etc.? Would they be unable to kill another human being even in self-defense?
  
• If things are as bad as you depict murder, looting, rape, etc., how did they make it this far being unarmed and unassisted? It seems unlikely they'd make such a trek without incurring some resistance or attacks.
  

[edit on 6/2/08 by LLoyd45]

Originally posted by spymaster
The group decide to hold a meeting on whether to allow the "have nots" family in, or send them on their way.

WHAT DO YOU DECIDE AND WHY?

My personal opinion is that in the event of Situation X (aka TSHTF), that new tribes, and eventually nation-states, will form out of the rubble of society, assuming the government is unable to re-establish control. So during this time, if another family comes through our area, is not a threat, has some of their own provisions, and is willing to contribute and follow orders, then yes, they are certainly welcome to join.

They'd have to understand that we aren't sitting around waiting to die or be rescued. It's like the Roughnecks: Everyone Fights, Everyone Works. The dog will earn his keep assisting in the hunt and standing guard. Everyone who eats at our table will earn their keep. If they don't, if we get a slacker who decides they don't have to work or help out, or what not, they'll be warned at first, and if the behavior continues, given three days food and water, and sent on their merry slacker way.

But there is strength in numbers, both in terms of defense, and in terms of how much work can be accomplished per day, and we'd be foolish to turn away a family that wanted to join our steadding.

reply to post by LLoyd45

I agree with lloyd. They would have to answer alot of questions first.

I would let them in.

Its a win-win scenario to let them in, in my opinion.

Either:

1. The situation X is temporary, gets over soon (within a couple of years), in which case your supplies will have enough slack in them to allow you to support the people. When it ends, you will have saved their lives. + point.

2. The sitX is thoroughly long (above 5 years in duration), supplies are going to definitely run out and farming or hunting are a must to sustain yourself. In this scenario the added labour and company would be beneficial. +point.

However I would lay down some rules for the have-nots:

a) They are to obey me and learn survival from me without asking questions. I am to be a dictator, this is not a democracy.

b) They must bring in food/ contribute meaningfully otherwise they will be thrown out.

And I would also keep a thorough eye on them for the first year or so... keeping them in check and making sure that I am the only one in the group who is armed.

well I do have a SHTF group. it consists of 6 adult males a few adult females and 6 children. one of the women carried the S.A.W. when she was in the army. plus we have lots of firepower. our location is very hard to find. my greatgrandfather found it in the '20s .he built a small house there. only he my grandpa and I knew about it. there isnt even a road to it. 20+ miles of sage brush just to get to the mountans. no 4x4 noway. the valley entrence is a small shallow (no more than 8 inches)creek bed that you have to drive through for about 100 yards. then you fallow the bank for about 5 miles . passing through cedar groves and two small ponds till you come to a dry rocky river bed (granit i think). it has a small stream but widens when theres a good rain. follow that for a mile or so. till you come to "The Grove" thats what great granpa called it he planted pecans, peaches, apples and oranges there in the '30s built the tiny one room shack under some oaktrees near the lake (about 5or6 acres) which is fed by a spring. my family owns the land and i visit it many times a year. so IF you found it you would need a serious 4x4. ie wrangler old Land Cruiser like i have or landrover. a sissy little AWD honda wont make it. ok so you have good truck a month of food and no guns. and you found a place with no road. maybe you followed me. why are you unarmed. i may allow you and yours to stay but since you wont defend you have no say what so ever. if i send you away you just may tell the Humongous where i am just to save your own skin. so i wont send you away. but that doesnt mean you will see the sunrise again. i would have a lookout at the bottom by the creekbed. you would have been seen along way off. so if you were a threat you would not have made it so far. welcome brother. lets cook a pig and open a bottle.

reply to post by LLoyd45


Star for you. Answered the question correctly. They are strangers. You do not know what their intentions are. Do not trust strangers with your families lives.


As for the question:

This will be a common ploy in those conditions. Women and children will be used as bait to take advantage of the big hearted and get the drop on them. You only have one chance to prepare and then you wake up with a gun in your face as they load everything you have and drive off into the sunset. Now you can't even defend yourself, as the gun is gone with the food........don't be a fool


The old trojan keg trick from beer fest....... Quick lets get this thing inside.....

I disagree.

If you have a camp in SITX, you have guards and security details 24 / 7. You also split them out through the group, like Ghengis Khan did. Every new man went to a seperate fire where he was greeted as a brother, seperate from his friends but made most welcome.

Work was allocated per fire side, not per tribal identity, and thus they merged quickly and completely into the new tribal identity.

This forged thus an iron clad brotherhood seperate from former tribal loyalties.

History has much to talk to us about, if we just listen and learn from its lessons.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by Dan Tanna]

Enjoy a good drink, load up the weapons, and wait for the first looter to augment my meat locker.

Originally posted by Dan Tanna
Every new man went to a seperate fire where he was greeted as a brother, seperate from his friends but made most welcome.

Work was allocated per fire side, not per tribal identity, and thus they merged quickly and completely into the new tribal identity.

Star for you. Great post!

Genghis Khan was a brilliant man. A lot of people don't realize this, and just picture some sort of big brutish warlord who rode a horse a lot. What they fail to realize is that he was the son of the the chieftan of a particularly large tribe, sent to Rome for a full education in a sort of mutual youth-hostage program truce, and while there, decided to become a double-agent and learn absolutely everything about Empire-building that he could, before eventually returning back to claim the throne and unite most of the tribes of Asia under his rule. You don't do that as a big dumb brute, or even strictly as a warlord or financier, but rather through the careful and thoughtful application of incorporating new additions to your governance.

reply to post by LLoyd45

Are they pacifist and opposed to guns, violence, etc.? Would they be unable to kill another human being even in self-defense?

Lloyd! I've always respected your posts, full of reason and thoughtfulness. But I have to wonder why you would type this?

I am opposed to violence as I would like to think most people are. I don't understand why someone who is a pacifist would be detrimental to a survival situation. I would not want to kill anyone, even in a self defense situation. That being said I would if I absolutley had to defend my life or the life of a loved one, it would not however be something I would do with no guilt involved.

So I guess if you were in charge of letting the "have nots" in I'd be screwed! *frowns*

Good post, and issues we may be facing soon. I would consider establishing them as a sentry annex. This is a dangerous prospect, without knowing for certain that their mindset and skills are consistent with the 'haves' -- can they prepare meals without leaving a smoke trail, do they appreciate the value of stealth and low noise, etc. Their activities can be monitored somewhat from a distance, and they could potentially provide a service for the core group -- a 'probation' of sorts. As others wisely stated, if there were members within the core group that chose to join them and report back, they could choose to do so.

I would consider them suspect and a threat to the core group, however consider that there may well be others after them, and each group in turn can be the early warning for the core. You run into a sticky situation here, as if the 'have-nots' are pushed away or choose to leave, then their ability to threaten the core group are multiplied, as now they have knowledge.

Consider also, that there is not always safety in numbers in that the larger the group, the more difficult it is to hide their presence, particularly from air surveillance.

In some instances, it may be a stronger hold to have chosen to make your stand in your community, with other like-minded individuals, all the while posing (from outside view) as being relative 'have-nots'.

Starred.

Originally posted by Merigold
Lloyd! I've always respected your posts, full of reason and thoughtfulness. But I have to wonder why you would type this?

I am opposed to violence as I would like to think most people are. I don't understand why someone who is a pacifist would be detrimental to a survival situation. I would not want to kill anyone, even in a self defense situation. That being said I would if I absolutley had to defend my life or the life of a loved one, it would not however be something I would do with no guilt involved.

Merigold,

There's nothing wrong with being a pacifist, but in a survival situation I'd rather have someone who's not afraid to take a life if necessary. If they won't kill to save their own life, it would be unrealistic of me to expect them to kill on my behalf or anyone else's. I wouldn't take risks like that with my family's well-being no matter how nice a person seemed to be.

So I guess if you were in charge of letting the "have nots" in I'd be screwed! *frowns*

Not necessarily.. You said you would kill in defense, or for your loved ones. That's a lot different than saying you wouldn't kill at all.

Naturally you'd have some feelings of guilt about taking a human life, so would I. That's just human nature. I don't like resorting to violence either, but there are legitimate circumstances where it is required.


[edit on 6/3/08 by LLoyd45]

reply to post by Dan Tanna


That tactic would work well for individuals that had no ulterior motives, but if they were sent to infiltrate your group, I doubt it would serve any meaningful purpose.