posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 03:48 PM
Agreed, the nature of the catastrophe would change one's plan dramatically. For example:
In the case of natural disaster, I need not budge from my home. (
I live in a place with no earthquakes, flooding, tornadoes, hurricanes, volcanoes,
tsunamis, or even seasons for that matter, etc.)
In the case of nuclear fallout/warfare, I need not budge from my home. (
I live surrounded by tall mountains on all four sides and am protected from
fallout even if someone drops a hundred Tsar Bombas on the nearest target.)
In the case of financial collapse, I need not budge from my home. (
The agrarian and neo-bohemian hippie community where I live is sustainable, I
would just have to learn to get over that not-so-fresh hippie smell.)
In the case of bio-warfare or contagion outbreak and any following containment, I need to get out of Dodge fast! (
Fortunately the woods that lead
up into the mountains are across the street in my neighbor's back yard).
My biggest threat isn't to get to safety, but to stay safe after SHTF. The immigration of survivors outside of my geographical area, or scavengers, or
some of the indigenous extremist groups are the greatest concerns I have to make contingency for personally.
I guess the point is, there are a lot of factors to consider that will vary based upon scenario and location and there is not a universal
One-Emergency-Plan-Fits-All resolution.
However, it is also true that those who fail don't plan to fail, they simply fail to plan. So, it is something important to think about and have
plenty of back-up plans for every conceivable scenario.
edit on 7-10-2010 by fraterormus because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-10-2010 by fraterormus because: (no reason
given)