Great time to see this here. This morning I, in Canada, reached out to a friend in Ukraine and asked "I might be over-reacting, but what do you wish you knew before the war started?"
His response was "You're not over reacting, you might be under-reacting, worst case you end up with some cool new toys. Best case, you're more prepared than anyone else."
So yeah, here we are. Good article to add to my research.
> Generator 5kw - you want something with a higher duty cycle than you need so it can run for extended periods
Note that fossil fuel can age out, even with stabilizer.
There are dual- and tri-fuel generators out there that can use natural/methane gas and/or propane. Consider propane as you can get pretty big bottles and it does not expire so can sit around for long periods of time.
yeah used to manage data centers, diesel breaks down after a while, petrol even faster.
you can put in additives to extend the life, and specialized storage can squeak even more out, but ultimately you can't plan on it being good past 12 months, maybe as low as 5-6 if conditions aren't great.
we ran / tested the generators weekly, both just to exercise them and confirm they're good, but also just to burn off old fuel.
If you have a solar panels, a battery, and generator, it would be good idea to figure out how to hook them all together. Using the generator near its full output, to charge the battery, will use far less fuel than idling it all day.
Even if things are bad enough for iodine pills, they are only really needed for children. Once you hit your mid teens, your thyroid is fully developed and not pulling in enough iodine to worry about radioactive isotopes.
I presume that radiation is why the Ukrainian brought it up.
The article did mention using it for treating water, but it's not very good at that, and it tastes awful. Reverse osmosis works much, much better and it doesn't need to be a large permanently installed system; portable gravity-fed versions readily available.
I was thinking the other day that ALL drones SHOULD be considered LIVE explosives. It's probably never a good idea to handle one if you're not trained.
Last march i was at SxSw and the police drones over head were a first for me. I was in this large crowd of people, and thought "yeah i dont like this". How do i know they're not just some bad actors drone with red and blue lights?
I think my exposure to casual discussions of how to arm drones with my Ukrainian friend, and the videos we've all seen on Reddit about drones in Ukraine, have really made their presence feel unwelcome.
It depends on a number of factors about legality, but the hardware to make a drone that doesn't have software forcing it to follow the law is cheap and plentiful. Its not particularly hard to get either, even with the drone ban.
For ~$200 you can build a very good FPV drone that can carry a dangerous payload and travel at highway speeds. Another ~$200 buys you the video receiver and a controller.
Warfare yes, but that's all warfare that's terrifying. Similarly you can make a point that for $10 you can buy a knife that can be used in all different morbid crimes.
FPV drones as a fun hobby in the rest of the world has had, in the last 10 years since it became somewhat popular, a total of zero fatalities or serious injuries. Don't let the irrational fear guide you towards further unnecessary regulation that makes others' lives worse.
A toddler lost an eye, several hospitalizations of unrelated bystanders, multiple aircraft damaged in midair collisions, and an attempted assassination of a world leader are some of the highlights. Not exactly a squeaky clean record with no “serious injuries”, even if you ignore the intentional assassination attempt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unmanned_aerial_vehicl...
I think FPV and drones are awesome, and have built several myself. It is pretty hard to argue that they are not also very dangerous in the wrong hands. Are there more dangerous things in the world? Sure, but that doesn’t mean people should ignore an easy attack vector. Given the temperature of things currently, I would be incredibly nervous to hear a drone at a protest or political event.
Regulations are coming whether regular Joe wants them or not. Drones had moved from toy hobby to dealing with weapons and explosives level of scrutiny and this is not reverting anytime soon.
I saw writing on the wall and donated in 2022 my dji drone to Ukrainian army, hopefully it was used well for defense of their homeland. I don't want to have a hobby that I need to do covertly and illegally, and last thing I want to do during vacations is dealing with bureaucracy.
is the last point correct?
"Get familiar with remote detonation with drones, these are what we use to set off the molotovs:"
seems off for this list, like way off and more on military/offence side of type of thing?
and why would you need a 300m+ ethernet cable in a disaster?
Totally valid use case for sure, and we discussed this because I do have a Starlink dish, but honestly, in a conflict with the US...I don't think a) I'd want to use starlink and b) i'd expect it to work.
Ethernet cable is a high quality cable usable for various other purposes. That includes low voltage power line, such as 12V from the car to phone charger in the house, solar panel wiring, basic tripwire alarms, command relays in the yard from the house, basic audio intercom with your neighbors when phone lines are down, etc.
Plus the obvious ethernet repairs: lines broken by fallen trees/branches in a storm, video camera cables cut by thieves, install new survillance cameras, move existing ones.
Self-supporting ethernet cable is also a decent clothesline when your dryer is not working.
In his case i didn't actually bother asking about the cat6 because i already had a huge reel in my garage, but I can think of cases such a remotely mounting satellite dish' and maybe connecting buildings to each other.
The molotov didn't seem out of range for me honestly. Firstly because I know he was one of the first people flying drones for defence, and now they've been mass producing their own for a few years. I have to admit, it seems pretty rational to want to fight back in any way possible.
Funny, not funny, this friend and I met up in early 2020 and had a beer down the road. He was telling me he'd rented his apartment in Liviv and was moving here next week. He had to go home to get some things, hand over the unit, and then he'd be back.
Next week was the pandemic, borders closed. He never left, and now he /still/ cant.
Let politicians fight and die in their own wars. If russia "visited" my country, I'd follow it with a drink in my hand from the bahamas. No piece of dirt or earth is worth dying for, ever.
> No piece of dirt or earth is worth dying for, ever.
If no one ever defends the dirt, the pieces of earth where you can enjoy a drink in peace and freedom will shrink over time as the aggressors will continue to gobble up land because of the lack of defending.
They keep moving forward, you keep moving back, until you have no where to retreat to.
Come back to this comment in a few years and think about whether something significant has changed for those people who did not sacrifice their lives for a meaningless battle.
People are more important than the state. If they are not ready to defend him, why should they be forced? You can offer money or other valuables in return, such as fame, a pension, or a position, but if a person doesn't want to, why should they do it?
Russia doesn't just "visit" your country. Lookup what Ruskiy Mir (Russian world) really means, basically your country gets subjugated by the Russians and I'm not talking about civilized or professional Russian forces - I'm talking about drunk and poor 20yo boys from a remote Russian villages that are now seeing the spoils of western civilization for the first time (do lookup what happened in Bucha, Kyiv suburbs in 2022 at the onset of invasion). Then of course the refusal of the Russians to recognize any other culture or language...the list goes on and on. So - yes, you could escape with a drink but then "If Not Me, Then Who"?
The world we're headed for there is no "other place" to escape to. Many people's view of survival during collapse ultimately assumes the existence of a fairly large "safe haven" space for which they just need to survive until they get there.
That depends on a lot of personal things. I remember a Ukrainian I personally know, leaving after the 2014 invasion.
When Russia was doing "exercises" at their border in 2022, I asked them in a meeting what they felt (guys living in Lviv). Most of them thought Russia would have done it in 2014 already, and now it didn't make much sense. Only 1 person responded he filled up his gas tank. But in the end, nobody left Lviv right after the invasion.
Cool new toys! I like it. I've recently been thinking of branching into more water sports such as rowing, ocean swimming and the like to have a better shot at surviving out at sea. Hopefully I've gotten some mountains covered by now.
In the less doomsday version, everyone who is responsible for a family (the guy or gal who knows how everything works in the context of money, administration, etc.) should have a "what to do when I die" booklet.
I wrote one years ago and update it with the most relevant information (how to get to my passwords (the ones that are not shared), list of bank accounts, list of investment brokers, what they will get when I die from the state and my company. I am in the process of adding "how to un-smart (or re-dumb) my house, this si a serious source of anxiety for my wife)
This is the right thing to do. Do not delay. Start small with the key information. Share with trusted people outside of your family if possible (they will be less impacted).
I shared that with my best friend I can trust my life with and one day he said "I cannot get to your bank account". To what I said, well, why are you trying to. He was running a DRP (Disaster Recovery Plan) exercise and found stuff that was not updated. I love him.
Mine is very pragmatic, I let the emotional part to the ones remaining. I just want to pake sure that financially and administratively they are fine - this I can do.
I see this page pop up with some regularity, and unfortunately the disasters mentioned within seem to become more and more likely each time I read it. Maybe I am just growing more pessimistic, but COVID-19 felt like yesterday and all the large scale layoffs certainly don't inspire confidence.
I renewed my home insurance policy recently and there was one clause along the lines of coverage being excluded for war/insurrection/rebellion/military related reasons. Previously I would have thought nothing of it. These days I read these exclusion clauses in the same spirit as the "problem space" sections listed in this disaster planning doc.
I'm in California, and I'm lucky that I've been able to renew my home insurance. My brother wasn't able to, because every insurer had pulled out of the area, and he had to buy insurance directly from the state for several times more than what private providers charge, and those rates are likely to go up because the state program that runs it is bankrupt.
If anything happens to the my house, it can take a year or more to get permission to rebuild it, and if fire or earthquake or flood takes out the neighborhood, the permitting backlog can take multiple years. My neighbor tried to build a house on a slope, and it took ten years to get the county to acknowledge that the engineering plans were sound, but by that point my neighbor was too old to build the house.
It's really common to have power outages here at least annually, if not more often, and that's been a problem for decades, but there's significant resistance to building new power plants, including solar and wind, which wouldn't fix the instability anyway, and a tenth of our power comes from the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, which is past its design life and we'd be lucky to get another five years out of it.
The oil refineries keep shutting down, we don't have any pipelines to bring in oil, and gas stations are required to sell a California-specific formula anyway.
Restaurants are closing everywhere, discount stores are closing, the 99¢ Only chain went bankrupt, eliminating one of the few affordable sources of fresh fruits and vegetables.
We've been so obsessed with NIMBYism for so long that we're losing our infrastructure and quickly approaching a collapse. A high paying job is necessary to barely scrape by, a generator is a must, gasoline shortages may soon become a problem, and electricity outages may grow from seasonal to regular.
I have contingency plans for all of these issues, but long term I'll probably just move to Nevada, Idaho, or Utah.
I've got a few high tech friends (and myself) that have slowly become more and more of the mindset to be self sufficient.
Two things probably have made me initially think more about it. First, the predictions of a major subduction earthquake here in Oregon, and knowing I'd be somewhat on my own for a while after that. And the other thing is Burning Man, which has taught me about self sufficiency and how one can actually have their cake and eat it too now and then.
Then there are guns. I've got two, and both are very much antiques. One a Krag 30-40 from 1908, the other a 1946 Springfield M1903. Both military issue, bolt action, and beautifully crafted. And both quite functional, powerful, and deadly items.
Why do I have guns? First because they are historical (used to work on a WW2 era video game). Then there's in theory hunting if I had to. Then there's protection. I can't deny that yes, I would consider using them if me and mine were truly threatened.
My only rule of thumb for any of this is never shall it say "Tactical" in the product name or the seller. Nor shall it have camo pattern.
One of those things that I have trouble mentally placing in the correct time period is the standardization of the cartridges that we still use today. When they were developed, tractors were still using metal tires and blood type testing for transfusions didn't exist yet. Living on the West coast usually meant that you had to be self sufficient. Some of my ancestors at the time lived in Idaho in a hole they dug in the ground, that they put a roof over. They had another similar dugout that they filled with ice blocks during the winter, to sell in the summer for some income. Most of them were sustenance farmers. One of my great grandparents had multiple acres in Van Nuys to grow enough food and raise enough rabbits to live off of. That land would be worth millions now, but back then it was what you needed to get by. Being rich would mean you had nicer clothes and a bigger house and servants and didn't have to grow your own food, but even the rich rarely had electric power, and when they did it was only routed to lamp sockets.
Do many people think that with their single assault rifle or other weap9n, that they would successfully defend against one or more truckloads of vandals looking to steal whatever they have stored up "self-sufficiently"? History seems to indicate that in the absence of law, those with the most people inside a fortified structure and position are the most likely to survive.
History seems to indicate that in the absence of law, those with the most people inside a fortified structure and position are the most likely to survive.
I don't think that's true. I imagine the people with the highest chance of survival are the ones whose governing/ruling people seek peace and the rule law quickest. Second would be people who flee to the nearest safe and lawful area. A fortification is probably the third best option if you can't have either of the first, but the probability of that structure keeping you alive is very low, especially if the conflict lasts long enough to become a siege. Entire cities managed to hold out from sieges that lasted for years, but the ordinary people inside did not.
Funny the person you replied to mentioned an antique rifle and then you ranted about assault weapons while censoring yourself?
Rifles are great for many things aside from roving bandits. First thing is that hunting is an excellent capability to have and rifles are much easier to use than bows. Another thing is the deterrence one provides. If you're moving around the end times with just your fists, you're an easier target than someone equipped. The final bit is if your point is right and living in a fortified structure is the way to go, someone with a rifle and the knowhow to use it is going to be immensely more useful to the group than someone who just knows how to use a computer. In the absence of law, you will be obliged to defend yourself whether that's individually or in a large group.
That also includes knowing how to process game. A dead deer or a dead rabbit has a small window between being a dead creature and a toxic mess. If you're gonna plug animals learn how to make proper use of them.
People stockpiling only "weap9n"s aren't going to last near as long as people stockpiling only food.
In real life melee weapons are readily available and far more overpowered that you'd think, but what matters more is that robbery is risky. Winning most of the time isn't enough; you'd need to win all of the time.
It depends on if the people with weapons can find the people with food. With no rule of law, everything is on the table. Warlords still exist in many parts of the world today
Modern warlords have large quantities of subjects from generations and generations of consolidation, which itself is a variation of joining instead of looting. Gaining subjects is extremely risky, when you don't already have an army.
Really, modern first-world countries are just the descendants of warlordships that ran out of kingdoms to consolidate with and instead switched to taxation, either relinquishing enough power to their citizens to maintain a stable but effectively symbolic monarchy or overtaxing then losing to a rebellion.
number of firearms is moot without 1) the ammo to use it, and 2) enough bodies to use them.
I'd rather have 10 people with 10 guns than 3 people with 30 guns, esp. if of different calibers and configurations
and in a collapse situation I'd rather have excessive water purification and just enough firearms, than excessive firearms and little to no water purification
With thy said, I’ve had a few enthusiast friends the years, and for most of them the amount of ammo was more staggering than the number of firearms. Most also had a fairly well throughout strategy around what the shtf related arms should be chambered in as well as reloading presses. Further, that made sure their trusted group of friends were familiar with their shtf firearms. To be fair, the most excessive of these friends also had an equally excessive build out for water storage.
> History seems to indicate that in the absence of law, those with the most people inside a fortified structure and position are the most likely to survive.
Its always good to be prepared materially, physically, and psychologically. The best preps are not supplies, but relationships. Social credit matters more, IMHO, than anything else when it comes to long emergencies.
That's probably the best strategy, but no one wants to admit it. Everyone seems to think that Lord of the Flies depicts human nature, when in reality teen boys on a deserted island are more likely to form a band than kill each other (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongan_castaways#Cast_away) and adults are even better behaved.
yeah my folks live on an island off the coast and there are real concerns over things like tsunamis, flooding, or even just strong winds that knock out power for a while.
they live in a cul du sac and there are a bunch of community watch meetings where the folks get together and basically said "if shit goes down we need to be able to live together, so that means we need to 1) have trust, and 2) have the gear"
Of particular note are the few people with big trucks and boats, and the general gist of the planning was "live long enough on the island to be stable, and then use those boats to get off"
The breakdown of probability regarding what actually kills people was really interesting to read. I think he is spot on about handling the mundane disasters like power outages before worrying about the end of the world. It is just good common sense to have insurance and savings.
I met someone who had stored food rations in case of emergency. The mundane disaster where it came in ended ended up being unemployment, letting him put his entire budget toward housing.
For finance, I find interesting the other way around. You see many fire types preparing TOO MUCH. Obviously you should not live paycheck to paycheck. But if you prepare for a 3% return fire, wasting years, your chance of dying early is the much bigger worry than running out of money.
Lots of good stuff in here. One thing to note about building off-grid self-sufficient abodes for "Problem space #3: The zombie apocalypse" is that the roving hordes of warlord-run gangs will consider finding those to be the ultimate booty. This point is made quite clearly in Six Minutes to Winter, the new book about nuclear war by Mark Lynas. As much as I always wanted a sweet prepper cave, the idea has now soured on me a bit.
That's one of the issues with these if you ask me.
Either you're a hermit, that really can build that hermit cave in the mountains, far off and all the guns they're stockpiling won't really be used.
Or you're way too close to civilization coz you have an actual family and they'd never do / care about any of that "crazy stuff".
And if you're that close to civilization, it's all about who's got the larger stockpile and larger amount of armed thugs. Are you really gonna fight off 30 guys with AR-15s with a family of four, two of which are children to protect your stash of food and gas and generator(s)?
The only way your "prepping alone" is gonna help you is the hermit case, far far out of sight or if it's "not all that bad anyway".
Roving hordes of warlord-run gangs aren't likely to last all that long. Unless they're extremely successful, they're going to be constantly infighting for resources, and success is a very high bar, because if they don't win every conflict, their population will rapidly decline from attrition.
It won't take long for it to become overtly apparent to the members of roving hordes of warlord-run gangs that befriending an off-grid self-sufficient abode is a much, much lower risk option than raiding it.
they'll either win, and become a local or regional power, or else they'll die off / get absorbed.
but that may take weeks / months / years and they can kill you and your fam and everyone else in 100km long before.
one of the conceits of nuclear bunkers was that there would be a lot of walking wounded and a lot of starving, crazy people for 6-12 weeks after the bombs go, on top of waiting for the worst of the radiation to dissipate. yeah those folks would die off but it's gonna be an ugly couple of months till then...
I feel like a mobile abode is the way to go. You'll eventually be found and there's no way to outlast a group forever. They'll find a way to cut your air or water. Get a land cruiser with a good tent and go fuck off in the middle of nowhere.
i've not read the book, but i've thought about this on and off for a while.
the common trope of a mad max style wasteland where there are roaming barbarians and everyone is in a state of disorganized chaos is imo overstated. a hobbesian fantasy/wet dream.
humans tend to be self organizing and (mostly) altruistic in the face of disaster. we have plenty examples of this: fukishima, the boston bombing, ongoing ukrainian conflict, syrian conflict.
that's not to say that scoundrels do not exist. times of chaos create space for predators to take advantage of people. it happens more frequently at greater scale. there will be plenty of untethered folks with some form of military training.
similarly, the idea that you could simply ride out a long term disaster in a prepper cave is (again coached in an imho) mostly a fantasy. most people simply need community to survive.
fear of warlord run gangs shouldn't dissuade you from having a small stockpile of goods to survive. if they exist, and you meet they'll probably chop your head off regardless.
the most sensible thing to do is prepare within reason and build a community of people around you that can rely on you and vice verse.
Reading the advice on psychological-resilience section, it also makes a good guide what to do during a mental health episode. i haven't thought of that.
I think the ultimate form of prepping is meal prepping. By regularly cooking batches of food, you automatically get a really good backup throughout. There are no extra steps required. The last place you want to be during a disaster is at the grocery store or stuck in traffic.
At any moment I could go for at least two weeks without really worrying about food or how it would even be prepared. I've got a standby generator for the house and a smaller unit just in case that one dies. There's enough fuel on site to keep my fridge running for about a month in the worst case.
You want to be the last bear to exit the cave. The longer you can hold out, the less competition you'll have to deal with. The only other option is to get out before the disaster hits. This works great for hurricanes but not so well for earthquakes.
Going out searching for more food after 2 weeks just ensures you're placing yourself amongst people that haven't eaten in 2 weeks and are willing to do anything they need to in order to eat.
What a weird coincidence, I was reading this article when my power went out for the first time ever at this house (4 years). Talk about uncanny!
It did feel pretty good being able to go to my closet, hit the 'push' light I'd stuck to the wall so I could see better, then calmly grab a couple of lanterns-slash-phone chargers. Added bonus: getting to share one with our older neighbour (who had plenty of light but no way to charge a phone).
I grew up in a place with a few power outages every year, albeit brief ones. A few basic preparations in the present can make your future much easier.
Have yet to read the whole thing, but skimming the outline and dipping my toes here and there made me believe this is indeed a valuable piece of knowledge - not some absurd "how to survive zombie apocalypse" but more like "how to be reasonably prepared for mundane disasters and try to avoid most of them in the first place". Guess I found my next read! Thanks
> Pandemic. It's been a while since the highly developed world experienced a devastating outbreak, but it may be premature to flat out dismiss the risk. In 1918, an unusual strain of flu managed to kill 75 million people. Few years later, a mysterious sleeping sickness - probably also of viral origin - swept the globe, crippling millions, some for life. We aren't necessarily better prepared for similar events today.
Stable societies fundamentally require increasingly large energy inputs.
What we're seeing happening right now, in a large part, is due to a system whose complexity has exceed the available energy required to sustain it.
The idea that what we're seeing is because "too many people voted for the wrong guy" fails to recognize the larger condition for which all of this is merely emergent phenomena. We no longer have the resources to sustain the society we life in so it begins to uncomfortably revert to lower energy states in ways we haven't seen in a long time.
Trump and his acute destabilizing actions are the symptoms of the chronic, broad, deep destabilization of our society in the form of differing perceived realities, caused by....the internet and its exploitation by sick, greedy social media founders, investors/owners, and, yes, employees.
Further more, know your neighbors, join mutual aid groups, build social connections before bad things happen. The idea of a single prepper surviving the apocalypse is a farce, humans work in communities.
A one hundred year old farmer's collective with deep assets and a membership that makes US preppers look ... uhhh, unprepped.
Literally established well outside what one US astronaut called the most remote city in the world, it is made up of individuals that are all capable of survival in harsh environments and yet choose to work together to lower collective costs and ensure fires are kept in check, floods don't knock out individuals, roving scam artists get talked about on bush telegraph, etc.
My relatively stable high trust society has bunker space for more or less the entire population; if the world goes to hell I'd much rather be* among people who (even on our right wing) habitually put solidarity into practice than be worrying about generators, ice augers, and looters.
* one of the best pieces of advice I ever got, related to skating to where the puck is going to be: "if you know where to be, you can let the young guys run"
Great time to see this here. This morning I, in Canada, reached out to a friend in Ukraine and asked "I might be over-reacting, but what do you wish you knew before the war started?"
His response was "You're not over reacting, you might be under-reacting, worst case you end up with some cool new toys. Best case, you're more prepared than anyone else."
So yeah, here we are. Good article to add to my research.
Well, don't leave us hanging. What did they say?
LOL sorry, here's the list:
Generator 5kw - you want something with a higher duty cycle than you need so it can run for extended periods
Diesel storage for back of a truck - 330 Gallon (nice to have, after a week or two supply lines got fixed)
Diesel - for said tank
Medical supplies - IFAK kit (NAR is a good vendor). Bleeding control & dexamethasone.
Solar power - 1-5kwh. We still get 10-15 hrs a day on the grid, but this would be ideal.
Batteries - minimum 5+kwh storage
Network cable - 300m+ to start. I'm shocked how many times I need a cable and cant get any.
Hand pumps or small electric pump for different fuels and water
Ice auger - gas, but electric ideally, large / long drill bit 2" works too if you have a drill and smaller pipes?
Take a first aid course - MARCH protocol
Iodine pills not important - way bigger issues if you're resorting to that.
Get a rifle - not good for military but useful against looters and other unarmed crazy people
Get familiar with remote detonation with drones, these are what we use to set off the molotovs: <https://www.amazon.co.uk/100-30cm-Electric-Fireworks-Igniter...>
Edit: formatting
> Generator 5kw - you want something with a higher duty cycle than you need so it can run for extended periods
Note that fossil fuel can age out, even with stabilizer.
There are dual- and tri-fuel generators out there that can use natural/methane gas and/or propane. Consider propane as you can get pretty big bottles and it does not expire so can sit around for long periods of time.
yeah used to manage data centers, diesel breaks down after a while, petrol even faster.
you can put in additives to extend the life, and specialized storage can squeak even more out, but ultimately you can't plan on it being good past 12 months, maybe as low as 5-6 if conditions aren't great.
we ran / tested the generators weekly, both just to exercise them and confirm they're good, but also just to burn off old fuel.
Yeah gas / propane might make the most sense. I already have a big 3026L propane tank.
If you have a solar panels, a battery, and generator, it would be good idea to figure out how to hook them all together. Using the generator near its full output, to charge the battery, will use far less fuel than idling it all day.
Even if things are bad enough for iodine pills, they are only really needed for children. Once you hit your mid teens, your thyroid is fully developed and not pulling in enough iodine to worry about radioactive isotopes.
I assume the iodine is about water treatment and not radiation?
> I assume the iodine is about water treatment and not radiation?
If you live with-in 50 km of a nuclear power plant (e.g., southern Ontario), you are entitled to free iodine pills:
* https://www.preparetobesafe.ca
* https://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/resources/educational-resour...
* https://www.torontocentralhealthline.ca/displayservice.aspx?...
* https://www.durham.ca/en/news/ki-tablets-available-for-all-a...
I presume that radiation is why the Ukrainian brought it up.
The article did mention using it for treating water, but it's not very good at that, and it tastes awful. Reverse osmosis works much, much better and it doesn't need to be a large permanently installed system; portable gravity-fed versions readily available.
It was a remark about nukes. Fortunately the place id go to is on a fresh water lake and we already have Water filtration setup.
presumably both
> Get a rifle - not good for military but useful against looters and other unarmed crazy people
If you’re going to do that, become proficient with said rifle.
Or get a shotgun. For self defense, it is just point and click. Anyone can use them after a few minutes instruction.
I'd add some reasonable water supplies, at least bottled, and some pills to disinfect water from rivers, springs etc could be handy as well.
I was thinking the other day that ALL drones SHOULD be considered LIVE explosives. It's probably never a good idea to handle one if you're not trained.
Last march i was at SxSw and the police drones over head were a first for me. I was in this large crowd of people, and thought "yeah i dont like this". How do i know they're not just some bad actors drone with red and blue lights?
I think my exposure to casual discussions of how to arm drones with my Ukrainian friend, and the videos we've all seen on Reddit about drones in Ukraine, have really made their presence feel unwelcome.
I think in the US legally they have to have a beacon while flying now, but my thought the other day was about them being parked/down.
It depends on a number of factors about legality, but the hardware to make a drone that doesn't have software forcing it to follow the law is cheap and plentiful. Its not particularly hard to get either, even with the drone ban.
For ~$200 you can build a very good FPV drone that can carry a dangerous payload and travel at highway speeds. Another ~$200 buys you the video receiver and a controller.
Drone warfare is terrifying.
Warfare yes, but that's all warfare that's terrifying. Similarly you can make a point that for $10 you can buy a knife that can be used in all different morbid crimes.
FPV drones as a fun hobby in the rest of the world has had, in the last 10 years since it became somewhat popular, a total of zero fatalities or serious injuries. Don't let the irrational fear guide you towards further unnecessary regulation that makes others' lives worse.
A toddler lost an eye, several hospitalizations of unrelated bystanders, multiple aircraft damaged in midair collisions, and an attempted assassination of a world leader are some of the highlights. Not exactly a squeaky clean record with no “serious injuries”, even if you ignore the intentional assassination attempt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unmanned_aerial_vehicl...
I think FPV and drones are awesome, and have built several myself. It is pretty hard to argue that they are not also very dangerous in the wrong hands. Are there more dangerous things in the world? Sure, but that doesn’t mean people should ignore an easy attack vector. Given the temperature of things currently, I would be incredibly nervous to hear a drone at a protest or political event.
Regulations are coming whether regular Joe wants them or not. Drones had moved from toy hobby to dealing with weapons and explosives level of scrutiny and this is not reverting anytime soon.
I saw writing on the wall and donated in 2022 my dji drone to Ukrainian army, hopefully it was used well for defense of their homeland. I don't want to have a hobby that I need to do covertly and illegally, and last thing I want to do during vacations is dealing with bureaucracy.
Regulations are coming faster and harder when people are this eager to comply in advance.
is the last point correct? "Get familiar with remote detonation with drones, these are what we use to set off the molotovs:" seems off for this list, like way off and more on military/offence side of type of thing?
and why would you need a 300m+ ethernet cable in a disaster?
Depending on the scale of the disaster you may not want your Starlink on your bedroom roof.
Totally valid use case for sure, and we discussed this because I do have a Starlink dish, but honestly, in a conflict with the US...I don't think a) I'd want to use starlink and b) i'd expect it to work.
Ethernet cable is a high quality cable usable for various other purposes. That includes low voltage power line, such as 12V from the car to phone charger in the house, solar panel wiring, basic tripwire alarms, command relays in the yard from the house, basic audio intercom with your neighbors when phone lines are down, etc.
Plus the obvious ethernet repairs: lines broken by fallen trees/branches in a storm, video camera cables cut by thieves, install new survillance cameras, move existing ones.
Self-supporting ethernet cable is also a decent clothesline when your dryer is not working.
In his case i didn't actually bother asking about the cat6 because i already had a huge reel in my garage, but I can think of cases such a remotely mounting satellite dish' and maybe connecting buildings to each other.
The molotov didn't seem out of range for me honestly. Firstly because I know he was one of the first people flying drones for defence, and now they've been mass producing their own for a few years. I have to admit, it seems pretty rational to want to fight back in any way possible.
Smartest thing would've been - move out of Ukraine. Shit went sideways long before borders got closed. There were plenty of red flags.
Funny, not funny, this friend and I met up in early 2020 and had a beer down the road. He was telling me he'd rented his apartment in Liviv and was moving here next week. He had to go home to get some things, hand over the unit, and then he'd be back.
Next week was the pandemic, borders closed. He never left, and now he /still/ cant.
They are proud people who want to defend their country.
Let politicians fight and die in their own wars. If russia "visited" my country, I'd follow it with a drink in my hand from the bahamas. No piece of dirt or earth is worth dying for, ever.
> No piece of dirt or earth is worth dying for, ever.
If no one ever defends the dirt, the pieces of earth where you can enjoy a drink in peace and freedom will shrink over time as the aggressors will continue to gobble up land because of the lack of defending.
They keep moving forward, you keep moving back, until you have no where to retreat to.
Come back to this comment in a few years and think about whether something significant has changed for those people who did not sacrifice their lives for a meaningless battle.
People are more important than the state. If they are not ready to defend him, why should they be forced? You can offer money or other valuables in return, such as fame, a pension, or a position, but if a person doesn't want to, why should they do it?
Russia doesn't just "visit" your country. Lookup what Ruskiy Mir (Russian world) really means, basically your country gets subjugated by the Russians and I'm not talking about civilized or professional Russian forces - I'm talking about drunk and poor 20yo boys from a remote Russian villages that are now seeing the spoils of western civilization for the first time (do lookup what happened in Bucha, Kyiv suburbs in 2022 at the onset of invasion). Then of course the refusal of the Russians to recognize any other culture or language...the list goes on and on. So - yes, you could escape with a drink but then "If Not Me, Then Who"?
"I suggest bending over immediately and giving in to their demands" -- parent poster
and this isn't "just politicians", they're cleansing populations and relocating children
You have a very romantic view of Russian soldiers.
If politicians and the people who voted for them invade my country and hurt my family and friends I will be looking at revenge.
In this day an age, if you are a Western man defending a Western country's leading power structure, you are a fool.
The idea of being drafted to defend my country that sells me out at every opportunity is laughable.
The world we're headed for there is no "other place" to escape to. Many people's view of survival during collapse ultimately assumes the existence of a fairly large "safe haven" space for which they just need to survive until they get there.
That depends on a lot of personal things. I remember a Ukrainian I personally know, leaving after the 2014 invasion.
When Russia was doing "exercises" at their border in 2022, I asked them in a meeting what they felt (guys living in Lviv). Most of them thought Russia would have done it in 2014 already, and now it didn't make much sense. Only 1 person responded he filled up his gas tank. But in the end, nobody left Lviv right after the invasion.
Cool new toys! I like it. I've recently been thinking of branching into more water sports such as rowing, ocean swimming and the like to have a better shot at surviving out at sea. Hopefully I've gotten some mountains covered by now.
In the less doomsday version, everyone who is responsible for a family (the guy or gal who knows how everything works in the context of money, administration, etc.) should have a "what to do when I die" booklet.
I wrote one years ago and update it with the most relevant information (how to get to my passwords (the ones that are not shared), list of bank accounts, list of investment brokers, what they will get when I die from the state and my company. I am in the process of adding "how to un-smart (or re-dumb) my house, this si a serious source of anxiety for my wife)
This is the right thing to do. Do not delay. Start small with the key information. Share with trusted people outside of your family if possible (they will be less impacted).
I shared that with my best friend I can trust my life with and one day he said "I cannot get to your bank account". To what I said, well, why are you trying to. He was running a DRP (Disaster Recovery Plan) exercise and found stuff that was not updated. I love him.
I like this idea. I would like to extend it by providing bits of advice on how to handle the passing and how loved ones can move on with confidence.
Mine is very pragmatic, I let the emotional part to the ones remaining. I just want to pake sure that financially and administratively they are fine - this I can do.
I respect that.
I see this page pop up with some regularity, and unfortunately the disasters mentioned within seem to become more and more likely each time I read it. Maybe I am just growing more pessimistic, but COVID-19 felt like yesterday and all the large scale layoffs certainly don't inspire confidence.
I renewed my home insurance policy recently and there was one clause along the lines of coverage being excluded for war/insurrection/rebellion/military related reasons. Previously I would have thought nothing of it. These days I read these exclusion clauses in the same spirit as the "problem space" sections listed in this disaster planning doc.
I'm in California, and I'm lucky that I've been able to renew my home insurance. My brother wasn't able to, because every insurer had pulled out of the area, and he had to buy insurance directly from the state for several times more than what private providers charge, and those rates are likely to go up because the state program that runs it is bankrupt.
If anything happens to the my house, it can take a year or more to get permission to rebuild it, and if fire or earthquake or flood takes out the neighborhood, the permitting backlog can take multiple years. My neighbor tried to build a house on a slope, and it took ten years to get the county to acknowledge that the engineering plans were sound, but by that point my neighbor was too old to build the house.
It's really common to have power outages here at least annually, if not more often, and that's been a problem for decades, but there's significant resistance to building new power plants, including solar and wind, which wouldn't fix the instability anyway, and a tenth of our power comes from the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, which is past its design life and we'd be lucky to get another five years out of it.
The oil refineries keep shutting down, we don't have any pipelines to bring in oil, and gas stations are required to sell a California-specific formula anyway.
Restaurants are closing everywhere, discount stores are closing, the 99¢ Only chain went bankrupt, eliminating one of the few affordable sources of fresh fruits and vegetables.
We've been so obsessed with NIMBYism for so long that we're losing our infrastructure and quickly approaching a collapse. A high paying job is necessary to barely scrape by, a generator is a must, gasoline shortages may soon become a problem, and electricity outages may grow from seasonal to regular.
I have contingency plans for all of these issues, but long term I'll probably just move to Nevada, Idaho, or Utah.
I've got a few high tech friends (and myself) that have slowly become more and more of the mindset to be self sufficient.
Two things probably have made me initially think more about it. First, the predictions of a major subduction earthquake here in Oregon, and knowing I'd be somewhat on my own for a while after that. And the other thing is Burning Man, which has taught me about self sufficiency and how one can actually have their cake and eat it too now and then.
Then there are guns. I've got two, and both are very much antiques. One a Krag 30-40 from 1908, the other a 1946 Springfield M1903. Both military issue, bolt action, and beautifully crafted. And both quite functional, powerful, and deadly items.
Why do I have guns? First because they are historical (used to work on a WW2 era video game). Then there's in theory hunting if I had to. Then there's protection. I can't deny that yes, I would consider using them if me and mine were truly threatened.
My only rule of thumb for any of this is never shall it say "Tactical" in the product name or the seller. Nor shall it have camo pattern.
One of those things that I have trouble mentally placing in the correct time period is the standardization of the cartridges that we still use today. When they were developed, tractors were still using metal tires and blood type testing for transfusions didn't exist yet. Living on the West coast usually meant that you had to be self sufficient. Some of my ancestors at the time lived in Idaho in a hole they dug in the ground, that they put a roof over. They had another similar dugout that they filled with ice blocks during the winter, to sell in the summer for some income. Most of them were sustenance farmers. One of my great grandparents had multiple acres in Van Nuys to grow enough food and raise enough rabbits to live off of. That land would be worth millions now, but back then it was what you needed to get by. Being rich would mean you had nicer clothes and a bigger house and servants and didn't have to grow your own food, but even the rich rarely had electric power, and when they did it was only routed to lamp sockets.
Do many people think that with their single assault rifle or other weap9n, that they would successfully defend against one or more truckloads of vandals looking to steal whatever they have stored up "self-sufficiently"? History seems to indicate that in the absence of law, those with the most people inside a fortified structure and position are the most likely to survive.
History seems to indicate that in the absence of law, those with the most people inside a fortified structure and position are the most likely to survive.
I don't think that's true. I imagine the people with the highest chance of survival are the ones whose governing/ruling people seek peace and the rule law quickest. Second would be people who flee to the nearest safe and lawful area. A fortification is probably the third best option if you can't have either of the first, but the probability of that structure keeping you alive is very low, especially if the conflict lasts long enough to become a siege. Entire cities managed to hold out from sieges that lasted for years, but the ordinary people inside did not.
Funny the person you replied to mentioned an antique rifle and then you ranted about assault weapons while censoring yourself?
Rifles are great for many things aside from roving bandits. First thing is that hunting is an excellent capability to have and rifles are much easier to use than bows. Another thing is the deterrence one provides. If you're moving around the end times with just your fists, you're an easier target than someone equipped. The final bit is if your point is right and living in a fortified structure is the way to go, someone with a rifle and the knowhow to use it is going to be immensely more useful to the group than someone who just knows how to use a computer. In the absence of law, you will be obliged to defend yourself whether that's individually or in a large group.
That also includes knowing how to process game. A dead deer or a dead rabbit has a small window between being a dead creature and a toxic mess. If you're gonna plug animals learn how to make proper use of them.
People stockpiling only "weap9n"s aren't going to last near as long as people stockpiling only food.
In real life melee weapons are readily available and far more overpowered that you'd think, but what matters more is that robbery is risky. Winning most of the time isn't enough; you'd need to win all of the time.
Not to mention, you need to convince multiple people to commit acts of violence. This is notoriously hard to do.
It depends on if the people with weapons can find the people with food. With no rule of law, everything is on the table. Warlords still exist in many parts of the world today
Modern warlords have large quantities of subjects from generations and generations of consolidation, which itself is a variation of joining instead of looting. Gaining subjects is extremely risky, when you don't already have an army.
Really, modern first-world countries are just the descendants of warlordships that ran out of kingdoms to consolidate with and instead switched to taxation, either relinquishing enough power to their citizens to maintain a stable but effectively symbolic monarchy or overtaxing then losing to a rebellion.
I guess we’ll be rebuilding society from scratch anyways
Those folks tend to have a confounding number of firearms, rather than just one. Not that it necessarily shifts the eventual outcome to your scenario.
number of firearms is moot without 1) the ammo to use it, and 2) enough bodies to use them.
I'd rather have 10 people with 10 guns than 3 people with 30 guns, esp. if of different calibers and configurations
and in a collapse situation I'd rather have excessive water purification and just enough firearms, than excessive firearms and little to no water purification
I don’t disagree.
With thy said, I’ve had a few enthusiast friends the years, and for most of them the amount of ammo was more staggering than the number of firearms. Most also had a fairly well throughout strategy around what the shtf related arms should be chambered in as well as reloading presses. Further, that made sure their trusted group of friends were familiar with their shtf firearms. To be fair, the most excessive of these friends also had an equally excessive build out for water storage.
Survival is all about being prepared for all kinds of scenarios, adapting to the situation, and a ton of luck.
I rather have a few weapons, than no weapons at all.
> History seems to indicate that in the absence of law, those with the most people inside a fortified structure and position are the most likely to survive.
Source?
Every Roman fortification, medieval city & castle? Clarifying, compared to a single villager with a sword or even two.
Why is every fortified civilization gone and their remnants a tourist attraction then at this point?
Its always good to be prepared materially, physically, and psychologically. The best preps are not supplies, but relationships. Social credit matters more, IMHO, than anything else when it comes to long emergencies.
That's probably the best strategy, but no one wants to admit it. Everyone seems to think that Lord of the Flies depicts human nature, when in reality teen boys on a deserted island are more likely to form a band than kill each other (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongan_castaways#Cast_away) and adults are even better behaved.
yeah my folks live on an island off the coast and there are real concerns over things like tsunamis, flooding, or even just strong winds that knock out power for a while.
they live in a cul du sac and there are a bunch of community watch meetings where the folks get together and basically said "if shit goes down we need to be able to live together, so that means we need to 1) have trust, and 2) have the gear"
Of particular note are the few people with big trucks and boats, and the general gist of the planning was "live long enough on the island to be stable, and then use those boats to get off"
The breakdown of probability regarding what actually kills people was really interesting to read. I think he is spot on about handling the mundane disasters like power outages before worrying about the end of the world. It is just good common sense to have insurance and savings.
I met someone who had stored food rations in case of emergency. The mundane disaster where it came in ended ended up being unemployment, letting him put his entire budget toward housing.
For finance, I find interesting the other way around. You see many fire types preparing TOO MUCH. Obviously you should not live paycheck to paycheck. But if you prepare for a 3% return fire, wasting years, your chance of dying early is the much bigger worry than running out of money.
Lots of good stuff in here. One thing to note about building off-grid self-sufficient abodes for "Problem space #3: The zombie apocalypse" is that the roving hordes of warlord-run gangs will consider finding those to be the ultimate booty. This point is made quite clearly in Six Minutes to Winter, the new book about nuclear war by Mark Lynas. As much as I always wanted a sweet prepper cave, the idea has now soured on me a bit.
That's one of the issues with these if you ask me.
Either you're a hermit, that really can build that hermit cave in the mountains, far off and all the guns they're stockpiling won't really be used.
Or you're way too close to civilization coz you have an actual family and they'd never do / care about any of that "crazy stuff".
And if you're that close to civilization, it's all about who's got the larger stockpile and larger amount of armed thugs. Are you really gonna fight off 30 guys with AR-15s with a family of four, two of which are children to protect your stash of food and gas and generator(s)?
The only way your "prepping alone" is gonna help you is the hermit case, far far out of sight or if it's "not all that bad anyway".
Roving hordes of warlord-run gangs aren't likely to last all that long. Unless they're extremely successful, they're going to be constantly infighting for resources, and success is a very high bar, because if they don't win every conflict, their population will rapidly decline from attrition.
It won't take long for it to become overtly apparent to the members of roving hordes of warlord-run gangs that befriending an off-grid self-sufficient abode is a much, much lower risk option than raiding it.
they'll either win, and become a local or regional power, or else they'll die off / get absorbed.
but that may take weeks / months / years and they can kill you and your fam and everyone else in 100km long before.
one of the conceits of nuclear bunkers was that there would be a lot of walking wounded and a lot of starving, crazy people for 6-12 weeks after the bombs go, on top of waiting for the worst of the radiation to dissipate. yeah those folks would die off but it's gonna be an ugly couple of months till then...
I feel like a mobile abode is the way to go. You'll eventually be found and there's no way to outlast a group forever. They'll find a way to cut your air or water. Get a land cruiser with a good tent and go fuck off in the middle of nowhere.
i've not read the book, but i've thought about this on and off for a while.
the common trope of a mad max style wasteland where there are roaming barbarians and everyone is in a state of disorganized chaos is imo overstated. a hobbesian fantasy/wet dream.
humans tend to be self organizing and (mostly) altruistic in the face of disaster. we have plenty examples of this: fukishima, the boston bombing, ongoing ukrainian conflict, syrian conflict.
that's not to say that scoundrels do not exist. times of chaos create space for predators to take advantage of people. it happens more frequently at greater scale. there will be plenty of untethered folks with some form of military training.
similarly, the idea that you could simply ride out a long term disaster in a prepper cave is (again coached in an imho) mostly a fantasy. most people simply need community to survive.
fear of warlord run gangs shouldn't dissuade you from having a small stockpile of goods to survive. if they exist, and you meet they'll probably chop your head off regardless.
the most sensible thing to do is prepare within reason and build a community of people around you that can rely on you and vice verse.
Finlands 72hours website is a good starting point:
https://72tuntia.fi/en/
Reading the advice on psychological-resilience section, it also makes a good guide what to do during a mental health episode. i haven't thought of that.
I have a local kiwix box that serves the entire english wikipedia (with pictures) as well as the DIY stackexchange:
https://kiwix.org/en/applications/
how big is the wikipedia?
I see:
So ... ~111 GB including pictures ...I think the ultimate form of prepping is meal prepping. By regularly cooking batches of food, you automatically get a really good backup throughout. There are no extra steps required. The last place you want to be during a disaster is at the grocery store or stuck in traffic.
At any moment I could go for at least two weeks without really worrying about food or how it would even be prepared. I've got a standby generator for the house and a smaller unit just in case that one dies. There's enough fuel on site to keep my fridge running for about a month in the worst case.
You want to be the last bear to exit the cave. The longer you can hold out, the less competition you'll have to deal with. The only other option is to get out before the disaster hits. This works great for hurricanes but not so well for earthquakes.
Going out searching for more food after 2 weeks just ensures you're placing yourself amongst people that haven't eaten in 2 weeks and are willing to do anything they need to in order to eat.
If you don't have two weeks of food, you'll be one of those people.
What a weird coincidence, I was reading this article when my power went out for the first time ever at this house (4 years). Talk about uncanny!
It did feel pretty good being able to go to my closet, hit the 'push' light I'd stuck to the wall so I could see better, then calmly grab a couple of lanterns-slash-phone chargers. Added bonus: getting to share one with our older neighbour (who had plenty of light but no way to charge a phone).
I grew up in a place with a few power outages every year, albeit brief ones. A few basic preparations in the present can make your future much easier.
Have yet to read the whole thing, but skimming the outline and dipping my toes here and there made me believe this is indeed a valuable piece of knowledge - not some absurd "how to survive zombie apocalypse" but more like "how to be reasonably prepared for mundane disasters and try to avoid most of them in the first place". Guess I found my next read! Thanks
> Pandemic. It's been a while since the highly developed world experienced a devastating outbreak, but it may be premature to flat out dismiss the risk. In 1918, an unusual strain of flu managed to kill 75 million people. Few years later, a mysterious sleeping sickness - probably also of viral origin - swept the globe, crippling millions, some for life. We aren't necessarily better prepared for similar events today.
oh you sweet 2015 summer child.
Build stable societies.
Stable societies fundamentally require increasingly large energy inputs. What we're seeing happening right now, in a large part, is due to a system whose complexity has exceed the available energy required to sustain it.
The idea that what we're seeing is because "too many people voted for the wrong guy" fails to recognize the larger condition for which all of this is merely emergent phenomena. We no longer have the resources to sustain the society we life in so it begins to uncomfortably revert to lower energy states in ways we haven't seen in a long time.
For anyone wanting to explore that topic, there's Nate Haggens: https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/podcast Or in French, pretty much anything Jean-Marc Jancovici writes.
However both of them argue that a stable society can exist with stable energy inputs, but with much less than now.
But be prepared for the society you live in to vote for an obviously, significantly destabilising leader...
Trump and his acute destabilizing actions are the symptoms of the chronic, broad, deep destabilization of our society in the form of differing perceived realities, caused by....the internet and its exploitation by sick, greedy social media founders, investors/owners, and, yes, employees.
Some societies can be stable for a while, but all of them eventually become unstable, collapse, and make room for new ones.
Further more, know your neighbors, join mutual aid groups, build social connections before bad things happen. The idea of a single prepper surviving the apocalypse is a farce, humans work in communities.
Care to name any examples?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBH_Group
A one hundred year old farmer's collective with deep assets and a membership that makes US preppers look ... uhhh, unprepped.
Literally established well outside what one US astronaut called the most remote city in the world, it is made up of individuals that are all capable of survival in harsh environments and yet choose to work together to lower collective costs and ensure fires are kept in check, floods don't knock out individuals, roving scam artists get talked about on bush telegraph, etc.
Many individual monasteries have been cohesive, stable, wealthy and relatively secure societies for a millennia.
Any group strongly united by a common goal (in this particular case, their religious order) can do surprisingly well.
My relatively stable high trust society has bunker space for more or less the entire population; if the world goes to hell I'd much rather be* among people who (even on our right wing) habitually put solidarity into practice than be worrying about generators, ice augers, and looters.
* one of the best pieces of advice I ever got, related to skating to where the puck is going to be: "if you know where to be, you can let the young guys run"
That's like saying "Everyone be friendly and helpful to one another"
Easier said than done
It feels like 2008 all over again.
Gold/Silver is up, preppers... Just instead of Argentina as an example people talk about Ukraine.
For those interested, I found this practical experience very informative about preparing for social collapse:
- https://web.archive.org/web/20221004062915/https://organicco...
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kySDKESt3_M