Self Defence – Fight or run.

It’s really simple.
When someone comes to take what you’ve got, do you defend it by FIGHTING or RUN TO FIGHT ANOTHER DAY?

After all if there are only a few attackers, you’re better ‘armed’ than they are, behind adequate ‘defences’ to withstand an assault, you’d be a fool to just walk away. Some will say it’s a judgement call and for the most part I’d agree only that judgement call needs to be tempered with a lot of analysis of what is going on. For example.

The age-old problem for the survivor going to ground to wait out whatever is SUPPLIES.

  • For example, Water
    (Rule of three, you can survive 3 days without water in adequate “climate controlled” shelter. Each survivor needs about a gallon of water a day for everything.
    That being used for personal hygiene, cooking, drinking, eating, and cleaning up afterwards.
  • Food is another issue.
    Granted not so important as water (Rule of three, you can survive 3 continuous weeks without food) although the most I’ve managed was two before the effects of malnutrition were “felt” BIG TIME. You can only store so much.
  • Fuel / Power.
    You’ve probably planned for enough fuel plus an emergency factor for the time you are in cover. This shouldn’t change much with an increase of numbers BUT it does make you a valid target for those who haven’t planned.
  • Medicines, both preventative and first aid.
    I’ve only planned for me and my own so I don’t want anyone else to use them.

Now I could go on through my list but that’s the essentials covered.

So a couple of scenarios is called for:-

You are currently in a CBRN scenario.
It may be unsafe to leave your refuge under any circumstances.
So yes I’d fight it out. Even though you could be facing superior numbers of assailants.
After all letting others in during a CBRN scenario may be admitting contamination into your shelter. As for you fleeing into contamination? That’s not really an option is it.

Considering the force attacking you.
Early into a crisis, desperation may not have set in yet, but they are sensibly seeking adequate shelter and perhaps you’ve got the only hardened shelter they have found. The issue for you is have they had time to arm themselves to a degree that could overwhelm you? I submit they may not have had time in their flight from the event but that’s not exactly cast iron logic, just a guesstimate. The next problem for you is they may still be thinking correctly and not affected by whatever the CBRN event was.

Tactically, clear thought by an attacker is not to your advantage, panicked, sick, tired, dehydrated, and weak are all things I LIKE OTHER PEOPLE TO BE.

Then you’ve got radiation sickness with the “feel good” time between the initial exposure and the relapse into symptoms. They may look “OK” but very soon they will get sick again.

As for biological attack? It takes time for symptoms to develop. How do you know who is infected?

Now comes the bigger problem and it’s time dependent.
In a big die off scenario, survivors may have used that time to build up an arsenal of weapons. You’ve also got to be thinking that they may have been in a hostile environment and used those weapons. Thus the human ‘inherent dislike of killing’, the sight and fear of death, and the fear of combat, may have been conditioned by events right out of them.

So what you may be facing is a ‘conditioned, numb to death’, possibly tactically inexperienced, but well armed force. Yet they may be in the condition I like others to be in.
OK, they may not be thinking straight but now desperation and probably anger will drive them on. THEY DEFINITELY have nothing to lose by attacking you.

Only, as said, that would have taken time so now you’ve got the judgement call to make.
Stay or flee as the CBRN event may have diminished enough to allow you to travel. A purely subjective type of decision.

A NON CBRN Scenario

What are attackers looking for?
Shelter, what you’ve got i.e. supplies, money or wealth, weapons, or your women?
I submit there will be quite a few types of people you will be facing including:-
The unprepared single, a family or loose group, the well equipped (usually armed) survivalist, a gang or a group of marauders, the authorities in the form of military or paramilitary police.

How you deal with them is up to you BUT the order I’ve written them is an indication of how I view an increasing threat level.

  • The first two single, family or loose group (all may be armed) are unpredictable yet probably ill-equipped to assault you.
  • The “trained and aware” survivalist would (or should) have taken a damn good look at you before approaching. He or she (maybe they) may know the score, your weaknesses, your strengths before ASKING for permission to approach.
    I know it goes against my initial thoughts BUT – PERHAPS – they might be an asset. This really is the only grey area for me and one that was formed by experience.
    For example, many years ago a ‘friendly’ helped me to survive on the streets. Nothing wanted, nothing given, just a practical helping hand from one experienced to the novice.
  • A gang or group of marauders.
    They will be relying on “shock and awe” to overwhelm you.
    Probably any ex-mil would have scoped you out first, but one thing is certain they will be ready to use massive force and expect you to submit to their “will”.
    Only if you are suitably prepared, and I feel the US and other “gun sensible” countries will survive this sort of attack better than the UK will, the cost of their assault needs to be dramatic and rapidly applied.
    NOTHING puts off an over-confident force than a rapid attrition of their personnel and transport. Especially if they have no reserves or backup.
  • Finally you’ve got the biggest threat, the authorities in the form of military and the paramilitary equipped police.
    1. If they are there under orders, they will succeed.
      Their resources are just too deep and if that includes air support, armour, or even hand-held anti tank munitions, I’d just skip out the back door.
    2. If they have gone rogue, which is always a possibility as the rule of law disappears or the military fragments with a loss of central control, what they are carrying is probably all they have got. Only when you compare them to city ganger’s or marauders, they will have had training. Even with limited resources, they would be a formidable threat. Once again I’d be looking at skipping out the back door.

Is skipping out the back door a bad thing in a non CBRN scenario?
Nope, not at all as the wise prepper / survivalist would have concealed their main inventory well. Then would it matter if the invaders wrecked the place?

One thing is certain, you can always go back being very careful to check for “presents” aka anti personnel devices aka IED’s.

Having said that, in civilized countries with access to “boom” making material, what is there to stop you leaving some of your own FU packages lying around?

[Link to main index]






This entry was posted in prepping, shooting and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Self Defence – Fight or run.

  1. It may have been here or on another blog but I recently saw a discussion about mob attacks that could weigh in on the gang of marauders scenario. Based on that article, mobs don’t behave rationally (go figure) and even heavy losses to “conventional” weapons may not deter them. This could be especially true if the mob is full of gangbangers who are used to being shot at.

    in those cases “non-conventional” weapons such as a mix of household chemicals that result in a toxic gas cloud or molotov cocktails could be a more effective deterrent. Going really old school, pots of boiling water or oil could be fairly effective when deployed from a second story window.

    What’s interesting is that “non-conventional” may differ depending on location. Firearms are common enough in the US than many people are more intimidated by flames or knives. While some other countries firearms would have more of a shock factor.

  2. yokel. says:

    I see this as more of a problem for the “urban” and city dweller, or anyone who lives on the outskirts of our more larger cities, the further out from a large city one is the less this will be a problem due to simple numbers.
    I have never been a believer in “the golden horde”, not in the UK anyway.

    • I suggest you my be wrong with your supposition.
      At 2 mph (approx speed of a refugee column, what is left of 80% of the population that exist in “urban” now will be walking out of built up areas.
      So within a week if 10% are still walking, rural England will be full of VERY desperate people. And that’s only them on foot!

  3. yokel. says:

    wandering about just hoping to come across food and shelter is being a refugee and we’ve all seen what happens to refugee’s lately haven’t we? and that’s in the good times.
    British people will sit and wait for someone else to come and save them, after all its always someone else’s “fault” isn’t it?
    the roads will be blocked with abandoned and damaged vehicles or ones that have simply run out of fuel, main roads will be glorified car parks, just how far do you think they will get on foot? its not like they’ve got a destination in mind, they’re just hoping to find food(see above),.

  4. yokel. says:

    I really do not see British people leaving their houses just because there is no food in the shops, what is more likely is that they will “forage”(scavenge, loot) out from where they live but return later that day with their “ill-gotten” gains!! if someone has paid a mortgage for 10,15,20 years are they just going to up and leave? I think not.

Comments are closed.