You could be forgiven for calling survival ‘war for civilians’.
When the rule of law has collapsed it seems to me that every survival scenario written ends up in combat.
I read an article about “the predicted big die off” and it was centred round the end of oil.
I kinda like the way the basic figures were presented i.e.
Starvation kills roughly half of the population in developed nations within a few months. Another third dies within a year.
Now I think they were a bit conservative and in cities the predation rate would be much higher. Bottom line for the UK was that within a few months, 26.8 million are left standing, and within a year, 17.9 million are left standing. Which puts the population back to about 1812 levels.
Is this a numbers game pure and simple?
No, it isn’t because where are all these people going to be living?
And there is the rub, nobody knows.
I suspect for the majority it’ll mean rural living round food growing areas in pre-industrial type conditions. Settlements raised round farming, old school history book style.
As such violent behaviour won’t be tolerated for long on a local level.
It’s simple, if you kill off the work force, or disrupt growing, or interfere with trade, nothing works. Solution? The disruption must go.
In the UK, around 70% is land is used for farming, 11% is called “urban” and 19% is either industrial or just not used.
So does that mean that urban and industrial will become wastelands?
Not at all and industry in its most basic of forms (especially if electricity is still available) and cities will still exist. Apart from a few idiots (and every area has them) violence won’t be tolerated there either.
Only here is the crunch for the gun hoe. Law enforcement may become simpler.
With none of those scum sucking legal profession to get in the way, punishment may simply become summary justice.
Especially if there are elements of the armed forces stationed there.
So don’t just think “Oh goodie the one stop shopping mall called England is all mine”.
In built up or occupied areas there will be law enforcement.
It may differ from the rural version but it will exist in some form.
Now betwixt those two areas i.e. Rural and Urban, will be an interesting place.
At last the gun hoe may have a playground to shoot anything moving.
Gangs, marauders, free world militia or whatever.
Only in real life it goes like this.
Farms produce food, with the excess transported to centres that have things they want and trade ensues. It’s actually been like that for ever, the only difference is they’ll be no supermarkets so food will actually be fresh for a change.
Money may be barter, food for oil, meds, knitting needles for all I care BUT trade will ensue.
Then up pops the highwaymen living betwixt Rural and Urban.
Intercepting convoys, taking what they want.
Killing travellers for the contents of their back packs. Mad Max the sequel!
Just how long do you think that will take to p*ss people off enough to deal with the threat? Not long I should think and the trees will bend with the swinging dicks who get caught.
Now I can’t speak for the US. War is behind every bush there.
Everyone is armed, violence an everyday thing, it will be a last man standing sort of place.
Which is utter B.S.
OK you have more land than the UK BUT the same principles will apply.
Settlements round food production will be established, industry will function on a basic level, and trade will still be carried out.
As for the highwayman, gangs, marauders, free world militia or whatever.
Summary justice is the same bitch when you think about it.
Is survival war? Possibly short-term. Long term, nope.
You can’t fight and subsistence farm (let alone trade) at the same time.
You can’t live in a community and remain violent.
You certainly won’t be able to coerce people into servitude for long.
Perhaps you gun hoe need to keep at least one rig out pouch full of what will matter in later survival. Seeds, and items for trade like needles, fishing hooks, salt, dried yeast, etc.