Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

I suspect it depends enormously on what sort of 'apocalypse' has occurred.

Simple loss of civility/society? Tribalism seems very likely. It might be a relatively brief period before warlords seize enough power to create functional nation-states with armies, rather than 'every person for themselves'.

Something that destroys enormous amounts of resources (nuclear war, for instance)? Most likely group vs. group or individual vs. individual?

Something that is inherently violent (zombie apocalypse)? Weapons, but much more for defense rather than attack. No point in survivor fighting survivor. Banding together makes more sense.

Worldwide pandemic with 99%+ mortality? Maybe a bit of vying for power, but, here, we'd be in a situation of massive surplus resources for a considerable period of time. Yes, that would dwindle, but survivors would be far better off banding together and pooling skills to keep an area up and running than risking destroying skills by making the only guy who knows how to run the power plant have to fight off the invaders, whose prize for 'winning' is pretty much nothing, if they kill off what's actually valuable. Defensive weaponry would make sense, but there'd be very little incentive towards offensive action, more 'policing' against get-rich-quick bandits.

It's certainly harder to predict how people would react to the last two situations, since - pretty much - we've never tried it. The first is analogous to the fall of civilizations past, where we really don't kill many people, just lose structure and norms. The second is much less clear, but I'd guess is closer to the first than the last two.

In both of the last two cases, in a long-term scenario where the zombies are defeated or things stabilize, eventually there would be pressure to start fighting.

No point in survivor fighting survivor. Banding together makes more sense.

If there is one commodity the human race is exceptionally short of, it's common sense...

he idea is that with the complete collapse of civilization, people will devolve into small clan/tribal groups who will then fight over territory and resources, just like humans were constantly doing in the thousands of years it took us to get to this point.

Exactly this. And this has happened over and over countless times in the past. The government breaks down, and be it the fall of the Babylonians, the Roman Empire, or any other group and people suddenly started making spears and preparing to fight off outsiders.

The only difference is that here in the US in the modern era, that would mean guns instead of spears.

And even beyond that, making guns (and gunpowder) is not incredibly hard. I could make a gun with $50 in random parts I bought in a hardware store. Or if I had access to some basic machine tools I could make a fully automatic machine gun in a few hours.

Gunpowder, fairly simple chemistry. A good pipe, hand carved wooden stock, hom3e made gunpowder, melted led, and a spring and parts from a cigarette lighter I could easily make a single shot long gun.

But yes, most survivalists and post-apocalyptic stories are indeed "gun porn". Few who constantly talk about such are likely to really survive such an event. For all of their hording, few have the kind of network of others that would allow them to survive for more than a short time before being overrun.

The idea is that with the complete collapse of civilization, people will devolve into small clan/tribal groups who will then fight over territory and resources, just like humans were constantly doing in the thousands of years it took us to get to this point.

Anthropologists are finding more and more that before the age of farming this was not the case. War more or less comes about after agrarian settlements do.

Note that we have the obvious question of 'what about warlike nomadic people' - and the note here I guess is that they only became warlike once there was BOTH a target to raid, and that target was taking away their ability to roam freely.

But this is all still an area of 'open analysis'.

We find many societies around the world that have very long histories of violence, and also many that do not.

Within a span of only a few hundred miles for example - you can see one of the most violent people in all of human history; The Aztecs, and a people with no record of even having a bad Tuesday; The Ohlone (the people who had a town where San Francisco now is, for almost the last 12,000 years).

Note two key differences here.

The Aztecs, a nomadic group comes to a highly populated area around a lake and siezes some land, uses politics to take control and begins brutally oppressing everyone. They only lasted 3 or 4 generations before they're fighting a massive rebellion on multiple fronts and some 'rando from across the ocean' unites the rebels and slaughters them.
- They had built the largest city in the world, and were basically under attack from all sides and launching attacks on all sides as their means of control.

The Ohlone - sitting in one of the best 'natural ports' on the planet but without ever advancing beyond stone age technology, the Ohlone operated a series of fishing villages all around the bay. They have no history of conflict and when the Spanish came they were essentially wrapped up into the empire of New Spain with little initial violence. The Americans came so soon after that they're largely a "forgotten people" even though some of their villages were more than 10,000 years old and are now among the USA's most major cities.

There are many vast regions of the planet though, that had very little history of conflict until modern times - like Australia. And sometimes these do sit not too far from places with long histories of conflict like New Zealand.

All of which means it's just as hard to generalize humanity into "it will descend into barbarism" as it is to say "we'll all be hippies in an eternal stoned out love fest".

Humanity is just too varied for either path to be a conclusion.

But we also have situations like the 'Lord of the Flies' scenario - a novel where a bunch of boys are stranded on an island it quickly dissolves into horrible violent chaos.

The only problem is the premise isn't fiction. It's happened. A whole large group of boys got stranded a few decades back on an island out near New Zealand or New Guinea (I forget which) for either months or a few years.

But instead of violence, they organized themselves into mutual protection. The older boys took to mentoring the younger ones, they explored, built houses for shelter, started farming and fishing so they'd have food, and figured their mess out.

One boy got injured when they were climbing up a volcanic mountain - so they built him a splint for a broken leg and nurtured him back to health.

When finally rescued much later on, everyone was healthy and in good spirits.

Some of humanity might sink to it's worst. But a lot of people also know how stupid that is, and will get together to work things out.

While we can say "but those earlier societies were more primitive", we can also say "but we're also more advance now, and know what to do."
- BOTH of these statements are true.

This is why I gave examples of multiple civilizations that were contemporaries of each other. Like the Ohlone and the Aztec - both around in the time of Spanish exploration, near each other, yet with polar opposite ways of handling things.

Humanity is too complex to say that it will descend into madness or to say that it will rise up into hippie communes.

It will do both.

Oh and aside from other people, there will be feral dogs, and other animal threats that survivors will need to protect themselves from.

Very true. Without humans in significant numbers, wild game would thrive. As well as a return of large numbers of bears, cougars, and other predators.

And even worse, as some authors are aware there is a huge gap in the North American biological diversity for a true apex predator. Just a score of wild cats in a decade or more could explode. Lions, tigers, cheetahs, all reclaiming segments of the biosphere vacant since the loss of smilodon.

IIRC this was a subplot in S.M.Stirling's Dies The Fire.

Exactly. And it actually has puzzled many who study biospheres in that all of the major apex predators (and most prey) in North America died out since the last ice age started to end.

We have curious things left in our native fauna today. Like the Pronghorn, which can run at speeds of almost 60 miles per hour (second fastest land animal in the world), but there are no predators left that come anywhere close to that to justify such a feature in evolution.

It is believed its original predator was the American Cheetah, a now extinct species. And like almost all other megafauna died off around 10,000 years ago.

North and South America are unique in the world however. They are the only continents where almost universally all megafauna died off. Unlike Africa, Asia and Europe where at least some survived.

And not just zoo keepers letting them go. Eventually some would escape, especially those in the hands of private individuals as well as the large zoo parks. There are over a dozen large "Wildlife parks" in the US, which have a large number of such animals, that do not use conventional cages at all but the viewers drive through in their cars. Without a provided supply of food, it is guaranteed that eventually enough of them would escape to set up breeding colonies.

And another animal that has long been missing from North America and would quickly establish itself again is the primate. They (like equines and camels) originated in North America, and are yet another mystery of the mass extinction 10kya. But huge areas of the continent are still specially suited for them, and they would once again thrive.

Texas alone is estimated to have 2000 to 5000 tigers. There's no licensing or registration, so no one really knows. Many are literally backyard pets. Many would likely starve in a disaster scenario, but some would get loose and find other tigers.

There's a wild snow monkey population centered around Dilley, Texas, south of San Antonio. It's not even well suited to them, yet they've established themselves fairly well nonetheless.

Texas alone is estimated to have 2000 to 5000 tigers. There's no licensing or registration, so no one really knows.

Actually, there is a permit process that you have to go through. You can not just go out and buy one. And as of 2001 state registration through the Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife is required.

That's somewhat technically correct but misleading. There is a permit. You file that permit with your local authority and send a copy to the state. The state doesn't do anything with it except file it; there's no review.

Most large cities do have a permitting process. Most smaller cities and unincorporated areas do not. If you don't need to file with your local area, you just send it to the state, who's not really in the business of approving or denying it.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/explainer/article/Explained-Texas-laws-for-tiger-owners-9234718.php

And the majority likely haven't gone through that process at all.

That's somewhat technically correct but misleading. There is a permit. You file that permit with your local authority and send a copy to the state. The state doesn't do anything with it except file it; there's no review.

Which is the "Registration". Exactly as I said.

I did not say you need a state permit, simply that you then had to register through the state (which is what you sending them a copy of your paperwork to the local authorities does).

those in the hands of private individuals

My son works for at a facility here that breeds animals for sale to zoos and other facilities / collectors around the world. (NOT Joe Exotic!) It's actually fully accredited, because it has to be to do what they do. They have a huge assortment of exotic birds, plus servals, caracals and they just got in a bunch of primates, too.

What manny authors avoid is the reality of gun use post apocalypse.

To me, the biggest laugh factor is where are the bullets going to come from?

Bullets and gunpowder do have a shelf life, and most such books or shows I see have them expending huge amounts of ammunition. Seemingly with no concern about where they are going to come from when they run out.

Back during the Cold War, that is why I always had as part of my collection a reproduction derringer, and Kentucky Long Rifle. Unlike modern smokeless powders, I know I could eventually make my own black powder. Once the premade smokeless powder and firing caps are gone, all of those with AKs, ARs, and all the other "fancy guns" will only have really bad spears.

However, even then my plan was never to stick it out and fight off all that came near me. It was to hightail it to a remote area, and then just sit it out until things started to settle down again.

The crazies can keep their bunkers and their plans of building their "paradise nation". I will be hiding in some mine or cave somewhere in the middle of nowhere.

How long do you think you can feed yourself without having to leave your mine/cave an exposing yourself to discovery?

Not a problem actually. I do not have to live inside of it all the time, I know quite a few areas where I have hiked and camped in for a week or more and never seen a sign of another person.

In fact, I used to have 3 or 4 different ones picked out, miles away from the nearest road. Simply pack everything I needed in and use the mine or cave as my home base.

Food, not a problem. All had a stream within 1/2 mile for water and fish. Hunting, basic seed scattering and knowing edible plants would take care of the rest.

And a cabin would work, but a mine or cave is preferable because of the constant temperature. One of the beauties of a cave or mine, the temperature is almost a constant. And actually the average annual temperature of the area around it. That means in most areas I would hide in, around 60f.

Some tarps and a basic tube to block most of the wind and exhaust the smoke, and I would have a very comfortable place to live. And over a winter only a fraction of the wood needed in a cabin.

If you go to many areas in Idaho, Nevada, and further East it is still easy to be remote very quickly. And especially in Northern Nevada and Southern Idaho the region is littered with caves and mines from the 1800's.

All many miles from anything even close to even a rural highway, and far out of sight from even the most primitive roads. Not the kind of place any "townie" would ever go to. They would be the only ones I would ever worry about, and if it is not a paved 2 lane road with lines down the center they likely would not go down it.

Especially not 20+ miles down a remote dirt road going to nowhere, then another dozen or miles on foot. Locals I would not worry about to be honest. The locals in that area tend to be a bit "clannish", and so long as you leave them alone, they will leave you alone.

And there is a reason why many of my stories take place in Idaho. I have hiked and extensively all over the state, and know of dozens of places like that I could "go to ground", and then not be troubled once I did. City folk are actually fairly lazy, and would have no reason to go to such an area. Like the S.M. Stirling series "Dies the Fire" (or "Emberverse"), the vast majority would stay on the major roads, and look along them an in cities to find a way to make it through such. Not traipsing off to where the occasional loner or small group has gone. Sticking to the "majority prey", not looking for the occasional ones hiding in a remote area they do not know at all.

My initial location had long been the Owyhee Mountains. Miles away from the town of any size (the nearest town has a population of a whopping 110, the next closest town is 147 and 30 miles in the opposite direction), I have no worries that once I established myself in a cave or mine I would have no worries about leaving it any time I wanted.

Just not enough of a population out there to need to go out "living" off of the few others in the area. And enough game and livestock to keep them going without resorting to such tactics (unlike in the major cities). They would simply hunker down where they are. Their remoteness largely keeping them safe, as opposed to those in towns that are actually on the highways.

I doubt that anybody even reading this (or my stories) have ever heard of towns like "Silver City", "Bonanza City", "Atlanta", "Rocky Bar", "Placerville", "White Knob", or a dozen other such areas I am familiar with. I could go to ground in any of those (and even more), and have no worries that I would remain undiscovered simply because of the remoteness.

And all of them littered with caves and abandoned mines. With clear flowing streams close by and year round.

However, I would never move to a place like Idaho City. Very similar, but only 30 miles from Boise and right on a major state highway. That is the kind of area that would be overrun once Boise was picked clean.

Over 20 years ago I even started working on a "SHTF" story, that involved the main character going exactly to that area. I had a decent start on it, but lost it in a drive crash and simply never got around to starting it again.

Spending the first winter in a mine about a dozen miles from Silver City, then in need of supplies finally going into the town come spring, and ultimately moving in and joining the community.

Doing the 'lone wolf' thing is fine, until it isn't. Being a part of a pack is a far better way to ensure survival, especially if the 'pack' is formed before everything goes sideways and it's members know and trust each other. Family groups are preferable, last minute additions best avoided.

And that is my ultimate plan, but the hiding in a remote area is simply to get first the first 3-12 months until things settle down again.

By that time, either things will settle down and authority establish itself again, or communities will band together for mutual support. And once the first winter passed integrating myself into such a community.

The problem is, that I really do not know anybody that would be of a benefit in such a situation anymore. Most I know now are "city folks", and those I knew are all back in California.

Now if I could get ahold of my son and arrange a place to meet up, he and his family along with 2 or 3 of his friends I know would be incredible for such a situation. Between all of us we have some great primitive living skills. Not "survivalists", just good "country boys" that would be able to get by.

But like most of my friends, most of his friends would be little more than "dead wood". But two of them are also black power enthusiasts, and one is a bow hunter. Give us a 50 pound bag of seed corn and wheat, and we could even establish an actual small community somewhere.

I have studied a lot of "survival" tactics, both military and old ones from living off the land. Not the "survivalist" kind of fantasy, but actual things done by pioneers, Indians, and backwoodsmen for centuries.

Sod houses, primitive hunting and fishing, preserving meat through smoking, "eternal soup", edible plants, making water safe to drink, primitive "seed scatter" agriculture, things like that. Those are true survival skills, not "stockpile a lot of guns and food and waiting it out".

Back in Junior High, I even made a fish trap one spring and it worked. I took photos of it and turned it in as part of an Idaho History project and got an A. Not that hard to do, once you know how.

But most "survivalists" I actually laugh at. As you said, build a bunker and stockpile huge amounts of goods. They will likely be the first to go, as all those supplies make them prime targets to others that are better armed and more ruthless. Me, it is taking the minimum needed and getting somewhere remote and setting up to survive on my own for up to 12 months.

But not as the ultimate long-term solution. That as you said would involve joining a larger community once the worst dies down and things (either locally or nationally) start to settle down again. I am only talking the first 3-12 months. By that time, a lot of the worst of "road scum" would likely have died off. Either victims of other gangs, trying to go against better defended communities, or simply from the lack of food during the first winter.

You really could throw most city folk into a rich farming area, and they would still starve to death. And even those who think they have survival skills likely would not survive.

Many know that acorns are edible. But how many know that they have to leach out the tannin first or they are toxic? And how to do it? I can already imagine quite a few dying just from that, thinking they know what they can safely eat, and actually being very wrong unless it is done properly.

Or that one of the safest ways to preserve food is through "eternal soup"? Even if needed resorting to insects for survival (true fact, termites have kind of a nutty flavor). I think a great many would actually die, surrounded by consumables that would keep them alive.

To me, the biggest laugh factor is where are the bullets going to come from?

Presuming it's a zombie / pandemic type situation, then every Army Surplus Store / Pawn Shop in the country. Yes, ammo has a shelf-life, but you're talking typically measured in decades, not weeks or months.

And if I really needed LOTS of ammo, then it's 140 miles to more ammunition than you'd EVER need. Breaking into the storage bunkers might be a pain in the ass, but they have more than 2,400 storage bunkers and another 2,500 buildings where they manufacture ammunition, and store the US war reserves and training ammunition. I think they might have enough for all of us there.

Presuming it's a zombie / pandemic type situation, then every Army Surplus Store / Pawn Shop in the country. Yes, ammo has a shelf-life, but you're talking typically measured in decades, not weeks or months.

And if I really needed LOTS of ammo, then it's 140 miles to more ammunition than you'd EVER need. Breaking into the storage bunkers might be a pain in the ass, but they have more than 2,400 storage bunkers and another 2,500 buildings where they manufacture ammunition, and store the US war reserves and training ammunition. I think they might have enough for all of us there.

Well, the first we can discount right away. "Zombie" is just a fiction trope, will never happen. And even during the worst pandemics, such has not been seen ever in centuries.

That was a problem with bacteriological plagues, but those are no longer an issue. The viral ones either spread incredibly fast and have such a high mortality rate that it will never go global (Ebola), or are slow moving with a lower mortality rate (COVID) that society will not break down because of it.

And for ammo shelf life, yes. Decades, if it is stored properly. And how many keep their ammo stored in moisture proof containers properly? I can tell you, not many.

And 140 miles to more ammo? Well, not likely. You have to realize, I worked for years at an Ammunition Depot. Most of those left are very remote, and on highly defended military bases. Most bases actually have very little ammunition on them in fact.

I was stationed at one of the largest Ammo Depots on the West Coast. But most of that was big stuff for the Navy. 18" rounds for battleships, sea mines, rockets, and things like that. Our actual "small arms"? Just 2 small bunkers that were maybe 10 foot by 10 foot inside (and that was for the use by us, the Marine security forces). Out of over 100 bunkers on the entire base.

Most depots are like that. How are you even going to know what bunker to go to? I can imagine some gang of numbskulls finally finishing battles with highly trained and equipped military to finally get into such a complex, spending days to get into a bunker, and finding it is full of 155mm shells. Or 80mm flare rounds for mortars.

Absolutely worthless to them. It is not like there is a bill of lading outside the bunker to say what is inside.

No, most military bases have little to no ammunition actually on them. And what there is mostly is their for their own security forces. Which means once again about a 10 foot by 10 foot bunker (or basement storage) with only enough for their own MPs. Most of which would be expended in fighting off such an attack.

The largest depots, now those are really in remote areas. Like the largest, in Hawthorne, Nevada. A huge complex, over 140,000 acres, and over 2,000 bunkers.

Even if you got in there and were able to neutralize the defenses, which bunkers are you going to hit out of over 2,000?

And breaking into them is going to be more than a "pain in the ass". Good luck getting into them without blowing yourself up. You are not going to be easily cutting your way inside, through over 1/4" of hardened steel between you and what is inside.

You could do that, and likely have to go through dozens of them before you actually find any ordinance that you can actually use. M1 tank shells, mortar rounds, artillery rounds, rockets and missiles, flares and other pyrotechnics, and a lot of other ammunition, stored in identical bunkers are far more numerous than those that actually contain "small arms ammunition".

Not doubting your experience, but I thought the U.S. Navy topped out at 16" on the Iowa class

Typo, I did indeed mean 16". The ships regularly in the 1980's anchored off-shore, and we used barges to move the shells to and form the ships.

Best you stick to Brazil, far fewer bushes hiding those pussies...

Yes, only the Amazon Jungle.

Oh, it might be illegal, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't be well-advised to do it.

Unless you like spending many years in jail.

Just ask Andrew Tahmooressi, who was arrested at the border to Mexico with three loaded guns. He was released the next year after a lot of pressure from the US Government, but he was facing 10 years in jail.

I will likely never return to Mexico. But even when I went there regularly, I knew not to bring guns. They really do go harsh on those that they catch with them.

As far as you an individual raiding such a facility based on untried skills you susposedly garnered from watching youtube, good luck with that. Make sure to leave your family enough food and water before you run off and suicide on such an ill fated venture.

Which is pretty much spot-on.

But this is the delusional kind of thought that has kept many crazies going in the US for decades now. They really have no idea how well such bases are protected. When I was a guard at an ammo dump, for every 24 hours I spent on guard duty, I spent another 12 hours training.

Some may have heard of "FAST Company". The Marine Corps Security Force Regiment is basically the SWAT team of the Marines and Navy. But also of the State Department. If augmentation is needed at an embassy, FAST is who is sent in.

And they are the top tier of Marine Security Guards. In fact, so highly trained that they can even give SEAL teams a run for their money. And this is not a joke, in 1986 when Seal Team Six was still the Navy's "Red Cell" that was used in training bases how to defend themselves, they ran many times against Marine Security Forces. Acting as the enemy that the Marines had to defend against.

If any are familiar with Captain Richard "Dick" Marcinko, he was their first commander. And what is most interesting, is that while he and his team did indeed infiltrate many places, their record against Marine Security was actually not that good.

Read his own "Biography", and you will see he hardly ever mentions their engagements against Marine Security Forces. Especially Seal beach, only saying they ran a drill there. And he mentions that base in many of his fiction books, always trying to make it out to be much more than it is.

The reason is, he was 0 for 10 in attempts to infiltrate or "damage" the areas we guarded. His entire team was wiped out each time, with us Marines taking minimal casualties.

Now granted, they did have a field day in the "Civilian" area of the base, which basically had just DoD Police. But there was nothing of importance in that area of the base, and it was not our area of responsibility (other than our own Command Building, which we successfully defended against 2 assaults).

If anybody looks to find the "Marine Barracks, Seal Beach Naval Weapon Station" Facebook page, we still talk about that even today. There are even some pictures of some of us holding the SEALs at gunpoint after capturing them, with no casualties on our side.

In fact, there is a reason in his later books "Captain Dick" picked Seal Beach in particular as the location where the Navy would have their "nukes stolen" in Rogue Warrior II (Fiction). The first time he tried to play against an "A Team", and had his ass handed to him.

If such a force even 35 years ago could hold off a SEAL team, how well does anybody expect a bunch of raggedy-ass civilians with no training going to do?

If you want to cut through bars, drive a truck through the wall, or use explosives, go for it. The point is only that you COULD access the armories and vaults since time and stealth are no longer huge factors in the equation.

Once again, even if the defensive force was to decide to leave or about to fall, they would blow up anything they are guarding. That is known as a "Phyrric Victory".

And no, you are not going to "cut the bars", "drive a truck through a wall", or "use explosives".

There are no bars to cut through, no way to drive a truck through the door, or through the earth berm to even reach the wall. And explosives even if the bunker is still in tact and there are explosives inside will just detonate what it is you want to take.

And yes, I have seen a lot of the LPL videos. I even listened as he talked about the "Miracle Ordinance" lock from 50 years ago. How he was required to manipulate it, in a way that would be impossible with a lock in place on a bunker. Which is of a significant degree tougher than even that one, as he was not even opening a "bunker lock", but an "arms room lock".

But yea, believe whatever it is you want. And ignore myself and others who have actually dealt with such things.

Oh, and "armories" do not contain ammunition. They only contain guns. Which once again, would be destroyed before they could fall into the hands of others. The only bullets you would find there is the roughly 150 that each of the guards defending it would have on them.

And if I was scavenging a military base, I'd start with the administrative offices. Someone has records of what's in which bunkers, not to mention keys to the bunkers.

Once again, do you know which building out of the hundreds on such a base? I knew, and I bet you could spend months searching and never find the right one.

I can tell you, there was nothing that set it apart from any of the 2 dozen or so that surrounded it. And all such things were carefully secured. As in safe inside of a safe inside of a safe. Inside of an underground vault that was concealed.

But the records? Nope, those would be toast. The "vault" for those things was of course underground. As in, below sea level (the base is at most maybe 3 feet above). After months without power the sump pumps would have allowed it to be flooded. All paper records, destroyed.

It is nowhere near as easy as your little fantasy tries to make it out to be. Especially for things like this, the military takes "compartmentalization" very seriously. You could spend weeks searching the HQ and Marine HQ buildings, as well as the main Ordinance Office and not find what you were looking for.

Sorry, wrong link, copy paste error.

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/weapons-bunker-0310-rlseal-beacha-row-of-bunkers-line-news-photo/569165241?adppopup=true

Yes, those bunkers. Those are NOT "Weapons Bunkers".

In fact, I can tell you exactly where those are on the base.

https://pp.walk.sc/apartments/e/1/460x400/CA/Seal_Beach/Naval_Weapons_Station_Seal_Beach.png

South-West of the intersection of Westminster and Bolsa Chica, you will see 5 gray roads. Well, in reality there are 8 roads, each of them exactly 1/2 mile long, with a row of bunkers just like that one on them. I want to say 8 sets of 3 per road, but that is from memory.

This was officially "Post 5", or as we called "The Twilight Zone". The only post completely unlit, and when the fog came in off the salt marsh that area was creepy. It tended to hug the ground, with clear air for about 6 feet before resuming. It was like driving in a tunnel where you could not see the ground.

And as only one road (the third from the Western most) went all the way through to the next, quite a few guards lost track of what street they were on and drove into the plowed fields around it.

Want to know the high security area, look North of Westminster, between there and the 405 freeway. Those are the explosives bunkers. Not behind a single fence, but multiple fences. All the inner ones brightly lit at all times, with multiple guards on duty in the northern area.

https://elastic.org/~fche/mirrors/www.cryptome.org/nwssb-122.jpg

Now if you look north of Westminster, that is the area all the explosives used to be in. The first two rows West to East were mostly things like missile bodies with solid fuel but no warhead. The third row was the only one you would have found the "munitions" that you were looking for. Notice, those are all really small. And hard to see, but the "L" shape I described. Maybe 6-10 feet in front, then more concrete and earth. Designed to prevent just the "ramming" attack you keep trying to describe.

Then yet another fence, and more big bunkers. Those were where the big ordinance was kept, like 16" shells and missiles with warhead installed. The next to highest security on base.

The highest, there was yet another fenced in area inside of that, with 5 bunkers. There, the "L" was fenced in, front and top. Those were our "Special Weapons" bunkers. Back when we had nukes, those were the bunkers they were stored in. With an armed Marine inside the cage. If all 5 bunkers in use, that meant 5 armed Marines in that area, in addition to all the other defenses.

The square building to the East of the last row of bunkers, that was the "Guard Shack". Around 20+ Marines at all times inside of there, ready to respond to anything within 5 minutes. Clear fields of fire in all directions, ample dead zones, firing ports in the roof and even the vehicles are kept behind armored doors.

Now this base is long out of the "ordinance business". It is one of the "White Elephants" that the Navy has been stuck with since the early 1990's. When Long Beach Naval Shipyard was closed, this base lost its mission. But as it is also a National Wildlife Refuge, they are still there.

And it was also part of the Apollo program. TO the South of Westminster at the corner with Seal Beach Blvd, you will see several tall buildings. That is where the Stage 2 rockets for the Apollo program were all built.

It is just off shot, but the Stage 3 rockets were built at a facility just to the East of where "Post 5" was. Even into the 1980's we could hear them at night testing rocket motors.

That base was basically my home for almost 4 years. And while the data I am telling is almost 40 years out of date, some things about security are consistent.

First, they have to know where to go. We had people that lived within a mile of our base, and had no idea what we were. I drove past it dozens of times before I joined, and thought it was just a farm.

Then out of all the bunkers there, you have to figure out which ones have what you want. And then, once again break in without blowing yourself up.

And for what, a few pallets of ammunition per bunker? Because much of what you will find in them you will not be able to use. You are going to be better off hitting sporting goods shops.

Perhaps some of them, but that description doesn't seem to fit the photo of weapons bunkers Mushroom posted a link to above.

And as I said quite clearly when I posted it, THOSE WERE NOT WEAPON BUNKERS!

Those were bunkers for holding inert components. They never put "weapons" or "munitions" of any kind into bunkers like that. At most, you might find some compound that when combined with other compounds are used to make rocket fuel. But no rockets in bunkers like that.

I posted that to give an idea what the box that the lock actually went into looked like. And even on those, because they were "minimal security"" bunkers it was less than what is used on an actual munitions bunker.

This is the biggest problem. You are taking what little data we are giving you, and blowing it way out of reality.

Given a high death toll even that wiped out the base personnel, the fact that the doors are above ground level is less of an obstacle to this than you think.

With no need to worry about defenders showing up you could build a ramp up to the door.

How? The opening area in front of the door is only about 10 feet. They will hit that door at a whopping 5 miles an hour or so, and crush the front of the vehicle they used.

Also, bunker doors open out. With inches of overlap with the frame to increase strength. They really have thought of things like this decades ago, and engineered them to prevent such an attempt.

But yeah, knock yourself out.

And many actually are at ground level. But you are still not going to be plowing any car through the door.

Yes, you're right, every single remaining defensive force everywhere would only ever opt to blow up whatever they were guarding. There is zero other choice. They couldn't all have been killed in the apocalypse. The few survivors won't decide to simply leave so they can get home to their families now that the military is no more and they aren't getting paid to protect stuff from people who no longer exist.

Of course, that also depends on what they are guarding, of course.

For most equipment, they are fairly easy to sabotage. An artillery piece with several pieces missing is just a bunch of scrap metal. The same with a tank or most other equipment.

Give me 10 minutes and a sledgehammer, and the only risk from a PATRIOT missile launcher is if you dropped it off a cliff onto somebody.

And now think logically. You are on a base in North Carolina, and your home is in Colorado. How exactly are you going to get there with things like that? What are your chances of fighting your way there, as opposed to staying where you are at where you actually have support?

Sure, some will do the stupid thing, I have no doubt of that. Most will use common sense and remain because that is their best chance for survival. Especially those that are married and have families there with them.

Interestingly, your insistence that these places are impossible to breach begs the question of why they have so many guards in the first place. After all, you keep insisting that nobody is getting into those bunkers no matter what, so why do they have guards guarding them?

There are other risks, not just theft. During WWII saboteurs were a big one, as they have also been in Vietnam and in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan today.

Not even trying to break in, simply trying to cause as much death and destruction as they can.

I can hardly believe I even have to explain this. Also, there is spying and other surveillance. Don't want anybody who is not supposed to be there anywhere close to such things. Why do you think Area 51 is in the middle of nowhere?

And just how are these guards going to blow anything up? Don't they only have 150 rounds of ammo, roughly? Where are they getting the high-explosives needed to blow up bunkers and everything else?

Thermite, it's an amazing thing.

Comes in this can sized grenade, weighs only a few pounds. And most bases have huge stockpiles of the stuff for this very reason. In an active combat zone, most equipment has them issued to the operators. Drop it down the barrel of a cannon, or on the engine block of a vehicle and it is out of action.

Many bunkers also have ventilation shafts. Bust that open, just drop in the thermite grenades and run like hell.

If they were going to block the stockpiles of munitions, simply pile up some debris and a few thermite grenades at the door. Good chance that will blow the bunker, with minimal work.

Yes, such things have actually planned out in advance. Every unit has an "abandon in place and leave" plan. And one of the biggest parts is to destroy anything of a military value that you can not take with you. Equipment, weapons, fuel, food, even buildings if practical. Leave nothing behind that can be of use to an enemy.

If they can access those big explosive charges and enter the bunkers so they can set the charges properly, then it stands to reason the explosives and keys to the bunkers are somewhere nearby or easily enough accessed from their positions.

They are destroying them, no need to go to all that work.

Have some C4, put 20 pounds on the door of the bunker. Gross overkill and it will almost be sure to cause what is inside to detonate. But what do you care, when that is your goal anyways? Destroying is very different from obtaining.

Not only do you presume to know my background, you presume to speak for every blessed military and police facility in the world. That's amazing, really. Every single "armory" everywhere only contains "roughly 150" rounds of ammo for each of the guards?

I do not know, and to be honest do not care.

And as I said, most "armories" have no guards at all. Also no munitions. Only weapons themselves.

As for my background, let's just say that it is likely unique. 10 years in the Marines, Infantry by training. But over half my time in was spend directly in the Marine Security Forces, or actively training them.

After that, the last 14 years in the Army. I have a pretty broad background, in units of all kinds. From purely administrative ones where we might see a rifle once a year, to that being my daily job. And in over 24 years of service (and still counting) over 40 years, many things pretty much have remained the same.

You've watched a lot of LPL videos, yet insist that he's not something of a subject matter expert on getting through a lock?

Not sure where you are going here. I have already said he is. However, I also commented on things he himself said in his very own videos.

I suggest you yourself go and watch as he picks the "Miracle Lock" several years ago. In that, he even says he can only do it so easily because it is not actually in place where it would be used. That there would be other physical deterrents used to make what he was doing almost impossible (like manipulating the lock to get different tumblers).

And also his own admitting that it was a lock that was 50 years old, used primarily on things like arms rooms, and long out of service.

But, yea, go on with your bad self. After the majority of humans are killed in the "apocalypse", there's no chance that any survivors would be able to use heavy equipment to breach a bunker, armory, CIA safe house, etc.

And with this, I really am done.

"Breaching" is not the same thing as "gaining access to". We train to use grenades to help to "breech" defended locations. But guess what? We do not care in those situations if anything survives inside of those locations. If you are trying to break into a munitions bunker, you had better plan on those munitions not detonating. That is the flaw in your argument.

CIA safe house? Hell, why not just say "crack house", or "drug dealer den"? Those are probably going to have more munitions and weapons than some hypothetical "CIA safehouse" even if you could find it.

The difference here is that I am well grounded in actual reality, not what so many here seem to have taken off on flights of fantasy about. You do not even seem to grasp that destroying munitions inside of a bunker is not even that hard to do, which is another reason why they are defended.

Steal a 16" Battleship round from a bunker located in a base in LA? Yea, not gonna happen. A terrorist or "freedom fighter" that wants to make a statement by getting in and blowing up the entire bunker? Yeah, that is nowhere near as difficult and actually something possible to do and live to talk about it later.

The latter is actually the main reason for all the security. Such bunkers are alarmed, and with guards roaming the area constantly it is almost impossible for somebody to break in, take something, and get away. But sneak in, plant a large satchel charge outside the bunker and get away, that is in the range of possible.

But hey, believe whatever you want to believe. I really could not care less. I have been dealing with conspiracy theorists for decades now, and "militia" types that have some weird fantasy that they think is reality. I actually have no interest in "changing your mind". But I can make a rebuttal, so hopefully others will realize the reality is very different from your fantasy.

But you be you, pal.

So they have C4 laying around easily accessible but keep 5.56 ammunition locked up under Fort Knox level security?

In their own bunker, yes.

There were 2 bunkers set aside just for the use of the Marine security force. And inside was things like 5.56. 7.62 and .45 (later 9mm and 12 gauge), and 40mm ammunition. As well as grenades (smoke, fragmentation and thermite), pop-up flares, and other ordinance that we would use.

Such as several cans of .50 cal for the 2 M2 heavy machine guns that we used to gripe about cleaning but never took out of the armory. And the Mk-19 40mm automatic grenade launchers we got while I was there.

And yes, there was not C4, but more than a few demolition charges inside. Basically a canvas bag with several pounds of C4 that are ready to use. Put it in place and activate it, or activate it and run away. 30-60 seconds later it goes "boom". More than enough to destroy the most sensitive bunkers.

As I said, most bases do have "doomsday plans" in place. As well as plans for events like Civil War, attempted Secession, and other such events.

In fact, during one of the inventories in 1986, they discovered we even had a third bunker, which somehow had been forgotten since the mid-1970's. And when they went inside for the first time in almost a decade, they actually found Vietnam era munitions, including cases of M26 "Lemon Grenades". Those were oblong, like the old WWII "Pineapple" grenades, but smooth walled like the modern "baseball grenades".

As I was one of the unit's "Ammo Drivers", it was an interesting experience to drive decades old grenades through LA on the freeways to Camp Pendleton so we could expend them (along with a third of the other munitions we pulled out of there - all past their inspection date so the decision was made to expend them in training as opposed to just destroying them). When we had a few duds, even the EOD techs who showed up laughed. Only the Gunny was old enough to have actually seen those before.

Just to clarify, you are saying that several 'satchel charges' were kept 'ready to go'...? That implies that there were several bags containing 'several pounds' of C4 with detonators in place, kept long term, in the same room.

In one of the bunkers, yet.

Satchel charges are kept in storage with the detonator removed. Not unlike how a Claymore mine is stored. Takes a few minutes to prepare them before use.

And yes, the military still uses satchel charges even today. We were trained in their use for clearing defensive bunkers, but they would also be used for this.

Remember, I did say we had two bunkers. Some explosives have to be kept away from others, but we did have those for a reason. But no, they were not just laying around.

It takes less than 5 minutes to prepare a Claymore mine, or a satchel charge.

Troops with families near work, the place they're guarding, are still going to leave their posts to go and rescue/secure their families.

Well, since I served at a time when many thought WWIII might be right around the corner, my wife always knew what to do.

Get to the base as fast as she could. Once there, we would take care of her. Taking care of dependents has long been a major consideration of the military. And as she has been a nurse for over 30 years, her help would unquestionably be welcome.

As for an "angle grinder", you have obviously read nothing I have said. The lock is not going to be just dangling there like one on the outside of a shed.

It is going to be encased snugly by 1/4" or more of the same steel that is used in the bunker door. How are you going to get to the shank? First, you have to cut through that also.

And it is not just standard steel, it is the same steel that was used on the hulls of battleships.. The same kind that took days to cut through with torches after Pearl harbor, and many of the sailors trapped inside the ships died before they could get to them.

I really could not care about your "background". But I seriously doubt it had anything to do with the storage and protection of munitions. Just your comment about an angle grinder shows that you really have no idea what a munitions bunker actually is, so it is irrelevant.

And that video, really? Once again, just your trying to use that as "evidence" shows you know nothing about how bunkers are secured. Surround that with hardened 1/4" plate armor, with about 5" to reach up into in order to even try to pick it and talk to me. As well as having to cut through the armored steel before you can even get to the hasp itself.

But yeah, continue to act like a pigeon. But do not think I am attacking you, personally or otherwise. Attacking your huge flaws in understanding how physical security works is not personal. Simply pointing out the flaws in your assumptions.

It follows an old maxim I have long believed. "You can lead a horse to knowledge, but you can't make it think." I have given you plenty of actual knowledge, yet you consistently ignore it and resume the same arguments as you have over and over again.

Not my problem. If you think my pointing out such flaws is an "attack", that is your problem, not mine.

The biggest part of the stupidity were the people who, for years, never did anything about the ammonium nitrate fertilizer. There had been plenty of warnings that storing it where it was stored was a really bad idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Beirut_explosion

ammonium nitrate fertilizer

My dad worked at a plant that manufactured that stuff. They stuck it out in the middle of nowhere, because if it ever blew up, it would have taken everything out for miles. They had a couple thousand tons of it in Beirut - the warehouse at the plant used to regular have twenty times that much, or more. One of the things about working there was he could bring bags home for us to use on our garden. Also worked great for clearing stumps, too.

No, I get that. But the biggest part is storing it in that location at all. Stored properly, it couldn't have gotten near to fireworks or anything else that might have set it off.

Ignoring years of 'this is a terrible idea and we need to fix it now' is the big failure. If it hadn't been fireworks, it'd have been something else. That was the point all along.

never did anything about the ammonium nitrate fertilizer.

It was not "fertilizer". It was actual ANFO explosives being sent to a mine operator in Africa.

I bow to your knowledge. Neither article that I found said that it was ANFO. Wikipedia says that it was bound for an explosives manufacturer (presumably to be turned into explosives, implying that it was not yet explosives-grade). But Wikipedia has been known to be wrong :).

Throw in 40+ years of civil war and foreign occupation by the USA

"Occupation by the US"?

Actually, that is known as the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNFIL), started in 1978 and at this time being led by Italy. And it was originally founded to force Israel to withdraw from the region. Then remained as the nation descended into civil war, and to stop militia groups from attacking civilians.

Iran, the US, France, Italy, Sweden, South Korea, Russia, Austria, China, and over 2 dozen other countries have been there to try and bring an end to their civil war.

Under 2 different UN Security Council resolutions (425 and 426). And this assistance was actually requested by the Lebanese government itself.

"Occupation"? Not hardly. In fact, there have also been 2 resolutions from the UN asking Lebanon to exert more control over the regions that Hezbollah has been operating out of, and to put an end to the factional fighting that is still going on so they can end the peacekeeping mission.
And Israel had not a damned thing to do with it. It was yet another sign of how corrupt and incompetent Lebanon has been for decades, as can be seen by the massive protests that have rocked the country since 2019.

Nothing more.

Iran then carried out their proxy war against the USA by bombing the Marine Barracks and funding Hezbollah.

That was actually Syria. And it was the Islamic Jihad Organization, not Hezbollah. The two founders did indeed later join Hezbollah, and both were later killed in Syria.

Raw ammonium nitrate, ammonium nitrate based fertilizer or ANFO*?

ANFO based explosives.

The result was an explosion that was over 1 kiloton. Over 200 deaths, 7,000 injuries, and a detonation that was heard in Cyprus. A huge area of the city was leveled.

This was a cargo that had been there since 2013. It was a shipment of explosives manufactured in Georgia, and destined for mining operations on Mozambique. But the owners did not have the money to pay the toll through the Suez Canal, and then it broke down there in Beirut.

SO the owners simply walked away. The government offloaded the explosives, and just stuck it in a warehouse where it sat for 7 years.

With enough time, effort, and the right equipment you can get access to anything. The trick is to get all three available. After that the only question remains if you can get to the contents without damaging it.

Which is all I have really been saying.

IF somebody wants to write some fantasy story where 99% of people drop dead overnight and have no time to do anything, they can be my guest.

But do not expect me to accept that as reality. Or that with the remaining population reduced 95% or more that there would be even enough people left to have a need for "bunkers of ammunition". With that many dead, the population density would be so low that just surviving would be a challenge without the survivalist fantasies of going around raiding each other.

And there would be no need. The survivors could go for decades on what civilization has left behind.

It would be very surprising if there were not plans in place somewhere detailing how to gain access without the key(s).

Oh, I have seen that happen. It generally takes them 6+ hours to do so. In essence, drilling the lock from the underside until there is pretty much nothing left. A very long process that once started will continue until the lock is finally removed and a new one put in place.

But the keys are not really "lost". If one does turn up missing, they immediately replace the lock with a new one, using the back-up key to remove the old lock. Then the last people who were issued the key are pretty much locked down until it is found.

And "Key Control" is an important part of security. An ordinance technician can only check one out at a time, and they are responsible for maintaining control of it at all times. It goes in their pocket until they get to the bunker. Then it remains inside the lock when opened (a security feature is that if the lock is opened they key can not be removed). Then when the bunker is locked up, the key goes right back to where they are stored.

Look, I am simply giving facts and information. Some here (not you) are simply throwing out data that does not apply and claiming I am wrong. Me, I really could not care less.

Believe that the military keeps their munitions in garden sheds with Master (tm) locks on them, I really could not care less. I forget that in the 2020's, more people are happy believing their own fantasies than reality.

Must be nice to be able to speak in such absolutes. Yes, you're right, every single remaining defensive force everywhere would only ever opt to blow up whatever they were guarding. There is zero other choice. They couldn't all have been killed in the apocalypse. The few survivors won't decide to simply leave so they can get home to their families now that the military is no more and they aren't getting paid to protect stuff from people who no longer exist. They won't get into fights between themselves, arguing over whether to blow up the stash or just leave.

To me, this is the key point, not the endless debates on how the locks work or whether the explosives might detonate and so forth.

We are - by definition - talking about an unprecedented event, a full-on apocalypse. It seems like the type of apocalypse might matter a tiny bit.

Nuclear war? Hell yeah, if you can't defend the base and you're alive you probably blow the base. That's a military conflict; there may be invaders.

Pandemic? Who knows. If it's killing 99.9% of those exposed, and you're the one soldier in 1000 that lives, do you blow up the stuff you might be able to use? Or do you try to coalesce with other survivors and form a viable population?

Asteroid/comet impact? See pandemic. Survival is hard. Why make it harder?

Alien invasion? They probably aren't planning on using our weapons against us. Better leave them around for future guerilla activity.

"The Great Flood"? Are you going to blow the bunker before or after it's underwater?

Zombie apocalypse? Zombies have a very, very low success rate at using weapons, in most accounts. Why would you blow up the weapons that might let humanity survive?

Part of the gist of this is: are we talking 'us vs them' or are we talking 'humanity vs extinction'? My guess is that troop behavior would vary wildly depending on the nature of the event.

And, since this is - by definition - unprecedented, I don't find any of the 'group X did Y when they relinquished their position' arguments to be relevant. Nor do I find 'the manual says to do Z' all that persuasive. If I'm one of an unknown, but miniscule, number of survivors, I'm really not concerned with what 'the book' says. No one's going to come court-martial me. Even if the book does have a written policy for what to do in case of zombie apocalypse, I suspect someone actually experiencing the presence of real (un)live zombies might have more relevant experience.

How the locks work and so forth is perfectly relevant to the question of 'if no troops are left, there's a bunker standing, and the survivors have unlimited time and relevant expertise, what's there and can they get into it?' That's a place where it's worth knowing what might plausibly work.

But whether the 10 survivors from a base that holds 10,000 troops would decide to blow everything up or instead decide to invite every living human they can find who's not a raving homicidal maniac into their midst to get enough critical mass to survive? That's a totally different question.

The odd of those plans surviving contact with a real apocalypse is somewhere between slim and none.

I actually agree with you on this one.

We're not talking about, hey, we're in something relatively conventional. We're talking a Holy Shit apocalypse. "Game Over, Man and Nuke it from orbit" kind of thing.

There's going to be stuff left - and all of the talk I've been reading on here about how this is pickproof and you can't do that completely ignores that, if there isn't going to be ANY responding authority, and you can get to the facility - screw it. I'll go by the local Bobcat dealer, load some stuff up on a trailer, drive up to the damned door, and I'm GOING to get through. Either the door itself, or use a backhoe and move the dirt off the bunker itself, then use a chisel attachment for the backhoe and take the damned wall down holding the door up.

I'll have the time - it may take me a couple of days. But who's going to stop me? Apocalypse, remember? No one around.

We're not talking about, hey, we're in something relatively conventional. We're talking a Holy Shit apocalypse. "Game Over, Man and Nuke it from orbit" kind of thing.

So I guess we are back to the "fantasy event" that instantly kills 99% of the people in an instant with no warning.

Fine, in a Chicxulub type event, that may well be the case. But after that, the small percentage are going to be fighting to just stay alive. Not roaming the countryside like in "Mad Max: Fury Road". The humans of the planet will literally be blown back to a Neolithic existence once again. And like was seen in all other such events, will likely become extinct in a decade.

Maybe in a few million years, the next mammal that replaces us as the most advanced life form will puzzle at what we left behind. But such an "Apocalypse" is going to leave the survivors with much more important things to worry about than breaking into bunkers to steal weapons that there will be almost nobody left to use them against.

I might as well worry about the Vogon Apocalypse, when they arrive to destroy our planet for a new Intergalactic Bypass.

So I guess we are back to the "fantasy event" that instantly kills 99% of the people in an instant with no warning.

Why is that the only option other that's unexpected? What about 98% of the people over two weeks? 95% of the people in a month?

We're discussing fictional apocalypses. Yes, the Zombie Apocalypse is unlikely, but it's certainly something that lots of people like to write about.

Fine, in a Chicxulub type event, that may well be the case. But after that, the small percentage are going to be fighting to just stay alive.

Absolutely, but part of 'fighting to just stay alive' will be wanting weapons to kill off large cats, bears, etc who are also fighting to stay alive.

My point here is that, sure, if you constrain 'apocalypse' to nuclear war, instant death, or massive asteroid impact (or Vogon Constructor Fleet) then you can wave away the discussion. But for many other reasonably plausible types of apocalypses, those arguments don't apply.

I'm not sure people's behavior in the face of an actual full-scale thermonuclear war is all that predictable, anyway, and there are asteroid/comet/meteor impacts that kill 'a lot' of people without sending humanity back to the Neolithic.

Pretty much any global apocalyptic event with a high death toll is going to push humanity back to at least a pre-industrial stage if for no other reason that there won't be enough warm bodies to keep industrial processes running.

It goes even deeper than that.

Back in 1956, Poul Anderson wrote a book called "The Man Who Came Early". About a 20th century engineer sent to 10th century Iceland.

And ultimately, made no difference. It is not just "industry", it is the loss of how to make the tools needed to make the tools to make the parts to keep tings running.

How many here could use a lathe, let alone build one? One of the most basic of machine tools, and one of the few that can replicate itself. Mine and refine copper, let alone iron?

Make a clay pot? Recognize edible plants?

No, in such an event, it is goodbye all civilization for another thousand years. In a century, man flying in "metal birds" will be the thing of legends, and it will be almost back to 1,000 BCE levels of civilization. Some settling down with agriculture, others nomadic. The most advanced weapons, a bow and arrow.

Not the first time that has happened. Around 70 kya, the Toba eruption almost wiped out humans. As in, bringing homo sapiens down to around 15,000 people globally. We are damned lucky we pulled through that.

Any "95% wipe" of humanity, I expect within a decade will be 99% within 5 years. Not through fighting or being eaten by animals, simply because not many people have the skills needed to survive.

Hello, earth's population circa 2,000 BCE. But with few knowing how to even safely dress game, let alone plant and raise crops.

But in this, people are going to trek hundreds of mile to break into ammo dumps.

Right.

Why is that the only option other that's unexpected? What about 98% of the people over two weeks? 95% of the people in a month?

And once again, the population will be so low at that point that they will have enough problems just staying alive.

And what bears and large cats? Some miracle situation that only kills humans? And not all the other animals?

Which are at in general the lowest populations ever? How many in here have actually seen a bear in the wild? You are actually in more danger of being mauled by a pet dog than wildlife.

But once again, now we have a fantasy event that kills 95% of people, and at the exact same time explodes the population of carnivorous animals.

You are talking about a population crash back to 14th century global population levels. To be honest, I doubt if within 5 years even 200 million were left. And within a century, anybody was left. Too few left would even be able to survive at all, let alone go out following this Mad Max fantasy.

Nuclear war? Nowhere near the "boogieman" people have been screaming about for decades.

Asteroid Impact? Extinction level event, goodbye Humanity, hopefully the next species to ride to prominence does better.

If we lost even half of the population today, it is questionable if humanity could survive other than by only Neolithic means. Give up almost all knowledge, return to the absolute basics for survival.

There were books and stories written on that basis, the "Shanara Chronicles" is actually one of the best known ones. After that, humanity would be so fragmented that nobody is going to bother with more fighting. Just staying alive for generations.

At which point all that came before will only be legends. You are talking 16 million left in the entire US. The population has not been that low since the first Columbus arrived.

But that is all great movie stuff, but not reality.

Preparing to survive an extinction level event doesn't strike me as wise.
What would be the point when everything and everyone around you died.

Humans have survived "extinction level events" in the past.

However, what comes out in the end is just a drop of what was there before. Quite literally a reset to the most basic living, and rebuilding "society" all over again.

The planet has gone through many such events in it's history. Some survive, many more die. There is nothing we can do to ever prepare for such. Myself, I am well aware that the odds are that if I survive the initial event in such, it is only by the pure happenstance of where I am. No amount of planning and stockpiling and fantasy "survival plans" will make a damned bit of difference if the ELE asteroid strikes off the coast of Hawaii and dumps a huge tsunami on my ass, or in the Atlantic where the direct effects will be minimal.

Even if I survive, my interest is going to be in getting away from major population centers for the immediate aftermath, as that will be the most dangerous place to be. As many are trying to live out their "Mad Max" fantasies, I will be the one playing hermit out in the middle of nowhere (if I survive).

And months later when the worst of the "Mad Max" nutcases have all killed themselves off, starting to poke my head out to see what is left.

But the big difference is that I do not plan on surviving off of what others have or what is left behind. I look at what many say here, and simply laugh. Big whoop-de-doo, you got a bunker full of munitions. Can you eat them? Are they good for anything other than planning on a dinner of "long pig"?

I'm going to bow out after this.

One last comment first:

We are discussing what happens to the survivors 'now', not in a decade, two decades, 100 years, whatever.

Scenario: virus kills 99.9% of the population. Why? Doesn't matter. How? Doesn't matter.

1 in 1000 is left. Can they build a society? Who the fuck knows, and probably not. But that doesn't matter, because we're not talking about their descendant's descendants.

We're talking about the survivors, who know there are stockpiles of practically everything that will last them a long while. Weapons, to kill animals (who aren't affected by the plague), human predators, whatever. Food. Medicine. Generators. Gasoline. Etc, etc, etc.

Sure, you can say 'well, the gas will go bad'. Yes it will, unless they know how to treat it. Maybe yes, maybe no, but they'll try. Some food will go bad, some won't. Some medicine will go bad, some won't.

But for the purposes of the immediate post-apocalypse, it doesn't matter if they can rebuild. It doesn't matter if they can make the tools to make the tools. None of that matters, because what they want is already made, sitting in warehouses and bunkers and stores and whatnot, waiting.

I'm also far less pessimistic overall. Our hypothetical plague isn't destroying libraries, and paper books are actually pretty damn resilient in the short term. If you gather half the survivors in one place, you've got 150,000 people in one place in the US. They're mostly clueless, and the short-term death rate is not going to be pretty, but they're above the replacement threshold, and most of them know how to learn. They could easily fall to the middle ages, with a sharp path back up because all of the hard-won knowledge is sitting waiting for their kids.

But, again, that doesn't matter. You can decide that thesis is completely wrong and they're doomed. They're still individually planning to live until they die, and that means desire for resources in the here-and-now.

He was referring to the population of the people who were here before Columbus arrived.

Exactly. That was roughly the population of North America before the waves of diseases like Chicken Pox decimated the native populations.

And there was no "punishment". There was already a massive diaspora going on with the collapse of the Mississippian Culture even before the Europeans arrived. Warfare, famine, and disease were already sweeping through the South-Eastern and Midwest United States even before then.

These diseases brought in simply made that worse. And spread as the already scattering remnants of the Mississippians scattered.

And we know this from studying the languages those left spoke. We know the Cherokee were originally from the Great Lakes region, and joined the Mississippian Culture. Then when that fragmented moved to the Carolinas. The same with most of the Great Plains tribes. From the Mississippi region or even farther East, and simply fleeing West after the collapse.

Like the Lakota. We know they were originally from the region around Louisiana, then moved into Ohio during the Mississippian era. Then when it collapsed fled all the way to the Dakotas where they still reside today.

But that started over a century before Spain was finally unified in the Reconquista. The Mississippians collapse started in at least 1350. And a major reason why so many of the tribes were aggressive and warlike. They had already been fighting each other for over a century.

And most had already led a more stationary life before then, and their oral traditions generally reflect that. They were simply migrating until they found a new homeland to settle. By the time the Europeans arrived, some had started to do so (Cherokee), while others (Lakota) were still looking.

In fact, this can also be seen by the tribal lands the Lakota passed through on this passage. The Cheyanne were from Illinois, the Crow from Ohio. And like the Asiatic human migrations of thousands of years before, simply one fragmented group pushing or being pushed by yet another.

Destruction of the facility and its contents is part of their planning. Only someone totally clueless on the subject would not understand that.

Exactly.

just as many predators will vomit or defecate on any food they can not consume. Better to destroy it, than risk it falling into the hands of somebody that might later use it against us or others.

Hell, just look no farther than the destruction of Hungnam. After a month of fighting against the invading Chinese Army in the Korean War, the exhausted UN forces got onto ships at the port of Hungnam. Then as they left they destroyed the port, both with placed munitions than heavy bombardment so it would be of no use to the enemy.

This is the military mindset. If you do not have it with you and can not take it with you, destroy it. This was a lesson the Army knew from it's experience in Korea and Vietnam.

In the early days of the Korean War (1950), the US abandoned a lot of equipment which was captured by the North Koreans. That was later used against us and other UN forces.

And then after the North Koreans replaced it with Soviet made equipment, they then gave to their "Brothers" in Indochina. Where it made up the majority of artillery used by the Viet Minh against the French. Then in the early days against South Vietnam until all the captured munitions were finally expended and replaced with those of Soviet manufacture.

A US tank crew can still bail out of their M1 if it becomes a combat casualty and is no longer operable. But unless it is secure from enemy capture, they had better use their thermite grenades to render it completely inoperable (down the barrel of the gun, on the engine, on the transmission, and over the ammo storage) before they abandon it.

After all, that is the only reason the US military still uses thermite. To destroy our own equipment to prevent it from being captures. As an actual "weapon", it is actually rather worthless.

Think of it as a "paper shredder" for tanks and other large equipment. Drop it where needed (engine block, gun barrel of artillery, etc), and over 4,000f will destroy any usefulness of the equipment to any that capture it. Other than as scrap metal to be recycled.

PATRIOT launchers in a combat environment would carry 7 of them. One for the engine of the HEMITT truck, one to go on top of each double stack of missiles, one for the distribution box at the rear, one over the generator for the launcher, one over each electronics bay (2), and one on top of each double stack of missiles.

The missile ones were used last. The others would already be burning away before we got to those. Put them on the top canister, then fucking run like hell. And hopefully you can get 100 meters away before it eats through the missile body, because that rocket fuel is some seriously deadly shit..

A team of two people (launcher crews are always 2 people) could place all of these canisters in under a minute. And yes, we actually trained to do this also if we were going to a combat theater.

But I am sure that most people find this kind of mindset completely foreign to them. This became the norm, especially after WWII. When the various Allied Powers often found their own captured weapons used against them by the Axis powers.

After Stalin started to get reports of the Germans using the T-34 being used against them by the Germans, he ordered that any crew that let their tank get captured by the Germans be summarily shot. And why the US garrisons in the Pacific destroyed all weapons and munitions before surrendering to the Japanese.

The doors might be solid steel, but that doesn't mean you can't drive a truck through the wall.

Good luck there. Having worked in military ammo bunkers, the ones for storing small and man portable arms all tend to use the same measures to prevent that from happening.

Not only as Remus says are most raised off the ground, they either have an L shape so there is no room to drive anything into it, if not that there will be another reinforced wall in front of the door with only around 6-10 feet of clearance.

And the walls? Well, typically 4 feet of reinforced concrete, covered by 6-10 feet of packed earth. You ain't driving anything through that.

The bunkers with wide open access in front to the door, those are for components, or weapons that are not easily portable. At my base, we put things like the 16" battleship rounds in them, SM-1 missiles, and the like. Even if they get in, nobody is going to just walk off with one of those.

And yes, I know all about the Lockpicking Lawyer. But I have never even seen him try to pick anything even close to what the military uses on bunkers. Those things weigh about 5 pounds, and are built like tanks. And themselves encased in a 1/4" plus steel box.

The closest I have seen him pick to the kind of lock that is used was in a video about 4 years ago, when he picked an early 1970's era one. And even he said they were a challenge for him. And that was not even a "bunker lock", that was the kind you would see on a company level arms room.

And to even get into a company level arms room, expect to have to pick 2 locks much more modern than that, (and many such as in Reserve or National Guard armories you will have to literally get past a bank vault door first) as well as many smaller locks as each rifle rack will be secured with an additional 3-5 locks.

Of course easy access presumes that the military personnel are dead or elsewhere, immediate survivors could well defend the place, either 'awaiting orders' or with their own survival in mind. The military are not known for sharing weapons with civilians. A firefight isn't conducive to survival, especially for those seeking to gain arms and or ammunition.

Especially since they are likely much better armed than those trying to overrun the base.

To give an idea, I was a member of a Marine Security Force on a Naval Weapons Station (ammo dump).

135 specially trained guards, each one of them with the primary MOS of "Marine Infantry". We were not cops, we were trained fighters.

With kevlar body armor, M-16, M-60, and M-203 grenade launchers. In addition to Remington 870 shotguns, M-1911 or M-9 pistols (depending on year), and other goodies up to and including M2 .50 heavy machine guns.

And our 40mm grenades included flare, smoke, HE, CS and CN-DN grenades (the last is much worse than conventional CS as it also induces vomiting), and a few other things.

You had better bring a battalion sized force against such a unit (300+ men), and equally as armed and trained.

And no, they will not be "elsewhere". Most will be from far outside the local area, and that base is their home. Even those that are married would have relocated their families onto the base in such an event. Their only job is defending that base.

And do not make the mistake that they are just MPs. They are not trained in law enforcement tactics and procedures, they act just like Infantry. And they will expend all of their ammunition before they give up.

And if I did find a base that was still defended by the original troops, I'd approach and ask if my group could join them, or if they would join us rather than attacking. After all, the government is gone, their command and control structure is gone, what are they defending?

And you had better be in the military in some capacity yourself, either retired or in the Reserves. Then they would take you because technically you still fall under the UCMJ and could be legally augmented into their force.

Otherwise, forget it unless say you have medical training. Doctors and nurses believe it or not have a similar position in the Public Health Service (which is why the Surgeon General wears a uniform).

And no, they would not join you. And what are they defending? Their homes and each other. That base is not just where they work, it really is their home. And like anybody else, they will fight to the death to protect it.

And since most will be hundreds if not thousands of miles from home, they are indeed going to stay there and protect it. The same way they will die to protect some piss-ant FOB in the middle of the desert in the Middle East.

In an end of the world apocalypse scenario, they'll also need farmers and weavers and seamstresses,....

The idea that they would have any kind of long term survival prospects with no civilian support is ridiculous.

This is once again leaving reality and common sense, and descending into fantasy.

Tell me, did the garrisons of the Romans just up and walk away when the Empire collapsed? Did the Japanese and Germans just pack it all up and go home after their governments surrendered after WWII?

No, they continued on as they had, until given proper orders to stop. In the case of the Romans, the majority just stayed right where they were.

And odds are, in such an ultimate situation, they would do the same thing. But that would be many months down the line, and if they were to decide to ultimately leave that base, they would destroy anything they could not take with them.

We know that Hadrian's Wall was "abandoned" in 383 CE. But Romans still occupied it until 410, when the last of the still cohesive units were recalled. But a great many remained, not leaving what had become their "home".

And "farmers"? Like a significant number of those in the military do not have agricultural background even before joining. Hell, the ammo dump I was stationed at had a large farm on the base, and a lot of the "hicks" at night would actually have tractor races. I should know, I was one of them.

Weavers and seamstresses? You are talking a decade or more down the line there. Not just a month or two. Might as well say they need farriers and fletchers while you are at it.

And "end of the world", the entire world would be knocked on it's ass. Population probably cut by half or more, the initial problem would be the first few months, as brigands prey on the weak and panic overwhelms most of the population. Once the dying is over, that would largely be it.

If you want a more accurate portrayal of what such might be like, check out the Emberverse series by S. M. Stirling. There are several portrayals of military units and how they reacted in that series that are far more likely in the event that ever happened.

Which I do not think ever would. Nothing to that scale has ever happened ever.

Which I do not think ever would. Nothing to that scale has ever happened ever.

No one destroyed an entire city with one bomb prior to 1945, either (at least, that we know of). We have at least two plausible 90%+ death toll scenarios right now: a widespread nuclear war plus post-war radiation/climate/etc issues, and a (possibly bio-engineered) pandemic.

No war could have resulted in death tolls even vaguely as high (world-wide) prior to the invention of nuclear weapons. The world is actually getting 'safer' now, in that stockpiles are diminishing, but the odds of some number of weapons being used are increasing due to instability in some nuclear nations (both loss of weapons, or their control by unstable leaders).

It's certainly within human capacity right now to design a highly transmissible pathogen with a 90% mortality rate. Let one loose and who knows what happens? What if it's 95%? 99%? 99.9%? The degree to which 'things fall apart' varies in each case.

And, in each of those 'once the dying is over, that would largely be it' isn't true. Nuclear war would leave swaths of land dangerous-to-uninhabitable for generations. A pandemic would leave absurdly large numbers of rotting corpses to molder. Both have major losses of knowledge base; both open up the possibility of widespread resurgences of predators (both animal and human).

Yes, it's possible -- and hopefully likely -- that neither will happen. But simply because it's never happened again has little predictive value, both because we haven't been able to do those things for all that long, compared to the scale of human history, and because it's getting easier and easier to do either of them.

It's certainly within human capacity right now to design a highly transmissible pathogen with a 90% mortality rate.

Which once again, would not really cause all that much of an effect. Just look at ebola and that can be seen.

Diseases that have high mortality rates tend to burn themselves out very quickly. Because of this, they rarely spread very far, and those who contract it die before they can pass it along to many people.

COVID is a low mortality virus, which should be obvious by looking at the number infected and the number dead. Hell, in reality the death rates are actually barely a blip when compared to most "killer diseases" we have had in history. It is simply the first such we have had in over a century.

But please, feel free to continue to believe so. It always fascinates me what some people actually believe, contrary to all prior cases or evidence presented to them.

Diseases that have high mortality rates tend to burn themselves out very quickly.

Key words: "tend to". The bubonic plague killed 50% of the population of Europe. Yes, it's not nearly that lethal if treated, but it's pretty lethal. Imagine something with the lethality of ebola but an onset pattern like COVID-19 or worse (transmissible before symptoms, which take a week or more before onset) and ebola's transmissibility once symptoms begin. And airborne, of course.

For the purposes of the 'apocalypse' discussion, we're assuming this is an engineered disease. Someone pulling out the 'best points' of a number of diseases (for whatever reason). Perhaps they meant it to only be highly transmissible in certain ethnic groups and screwed up. Perhaps they meant it to stay contained and screwed up. Perhaps they just wanted to watch the world burn.

In any case, an engineered disease intentionally released nearly simultaneously at multiple international airports on each continent.

contrary to all prior cases or evidence presented to them

Normalcy Bias - 'Since a disaster never has occurred then it never will occur'. Yes, and we've had widespread inexpensive access to genetic manipulation for just how long now? Relatively widespread access to nuclear weapons for just how long now? And so on.

For the purpose of discussing the outcome of a hypothetical apocalypse, that statement is the equivalent of someone in the 1930 dismissing a city-destroying bomb because it's never happened, or someone in the 1950's dismissing humans walking on the moon because it's never happened, or someone in 2000 dismissing the idea of anyone intentionally crashing hijacked planes into skyscrapers because it's never happened.

Yes, we've never had a global thermonuclear war and no one's ever released a genetically modified pathogen with high lethality and slow enough onset for widespread mass casualties. Does that mean that we can simply say that it's so implausible that we'll ever have a massive nuclear exchange or plague with enormous lethality and widespread distribution that these are beyond consideration?

The bubonic plague killed 50% of the population of Europe.

Which was not viral, but bacteriological. Such an outbreak today would be almost insignificant with wide-spectrum antibiotics and inoculations quickly created from the basic "dead cell" technique.

No, in the modern era the threat is from virus, which are almost nothing like bacteria.

Yes, absolutely. I wasn't meaning to claim that true bacteriological warfare would be the issue. My point was that it's possible for a high-casualty disease to progress, if transmissibility is high and people don't die too quickly.

Again, some mad scientist combining the lethality of ebola with onset pattern of COVID-19 and distributing the virus widely would pretty much do it. Within a couple of weeks you'd have mass casualties and an overwhelmed medical system, with severe impact amongst first responders and medical personnel. After that it's just time and propagation. By the time it burns itself out, how many people are dead? How many secondary casualties because distribution systems are wiped out, from rotting corpses creating their own problems, and unattended systems causing fires and the like?

Again, some mad scientist combining the lethality of ebola with onset pattern of COVID-19 and distributing the virus widely would pretty much do it.

When it comes to a virus, the most deadly ones always follow one of two paths.

Either highly deadly, and spread very-very slowly and not easily. HIV is a classic example of that. It kills years after infection. And is not all that easy to become infected by it.

The other are the fast movers, like Ebola. Those infect easily, spread fast, but those very traits cause them to burn out quickly.

COVID is actually about the same as the common flu. Spreads a bit easier, but is not much deadlier unless the person is already compromised health wise. It is not anywhere even close to being as deadly as the last true global pandemic was.

The deaths from COVID and H1N1 are not because the disease is particularly "deadly", it is because it spreads very easily, and the more infected the higher the number of deaths in the end. But the actual "death rate" is not much different than the common flu.

Say the flu kills 5,000 per 1 million. Increase those infected from 1 million to 10 million, you now have 50,000 deaths. No more deadly, but the increase in number of infections makes it appear like it is.

We went through this a decade ago with H1N1, and most scoffed that such a large outbreak could ever happen again. Of one thing I am glad of COVID, that it woke some people up that a pandemic is indeed possible in the modern age.

Tell me, did the garrisons of the Romans just up and walk away when the Empire collapsed?

That's pretty much what many of them did. Most 'Roman' military out in the provinces was made up mostly of locals. When the Empire collapsed, they had no compelling reasons to stay.

AJ

Even with the more central garrisons with actual Romans as soldiers, how long can they stay on garrison after their pay stops showing up.

Actually, quite a while.

Most legions were surprisingly self-sufficient when not on campaign. They ran their own farms, their own businesses, and also do not forget that they were the local tax collectors.

A lot of the early "kingdoms" that set up in places like Spain, France, and England after the fall of the Empire were the same ones that were running things before it fell.

While stationary, Legions were expected to be self-sufficient. And as many were skilled craftsmen (smiths, engineers, ferriers, etc) their skills were always in demand by the locals. There is a reason why in this era, a huge impact came from the "Romano-British". These are the ones that settled in the region, marrying locals and settling down after their term of service was up. And why "Roman Influence" lasted for over a century until the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes invaded a century later.

That's pretty much what many of them did. Most 'Roman' military out in the provinces was made up mostly of locals. When the Empire collapsed, they had no compelling reasons to stay.

Actually, not. You are thinking of the Auxiliaries (Auxilia), not the Legions. Auxiliaries were locals recruited to fill other positions, like scouts, cavalry (Roman cavalry was notoriously bad), light infantry, slingers, and the like.

Auxiliaries were recruited entirely from local regions, and were paid about half of what legionaries were paid, and were not granted citizenship at the end of their term of service.

One of the units in fact raised during the construction of Hadrian's Wall was the Cohors I Aelia Dacorum. Recruited from Dacia (Romania-Maldovia), they were sent to England to help defend the engineers that were building the wall. Then pretty much left there. Most appear to have remained in that region, and settled down as Roman-Britons.

But no, most military in the provinces were not "Locals". To be in the Legion, you had to be of "Roman Birth", either in the empire itself or one of it's colonies (not conquered territories). Why do you think Saul-Paul made so much of his being a "Roman Citizen" in the New Testament? Because unlike all the other early followers, he was actually a Roman Citizen (where as all the others were not).

About the only non-citizens allowed to enlist in the Legion were actually the bastards of other Legionaries. Roman law did not recognize marriages between Romans in the legion and foreign women. So technically any children born of such were bastards, and did not inherit citizenship.

But they were frequently allowed to enlist, and upon completion of their term citizenship was awarded to them.

You are referencing the Late Republic, and the Early Empire, even by the mid-Empire c.100 AD they were recruiting Gauls, Daccians, and even Germans into Legions, not just Auxillia.

Once again, colonies. You are talking about a period over a century after the Romans "colonized" those areas. Recruiting from those that lived in the periphery of those colonies. Not the "wild barbarians" themselves.

In a modern example, I could see a Battalion/Brigade of the US Army relocating from the Yakima Training Center to the vicinity of Grand Coulee Dam (for electrical power, and agricultural area).

One of my favorite series which I have mentioned several times is S.M. Stirling's Emberverse.

In which an Army Colonel became the leader of Boise, Idaho. While most of the author's plans were actually workable, his lack of knowledge of the geography of the city often had me laughing (such as the placement of roads and bridges).

But overall, it was actually the kind of thing that would happen. A Roman History buff from before the war, he patterned the new "Army" after that of the Roman Legions. Heavy foot infantry, as well as superb engineers. Largely fortifying the town using geography already in place to provide added defense to the walls he had added.

Yakima and Grand Coulee, not so much. A huge challenge to keep operating without a huge team of engineers. But a smaller dams not on the Columbia, very likely. But more for flood control and irrigation than electricity. It would actually be quite a bit of work to get such a dam operational again, and sever all of the connections so that it only powered a local area and not try to distribute it's power along the entire grid.

Coulee is almost 7,000 MW. Better to take one Tieton, at 15 MW. More realistic to their actual needs, and easier to maintain.

Before they were Soldiers, Marines, etc., many, if not most had "civilian" skills, with a disproportionate number from farming communities. There are also the spouses, and other govt. employees (Army Corps of Engineers consists of many civilian employees who are plumbers, electricians, etc.

Many bases have greenhouses, and the resources to build more. Also, nearly everywhere I was stationed we had a certain amount of "Local Purchase" with nearby farmers. Expect that there would be an effort to secure those assets (Trained farmers, seed, fertilizer, and farming equipment) relocating the crop fields and grazing areas to the former athletic fields, training areas, and other open ground that is more defensible.

Special Forces, Civil Affairs, and several other types of units, their Mission is "cultivating" local civilians to be useful to the "Mission" (now Survival).

When I was in the infantry, and later in SOCOM, we talked more than a bit about such scenarios! From a "zombie apocalypse" to being stranded somewhere by a massive EMP attack. How seriously each individual took such "war gaming" varied. Many just bitching about how silly most Zombie movies are with people going alone, and doing foolish things.

We often discussed that some people would desert, and the most common sense policy would be to have Company/Battalion sized gatherings to "explain" the situation, emphasizing the Need to stick together. But then allowing those who still wish to depart, fall out. Individual "Counselling Sessions" with those who want to leave (in particular those with the more useful skills).

Then, as was said by Henry V in his Saint Crispin's Day Speech, "Let him who has no stomach to stand with us depart, I shall write his passport, and provide him coins for his purse. For I would not have such a man stand with me!"

With a few individual exceptions (a skilled surgeon, for instance), those who are determined to leave, will desert. It's worse if they sneak off when the Unit depends on them to be standing guard. Trying to guard them consumes more resources then they are worth.

Situations aboard a warship at sea, a garrison in South Korea, Japan, Germany, Poland, a FOB in Afghanistan, Fort Wainwright Alaska, or Schofield Barracks, Hawaii.

Before they were Soldiers, Marines, etc., many, if not most had "civilian" skills, with a disproportionate number from farming communities. There are also the spouses, and other govt. employees (Army Corps of Engineers consists of many civilian employees who are plumbers, electricians, etc.

Many bases have greenhouses, and the resources to build more. Also, nearly everywhere I was stationed we had a certain amount of "Local Purchase" with nearby farmers.

Exactly.

Even when we were guarding nukes, we had a large farm which covered most of Seal Beach. Everything from wheat and oats to watermelons, cantaloupes, strawberries, and other produce was cultivated right on the base. And if you look at the shot I posted earlier, this is highly obvious.

If need be, the garrison could live off of that for a long time. Allow those that work the fields to live on base for protection, in exchange for the food. Doctors, seamstresses, the marsh was actually very good for hunting and fishing (if it was allowed, which it was not).

Plus the game. Hares, rabbits, raccoons, possums, we even had a badger colony in addition to foxes and coyotes. And right on the migration path for Canadian geese and most waterfowl.

More than once, when some of the guards moved to shotguns instead of the M-16, I would hear a shot near the marsh. And once in particular, the guard was actually dressing a Canadian Goose.

Reamed his ass big time (that was a felony as it was a National Wildlife Refuge), and gave him shit details for 2 weeks because of that. But he was from Tennessee, asking him to carry a shotgun and not shoot the big ass bird would have been impossible.

We even had one guy get in trouble because he caught a young fox, and took it home as a pet. One of his neighbors through reported him.

And we did the same kinds of games. Some would leave, but most would stay. Hundreds or thousands of miles from home, crossing what is probably "hostile territory", they would use common sense and stick it there with their buddies.

And that part of plans for all such bases in such an event is "augmentation" from local forces. Specifically, once a year or so we had members of all the local Marine Reserve units at the base. This was after all during the "Cold War", and in a WWIII scenario at least an additional Battalion (400+) of Marine Infantry would have joined us.

Plus we had constant support from the California Air National Guard out of Los Alamitos (3 miles North). And the Marine Air Wing at Tustin and El Toro. And others.

During the 1984 Olympics, we had Armed Sea Cobra gunships on call at all times (based at Los Alamitos for the duration), and had them fly over us often. And our forces were about 125% normal, because all transfers out had been stopped to provide additional security.

I think that most do not realize that in such a SHTF situation, and remaining Guard and Reserve units in the region will automatically attach themselves to such a facility.

Before they were Soldiers, Marines, etc., many, if not most had "civilian" skills, with a disproportionate number from farming communities. There are also the spouses, and other govt. employees (Army Corps of Engineers consists of many civilian employees who are plumbers, electricians, etc.

Many bases have greenhouses, and the resources to build more. Also, nearly everywhere I was stationed we had a certain amount of "Local Purchase" with nearby farmers. Expect that there would be an effort to secure those assets (Trained farmers, seed, fertilizer, and farming equipment) relocating the crop fields and grazing areas to the former athletic fields, training areas, and other open ground that is more defensible.

Special Forces, Civil Affairs, and several other types of units, their Mission is "cultivating" local civilians to be useful to the "Mission" (now Survival).

When I was in the infantry, and later in SOCOM, we talked more than a bit about such scenarios! From a "zombie apocalypse" to being stranded somewhere by a massive EMP attack. How seriously each individual took such "war gaming" varied. Many just bitching about how silly most Zombie movies are with people going alone, and doing foolish things.

We often discussed that some people would desert, and the most common sense policy would be to have Company/Battalion sized gatherings to "explain" the situation, emphasizing the Need to stick together. But then allowing those who still wish to depart, fall out. Individual "Counselling Sessions" with those who want to leave (in particular those with the more useful skills).

Then, as was said by Henry V in his Saint Crispin's Day Speech, "Let him who has no stomach to stand with us depart, I shall write his passport, and provide him coins for his purse. For I would not have such a man stand with me!"

With a few individual exceptions (a skilled surgeon, for instance), those who are determined to leave, will desert. It's worse if they sneak off when the Unit depends on them to be standing guard. Trying to guard them consumes more resources then they are worth.

Situations aboard a warship at sea, a garrison in South Korea, Japan, Germany, Poland, a FOB in Afghanistan, Fort Wainwright Alaska, or Schofield Barracks, Hawaii.

Before they were Soldiers, Marines, etc., many, if not most had "civilian" skills, with a disproportionate number from farming communities.

Nowadays the military likes to pluck its recruits straight from school. I've read plenty of US-based SOL stories in which kids do a full day of schooling, do a substantial amount of work on the farm, do their homework then go out with friends and still have time to eat and sleep. I've often wondered how that's physically possible.

In urban communities, kids joining the army will have little real world experience. In the UK for example, adverts state that being taught a trade, a real-world skillset, is a primary reason to join the armed forces in the first place.

History shows that winning the war and winning the peace require different types of leadership. Will career army veterans really be the right people to lead the fight back towards civilisation? I have the post-apocalypse image of military garrisons continuing to polish their uniforms and iron their shoes and practising formation walking rather than rounding up other survivors with the skills they need to build a future.

AJ

It's not physically possible without stopping time.

In that case, I'll assume the authors concerned were writing what's interesting, rather than what's accurate.

AJ

Two Issues. First, yes many recruits are from urban areas, often in MOS (Military Occupation Specialties) such as Supply, Admin, POL, and other Service and Support jobs; Combat Arms (and some Mechanics) are disproportionately from Rural communities. I was the Only Trooper in my Cavalry Platoon who had Not driven a tractor. It was similar when I transferred to the Infantry. MPs and Civil Affairs etc. tend to be a mix of backgrounds.

Most rural kids grow up fishing, hunting, helping to plant and harvest crops, gather eggs, repair farm equipment, bale hay, etc.

Same with me.

I have served with farm kids who had joined the Marines because their paternal ancestors since the 1800's had been Marines. And when I joined the Army, I flew from Montgomery, Alabama to Fort Sill with a farm kid from Alabama that had never been more than 250 miles from his home in his entire life, and that was the first time he had ever flown.

That was in 2007.

At Camp Pendleton and Camp Lejeune they actually held rodeos in the 1980's.

Even as far back as 1983 I have served with both those that had lived all their lives on ranches and farms, and those from inner cities like LA, Brooklyn, and Baltimore. Especially in the 1980's, the military was seen as a great way by many to escape from the inner cities.

As a Soldier, I have been dubious about the efficacy of "Nation Building" however, the armed forces of most Western nations have 50+ years of experience.

Myself, I think the biggest problem there was in the State Department, not the military.

A great many nations are simply not acclimated to jump straight to "Democracy". In their experience, that always meant the majority oppressing the minority, and mob rule. I think that the largest problem in both Iraq and Afghanistan was ultimately in trying to force "Democracy" down their throats, which has largely failed.

Both nations had popular Monarchies prior to the coups that overthrew them. Restoring that monarchy as a Constitutional Monarchy with the Monarch is a limited role would have restored continuity, and also provided a gradual path to a more modern Republic mindset of the nation.

But the State Department in both cases steamrolled through "Democracy", which in both cases largely failed as neither country had used such a system ever in the past.

The US was lucky, we had the example of the UK to follow when we formed our own government (and much of the reason of our leaving had to deal with the UK refusing to recognize our "Tights as Englishmen"). Setting them on the path of the British Empire circa 1600 would have been a stepping stone from how they had always done things in the past, while also directing them to future nation status.

A Parliament, Prime Minister (answerable to the Monarch but not appointed by him), and limited powers outside of Veto. An anchor to the past, and a unifier and moderator for the future.

If you have an apocalyptic event with a death toll over 80% I don't see any logical reason to believe that military personnel would be disproportionately represented among the survivors, and military personnel are a relatively small fraction of global population.

Actually, you should.

In the event of disease, they are to start with the most heavily inoculated group you will find. I myself got COVID, and it was very mild. Likely partially because of all the inoculations I get on a yearly basis.

And they also have plans for such events. Supplies, plans, and a chain of command to follow. Take 100 random people thrown together in such a situation and a 100 man military unit, I will take odds on the military pulling through it every single time.

Just look at the USS Indianapolis. If that had been a civilian ship that had gone down, how many would have survived over 4 days floating in the open ocean?

Plus, they would have a mission. Not go out wandering and looking for fights, but staying where they were and defending their location. Likely even gaining more members. I know if a SHTF situation happened and I was still in the Bay Area, my first destination would have been one of the neighboring military bases to lend a hand however I could.

And likely, if the base was about to fall, other plans would have been implemented. Including actually blowing up the stockpiles towards the end. When I first reported to my base, that actually was one of the plans. And in an actual war zone, we carry around things like thermite grenades to destroy our equipment so it will not fall into the hands of the enemy.

Just remember that we have bombed our own downed aircraft in the past, to keep others from learning anything from it.

And trust me, you would not want to be anywhere near some of those bases if they decide to blow them. Things like missile propellant are toxic, as well as some of the weapons blown might well be of a radiological nature.

But cutting the lock? Sure, once you get to the lock. It is not going to just be out in the open like on a garden shed. It will itself be behind 1/4" of steel, with barely enough room to reach inside to insert the key.

The main attraction is an already fortified defensible position as a base of operations.

Which really does not exist.

Most US bases are no more defensible than a regular school. In fact, I would even argue that a rural school might even be easier to defend.

Most bases are a combination of housing tract, warehouse and industrial area, and scattered office complex with some large parking lots thrown in here and there.

Feel free to look at any of the dozen or more I am familiar with. Fort Bliss, Camp Lejeune, Camp Pendleton, Fort Lewis, MCAS Yuma, Fort Benning, Fort Brag, Fort Rucker, or any others. Even most of our post-WWII Cold War era ones like in Japan are not really defensible at all. Only in places where actual combat was expected (Korea, Germany) was that ever really a consideration. Or in more recent decades at bases in the Middle East where things like area defense and bunkers are needed because of the threat.

The only real "defense" is that they are more open than a similar sized civilian operation would be. And once again, you can better do the same thing yourself in a rural area.

Which really does not exist.

I have visited a couple of US bases in the UK. One had a barrier, a sentry post and guards at the road entrance, but a freely accessible public footpath ran through it.

The other probably qualifies as 'heavily fortified'. The only way in was through the main entrance, and visits had to be prearranged so the visitors could be vetted beforehand.

AJ

I have visited a couple of US bases in the UK. One had a barrier, a sentry post and guards at the road entrance, but a freely accessible public footpath ran through it.

The other probably qualifies as 'heavily fortified'. The only way in was through the main entrance, and visits had to be prearranged so the visitors could be vetted beforehand.

Exactly. It is in a location believed to be "safe", so minimal precautions are taken. The same here in the US.

Hell, many bases until 2001 it was simple to get onto. Some even today still have major highways that run right through them. Pull up to the base, show your ID, and drive right on in. And most have a museum of some kind on them.

Pull up to the gate, say you are going to the museum, and in you go. And inside, it is going to look like any other small town. Housing, offices, maybe a runway and beach or wharf area. Industrial parks and parking lots where instead of bunches of FedEx trucks you see tanks or artillery parked in rows.

Hell, it is not hard to see such at any time. Bring up Google Earth, and you can see such all the time. But such stateside or in say England or Japan and it is very different than bases in say West Germany until reunification, or in Afghanistan and Qatar.

One will actually be "lightly defended", as there is no real threat of the base being "invaded". Go overseas to a base where that is a threat, and you will see the defenses are vastly different.

Row after row of patrolled fences as the first layer. And multiple checkpoints to drive through before entering or leaving. And as you approach "sensitive areas", even more defenses.

In Qatar, our actual "barracks complex" was miles from the nearest fence line. About 5 layers of fencing between us and the outside world. And we also had human and electronic surveillance, and several rows of defensive bunkers as well as shelters almost everywhere. Not normally used, but we frequently drilled in using them if needed.

And the same with transit between bases over there. Had to make arrangements both to leave our base, and to the base we were going to. Got a pass when you left, and one of the things they checked when you arrived is how long you took. And if you took a much longer period of time without an explanation, you had better have a reason why it took you say an hour to make a trip that should have only taken 30 minutes.

Part of which will involve everybody being taken out of the vehicle, and it being given a good search.

Even the "Heavily defended" bases in the US only get close to that when you get to a really sensitive parts. Want to visit NWS Seal Beach when it was still active? Pull up to the gate, say you were going to visit the Credit Union or Bunker 33 (bar-club), and in you go. But deviate from the roughly 1/4 mile by 1 mile "administrative" area inside the main gate, and expect to get pulled over by either Civilian or Marine Security, and asked why you were there.

Hell, until the 1990's when they closed many of the clubs on base, if you were female it was amazingly simple to get on. Pull up to the gate in the evening, say you were going to the club, and in you went. Every base I visited or was stationed on back then (all 4 branches) had a lot of civilian women (and some men) that had absolutely no connection to the military at all. But we had safe clubs, with cheap booze and a live DJ. And it was appealing to the local females because almost all of the guys had a good job, benefits, and was in better than average shape. And also most likely to be free of disease.

Plus many were lonely, and easy to "catch". I can't even begin to list all those I knew back then who married some chick they met only 3-4 months earlier at the club on base.

At my last duty station, we hosted the 3 month school for Marine Security Guards. We trained them, then sent them on to their future posting. And there was a segment (mostly what we would call "Cougars" today) that loved them. Especially those who were members of the "West-Pac Widows Association". Married, with husbands station aboard ships out to sea for 6 months.

Gals in their 30's, hook up with some 19 year old Marine that is there for 3 months. Shag him silly, safe in knowing that before hubby returns he will have moved on to his next base, never to be seen again.

Those of us stationed there knew who they were, there were about 30 of them. They would be at the club for 5 months or so, then vanish for about 3-6 months. Then appear again, trying to hook one of the young Marines. We even figured out what ships many of their husbands were on, as the base paper would say something like "The USS XXXXX, USS XXXXX, and USS XXXXX departed last week for a 6 month cruise". And sure enough, some would appear again that weekend.

And when the ships returned, we would not see them for months until they went to sea again.

Oh, and don't trust what you see on the news. The US is far from bad in terms of resorting to violence and such. What you're seeing is the news intentionally magnifying things to make it seem worse than it really is.

And in most cases, it seems the individual never should have been allowed to own a firearm in the first place. Either they are a criminal and bought it illegally in the first place, or they had a mental illness that was never properly reported.

I find one of the most disturbing facts is that serious mental illness is almost never reported to the authorities. This means those individuals are never put into the reporting system, and are able to buy guns even though their friends, family, sometimes even mental health professionals working with them know they could be dangerous.

And in most states, because this is considered to be "personal information", the individuals institutionalized are rarely reported. And most states that do mandate that in their own gun registration systems do not share that information with other states.

Get institutionalized in Georgia, move to Alabama and buy a gun. Georgia is one of many states that only keeps those records for internal use and does not share them with others.

Or get institutionalized in California. There are a hundred and one loopholes you can use to keep from losing your gun rights if you are insane. One of the most well known is if you are placed on a 72 hour mental health hold. At the end ask to be released, where you promise to attend outpatient mental health care. As you are "under the care of a doctor", nothing is entered into any databases.

Even if once you leave you never return.

Again, there is no gun show loophole and there never has been. Whether or not a background check is run has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the sale happens at a gun show and everything to do with who the seller is.

And most legitimate sellers would not dare sell a firearm in that manner. Because the serial numbers are still often tied in various ways to a purchaser. And if later used in a crime, guess who they would go to?

I myself own 3 firearms, 2 pistols and a rifle. One pistol I bought myself new in California in 1994. SO guess what would happen if I sold it in that manner and it was used in a crime? That's right, I would have all kinds of Federal and State authorities pounding on my door demanding to know who I had sold it to.

The other two are much less of a worry. A Smith and Wesson .38 from the 1950's, and a .22 LR from the same era. Back when you could walk into a local store and buy a gun and walk out with no paperwork at all. Both of them my grandfather bought new in Alaska (before it was a state), and they have been owned by the family for over 60 years.

But most criminals know better than to go to a gun show, they are actually frequently patrolled by law enforcement. My oldest son is a felon, and was given a parole violation just because he went with his mom and I to a firing range (he never touched a gun). But just being in there was against the law, but I was not aware of that.

Back in LA during the Brady Bill era, one of the biggest avenues of illegal weapon sales was actually yard sales. More than once I would see a gun on display at one, and even telling the seller or police they were breaking the law I discovered did nothing.

Most sellers knew and did not care, and the police told me on 3 different occasions they had more important things to do. I finally just gave up, both the LAPD and LA County Sheriff's office seemed to have absolutely no interest in even trying to warn these sellers they were breaking the law.

Maybe California law is different, but under federal law any in my state, such sales would not be categorically illegal on the part of the seller.

I did specifically say "during the Brady Bill era".

From 1993 until 1998, all gun purchases had to by Federal Law go through a licensed firearms dealer. Even private party sales.

When the 1998 NCIS system was put into place, that requirement was dropped. Mostly because many states objected to that, as it actually increased the number of FFL holders to process those permits and perform the background checks. Plus the huge burden of processing all those applications in an era before computers when it was done manually.

Then you had other parts of the laws that caused issues for years. Like if somebody pawned a gun, they then had to go right back through the same 5 day waiting period and background check all over again before it was picked up.

Many pawn shops at this time stopped giving loans on guns at that point. Because if a person trying to reclaim their gun was then refused, it threw them into a "gray area". The LAPD for example would try and claim the gun, however the shops that still did gun loans at that time fought them tooth and nail as there was no justification for that in the law.

Yes, things are different now. But for 5 years, it was the law.

A whole lot of people must have missed that memo.

Illegal gun sales have always been, and will always be a problem. The basic answer is, criminals will continue to buy and sell guns because it is profitable, and they are criminals.

Of course, another loophole often exploited is the "50 year rule". which exempted any weapons made before 1943 (50 years prior to the date enacted). Even then, you could legally sell your 1942 Luger and not have to go through the background process. But at the low end of over $35,000 criminals are not going to be interested in buying guns like that.

I think the bit he was looking for a cite for was the claimed requirement that all firearm transfers had to go through a licensed dealer between 1993 and 1998.

I did look. But the problem was that after going through dozens of pages, I could only find newer references since 1998 when the NCIS system went into effect.

That I have found in many cases in my research is an incredibly annoying issue when it comes to referencing laws. A year or so back it took me almost 2 days to find a now obsolete California Penal Code for "Seduction by deception (false promise of marriage)". I remember reading it in one of my dad's 1950's law books, but that statute had been long thrown out. It took me a hell of a lot of searching to find a book that even referenced that now long obsolete Penal Code.

One think you might try looking for is court cases involving people being prosecuted for private sales/transfers between 1993 and 1998. Particularly cases that don't involve selling to a disqualified person.

Which is part of the problem. Would have to find such a case that even went to court in the first place. I have seen cops give "warnings" in such cases, for example. "Hey, you know you can't do that, right? Stop what you are doing and I will pretend I saw nothing."

Then a DA that is willing to actually take something to trial, and as the full felony level crime that it is. Then after a conviction, have the individual take it through the appeal process.

Most cases where this happened was generally people ignorant of the law, and not actively trying to go around it. More than once I would inform a yard sale or flea market seller and they would thank me and immediately remove the item.

I myself did not know a lot of things like this until I worked at a pawn shop for 2 years. And as we had a good relationship with our BAD Detective (Burglary - Autotheft Division, the department of the LAPD that oversees pawn shops) I started to let her know if I saw other stores seriously violating the law.

In most cases, it was simply if I saw them buying big ticket items like computers and game consoles from minors, or without doing the proper reporting to the police of such purchases. In every case but 1, she simply went to talk to the owner based on an "anonymous tip", and only told them what they had to do to come in compliance with the law. Such as only purchases from legal adults with ID, and the paperwork needed to report such sales to the LAPD along with the holding time to ensure nothing purchased was stolen.

The only one that I know of that led to an actual arrest was a computer store. Where I was inside when two teens came in with 3 computers, and sold them for a few hundred dollars cash with no questions asked. And after they left, the owner told me they sold him computers a couple of times a month.

He was indeed set up for a sting operation, and with the warrant they got from that raided. Dozens of computers in the back with serial numbers removed (a felony in and of itself), then busting the kids when the owner flipped for a lighter sentence. And it turned out they were stealing the computers from homes.

In 99% of cases, if the cops find Joe Smith selling something like a Ruger 10/22 at his yard sale and he has a clean record, I can not see him getting arrested. And I can not see a prosecutor taking such a case and even if they prosecute it going for a full felony conviction unless he had a record of doing such. Likely they will agree to a plea bargain to violating some minor local personal sales law.

Because that is a full-on Federal felony conviction, with at least a 5 year sentence. And having spent years working with the legal system, I have even seen robbery and battery charges on a multiple time felon in court only charged as a low level misdemeanor.

Local cops do not enforce federal law. They have no jurisdiction or authority to make arrests for violations of federal law.

Wrong.

By that logic, a local cop could not make an arrest for counterfeiting, interstate kidnapping, or a great many other crimes either.

"Oh, I am so sorry, yes you are in a car with a 15 year old girl reported missing from Tennessee and this is Oklahoma. That makes it a federal crime under interstate trafficking and I have no jurisdiction. Therefore I had no right to stop you, go on and have a nice day."

You are confusing investigation and prosecution with arrest. They are not the same thing at all. Only Federal Law Enforcement can directly investigate crimes of a Federal nature, but they also often do so in connection with local authorities.

And sometimes, even if there is a Federal law that applies, the Federal DA might chose to allow a local system to claim jurisdiction. Especially if it is a case where local laws are more severe than federal laws are.

I saw this many times with military personnel. Because of the unique status, most crimes by them can be turned over to the military system, which are Federal Trials. And most times if somebody in the military is arrested, the JAG office and local DA will sit down and decide who will actually take the case. Sometimes the military lets them take it, at other times the military takes it.

There was one I know of in El Paso about 10 years ago, where a drunk military member killed a civilian on a road that was a civilian road, but passed through the base. Clearly military jurisdiction. But the military let the locals prosecute him because the most they could do is 5-10 under the UCMJ. Where as Texas could (and in this case did) sentence him to 20 years.

And then when he gets out, he will then follow what happens to many military members who have been convicted and sentenced to civilian custody. Upon release, he will be turned back over to the military, where they will then hold a second trial. Because there is almost always another longer list of military crimes the person did, and they had been AWOL for the entire time they had been incarcerated. At the conclusion of that they will be given a discharge fitting with what they had done to get thrown in jail in the first place.

And no, this unique situation is not "double jeopardy". I know quite a few that had this happen to them while they were in.

I even know one that was passed through 3 jurisdictions in a year. Stationed at Fort Bliss, he went AWOL and robbed a truck stop in New Mexico and was caught. After he was given a trial the judge sentenced him to time served, 5 years probation, and returned him to the military. And somehow, they decided to let that stand, and he was even gearing up to go on deployment with us in 2009. Then while home on leave he was arrested in California for multiple offenses, including public intoxication, indecent exposure, and possession of PCP. They decided to release him back to the Army.

Well, he did not deploy with us, and was still in California when we left the country. At that point New Mexico wanted him back for parole violation. But he was residing on a Federal Installation in Texas, so they let it lie.

Then his Sergeant got a bright idea. Made some calls, told the soldier they needed to drive out to the base next door, McGreggor Range to arrange some range time. So he hopped in the truck.

The thing is, he forgot that that range was in New Mexico. And the Donna Anna County Jail was across the highway from the range entrance. Instead of turning right to go to the range, he turned left, right into the jail parking lot where sheriff deputies were waiting for him.

New Mexico incarcerated him for 5 years, then released him right back to the Army. Who then prosecuted him for multiple offenses including failing drug tests, going AWOL, AWOL during incarceration, and a few other things. 5 years, sentence suspended, dishonorable discharge (felony conviction). The Army then turned him over to the state of California, for his earlier charges there from 2009.

From there I lost track of what happened to that schmuck. But he did end up with 2 felony convictions (1 state and 1 Federal), plus what California did to him.

ETA: I want this to be clear that "mental illness that was never properly reported" is strictly states not reporting in-patent commitments. As of yet, outpatient psychiatric care is not disqualifying, at least not under federal law.

Under US law to be disqualified from being able to legally own guns due to mental illness, the person so disqualified needs to have been adjudicated to be mentally defective by a court or to otherwise have been committed to a psychiatric hospital.

Which is actually very rare. Generally such an action only happens after an individual has already severely broken the law and was declared insane.

Decide to lock yourself in your house and need the police to remove you because you thought Martians were telling you the world is about to end? Nope, normally 3 days in a psych facility, then released to outpatient care.

Oh, and voluntary walk-in commitments do not count either. You can be as mad as a hatter, but if you walk yourself in for treatment, there is no Federal record of it and no court declaration.

The court order is actually rarely used. The individuals so declared are normally found so in a court of law after they have already committed a crime as I stated, or are of such an extreme danger that the doctors feel they have to take this step for their protection and that of others.

In 2012, John Eagan Holmes killed 82 in a theater in Colorado. His first suicide attempt was at age 11, and for years he had been plagued by "nail ghosts" who constantly pounded on the walls around him. And as early as 2006 he had been diagnosed with depression, suicidal thoughts, schizophrenia, and stated he had wanted to kill people. He had been seeing a psychiatrist for months, who was urging him to undergo a threat assessment. Instead, he stopped seeing her and sent her threatening e-mails telling her to not try and do that.

That was in June 2012, and she dropped the attempt. A month later, he burst into the theater and killed 82 people.

This has been repeated over and over and over again. When the "privacy of a mentally disturbed individual" is seen as more important than the actual safety of the public.

This is what needs to change, if there is to be a real effort made to stop this kind of violence. Doctors need to step up and take responsibility for the patients in their care, and the laws need to support them in doing so.

I do not care if the individual is in-patient or out-patient. Doctors must be mandated (as in cases where they learn of actual violence or sexual assault) to report individuals that may be of risk to others to report them. Not just hide under the blanket of "Patient confidentiality" and "no requirement to report in-patient care".

how to survive and eventually thrive when one is thrown penniless and homeless without any ID in a major city

I think I've read stories like that on SOL, but the protagonist usually comes from another reality and has magical abilities.

AJ