ledmitter_nli
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,433
You have your family camped at your secure "bug out" location. You have 3 months of supplies.
What do you do?
What do you do?
Post apocalypse SHTF scenario: A starving mother, little child walk up to your camp..
- Thread starter ledmitter_nli
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
jtr1962
Flashaholic
Not sure how long this thread will remain open but I'll take a shot at it. Really, it's a tough call. For all the people who might say they'll defend their family's supplies with lethal force from all potential takers, the fact is most people aren't wired to kill unless openly threatened. I couldn't take out an unarmed woman and child, or even an unarmed man. Also, in any SHTF survival situation eventually your supplies will run out, and you'll be growing your own food. A larger community will be safer for everyone. I might therefore invite them in, with the caveat they'll need to help build shelters and grow their own food. And I would do the same for anyone else who just looked like they wanted a safe place and some food. Hopefully my sixth sense would weed out anyone who would be bad news.
I'm a long time survivalist, I would do what I always do, ask yourself, "What would the Rifleman do?"
The Rifleman would have to help, he would not kill a woman and child today, on the fear that months from now the situation would never have changed or improved, besides, what kind of family would you have if you were like a family in a slasher film, the spirit must survive.
Part of survival is to be there to help during and after the emergency, a person is what he is, emergencies don't really change people they react with their natural selves.
Some people seem to think that God will put on a blindfold if we get into some desperate times.
The Rifleman would have to help, he would not kill a woman and child today, on the fear that months from now the situation would never have changed or improved, besides, what kind of family would you have if you were like a family in a slasher film, the spirit must survive.
Part of survival is to be there to help during and after the emergency, a person is what he is, emergencies don't really change people they react with their natural selves.
Some people seem to think that God will put on a blindfold if we get into some desperate times.
Last edited:
I would not give the last of my supplies, but would certainly help if able. I believe that family has to come first. I would not expect someone to give their last to me either. Already approach life this way. I also believe that things come round full circle and I do not see that I would change a whole lot, regardless of situation.
ledmitter_nli
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,433
I see several things and haven't reached a definite answer myself. They could be genuinely starving and simply unprepared.
Or, she could be gathering intelligence.
I'm thinking middle road here. Send her away with just a little "charity". Hopefully she'll get the idea that we are low on rations ourselves.
I know i'm risking the possibility of seeing more hungry mouths approaching afterwards. Or worse. Having our camp discovered means our security has been severely compromised.
Or, she could be gathering intelligence.
I'm thinking middle road here. Send her away with just a little "charity". Hopefully she'll get the idea that we are low on rations ourselves.
I know i'm risking the possibility of seeing more hungry mouths approaching afterwards. Or worse. Having our camp discovered means our security has been severely compromised.
It depends. If it's in a remote area with my family that's a tough call. I don't have a "bug out" location so my camp would likely be my home. I would rely on a local church to help distribute food/supplies. It covers my identity and no one will know who the source is.
Yeah, but suppose you don't have your church to hide behind. Maybe they've been wiped out, pulled up in the Rapture, or turned to zombies or whatever lol: what then? It's a tricky situation. The way I see it, if you let the woman in you may not want her to leave; if she leaves and tells others you have supplies, you might get overrun. But then again, if you're still in your house, you're likely to get looted for supplies anyway. This is why a well fortified or well hidden "bug out" location is probably a better idea, strategically.
I've been watching a lot Walking Dead lately so this all seems very relevant to me lol. But I'm only two episodes into season 3, so nobody dare mention any spoilers in this thread! I already stay clear of the Walking Dead thread for precisely that reason
Qoose
Enlightened
Funny mention about the Walking Dead. I haven't watched much of the TV series, but the video game is phenomenal and heart wrenching. In the middle of the first episode, I had to stop playing, and go walk into a hurricane to calm my nerves for a bit.
I don't know if there was an exact situation like what's being asked here, but there at least a dozen points in the story where you have to make very similar tough calls. I'll try and leave out the spoilers, but questions like do you steal food knowing you could be cursing another family. If you want a dramatic taste of how sad life in a SHTF world would be, you should pick up this game.
It's also great because the game is divided into episodes, and at the end of each you can see a recap of the choices you made, and what others did in the same situation.
I don't know if there was an exact situation like what's being asked here, but there at least a dozen points in the story where you have to make very similar tough calls. I'll try and leave out the spoilers, but questions like do you steal food knowing you could be cursing another family. If you want a dramatic taste of how sad life in a SHTF world would be, you should pick up this game.
It's also great because the game is divided into episodes, and at the end of each you can see a recap of the choices you made, and what others did in the same situation.
Post apocalypse SHTF scenario: A starving mother, little child walk up to your
If a starving woman and child were able to find and infiltrate your "secure location", you did a crappy job hiding yourself and your goods and were bound to be overtaken soon anyway by likely more dangerous people.
That said, I care about people and would likely help them with what I could.
If a starving woman and child were able to find and infiltrate your "secure location", you did a crappy job hiding yourself and your goods and were bound to be overtaken soon anyway by likely more dangerous people.
That said, I care about people and would likely help them with what I could.
Re: Post apocalypse SHTF scenario: A starving mother, little child walk up to your
If you see someone in need of help, and don't help them, in my personal credo, it is wrong.
As the "SHTF" scenario provided is open ended, the type of help would vary based upon the actual limiting factors.
If its the end of the world as we know it, and there is no known end point for the survival scenario, then, 1 month, or 6 months, of supplies will both eventually be gone, and, a long term survival strategy would need to include replacement of provisions on an ongoing basis.
I'd be OK having to replace a bit more if I could sleep better at night knowing I didn't make a baby starve to death, etc.
So, sure, depending upon the specifics of the scenario, the help could be anything from temporary shelter/board to a joining of resources, etc.
If its the life boat that has 25 people in it and would sink with 26, and one in the water begging to be brought in, that's tougher....but I would consider throwing them a tethered flotation device and some water, etc...and letting them drift with us. If one of the 25 dies, well, there would be a vacancy at least. Otherwise, people could volunteer to be in the water in shifts, etc.
If you see someone in need of help, and don't help them, in my personal credo, it is wrong.
As the "SHTF" scenario provided is open ended, the type of help would vary based upon the actual limiting factors.
If its the end of the world as we know it, and there is no known end point for the survival scenario, then, 1 month, or 6 months, of supplies will both eventually be gone, and, a long term survival strategy would need to include replacement of provisions on an ongoing basis.
I'd be OK having to replace a bit more if I could sleep better at night knowing I didn't make a baby starve to death, etc.
So, sure, depending upon the specifics of the scenario, the help could be anything from temporary shelter/board to a joining of resources, etc.
If its the life boat that has 25 people in it and would sink with 26, and one in the water begging to be brought in, that's tougher....but I would consider throwing them a tethered flotation device and some water, etc...and letting them drift with us. If one of the 25 dies, well, there would be a vacancy at least. Otherwise, people could volunteer to be in the water in shifts, etc.
Last edited:
There are military teams that have to deal with this situation, they are hiding behind enemy lines gathering information and the only possibilities for them are that they can remain hidden and conduct the mission, or if exposed, drop their gear, destroy the electronics, and run for their lives, and fail in the mission, which depending on it's importance, could be something almost incomprehensibly important to strategic decisions, meaning that no individual death can be considered worth failing in the mission whether it is a member of the team with a twisted ankle who can't be left behind alive, or a 10 year old girl picking flowers, who stumbles across your hide.
These two scenarios are discussed constantly by such units, at least they were during the Cold War, when the stakes were so much higher, and the enemy so much more sophisticated in capabilities of hunting and destroying such teams.
What is the real world action taken by such teams, we don't know because we would only hear about the teams that failed to act and failed in the mission.
We do know that both Green Berets and British SAS have refused to kill the civilian and both came under attack and the missions were terminated, at what strategic or tactical cost, we will probably never know.
When entire SAS and Green Beret teams can't/won't do it, then it must indeed be something that requires a lot of thought at a very high level of the conscience for quality human beings, the scenario described on this thread is almost a luxury, hundreds of people died and the missions lost because of those two teams decisions, but in this scenario that isn't the case, we can help and should help, these are fellow citizens, and the fate of the nation doesn't require us to fight or go against our own personal moral code.
Last edited:
I remember one scenario where a recon team was set up under camo netting in a ditch, and were there to record comings and goings of personnel and equipment up/down the nearby roadway. It took them a very long time to set up the operation, ensure the camo for the hidden entrance and exit routes, etc. A young girl tending goats or something wandered over, and saw them through the netting, and screamed and ran...and they decided not to kill/stop her, but to simply demobilize and hide evidence of the operation and run for it.
Within minutes, she had brought adults with weapons, and a firefight ensued. I don't remember the details anymore...but, they took heavy loses, and air-support was needed to be called in to protect them. The attackers were so close, the next moral problem was that the planes were not cleared to drop so close to our own entrenched forces...the trapped men had to beg the pilot to drop right in front of them, as they were being overrun by overwhelming numbers, and it was the bombs or the bullets....and they wanted the bombs.
IIRC, the bombs were dropped, and the trapped unit was able to make a break for it....but it was a cluster F.
Killing the little girl might have saved 100's of her own people, and definitely the recon team, and the mission....but, where do we cross the line? That day, it wasn't there.
Where the issue gets real sticky is an example of a LRS team inserted deep into the Soviet rear following the Soviet invasion of Western Europe and tasked to verify if rumors of nuclear units being moved into position are true, which would provide the evidence that NATO would have to make a preemptive nuclear strike, turning the Soviet invasion into a nuclear holocaust for Western civilization, a mission of that importance would have no room for failure, or even the luxury of the team being able to consider sacrificing themselves for their own consciences.
That one time possible reality, really hardens the lines on the scenario.
That one time possible reality, really hardens the lines on the scenario.
jtr1962
Flashaholic
Another option could have been to use nonlethal force to capture her, then keep the girl as a prisoner until the mission was over. Granted, this presents somewhat of a distraction to the team due to having a prisoner, but at least they go home with clear consciences, and the mission doesn't get compromised. I do realize in the scenarios you describe, the team has to assume everyone who encounters them is a hostile. Given that, there's only two options-kill or take prisoners.
ledmitter_nli
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,433
Re: Post apocalypse SHTF scenario: A starving mother, little child walk up to your
In freezing water? Also, women and children first! Isn't that the sailors credo?
In freezing water? Also, women and children first! Isn't that the sailors credo?
Last edited:
On some missions, at some stages of the mission, even a team member with a twisted ankle may not be able to be saved.
A team moving in a European winter and carrying maybe a 170 pounds per team member of essential materials that they have spent a week stripping down to it's barest essentials while preparing for the mission, even to the degree of not bringing winter jackets, are already pushed to their limits, and movement of even short distances is exhausting and demands 100% of their focus and discipline, they don't have the ability to deal with even a 70 pound human.
Once the girl sees them, then the team has to carry all of their weight and move away, if no one suspects a team is operating in their area, then locals think that a little girl is lost, if the enemy learns that a team is there, then the GRU or KGB hunter killer teams come out supported by regular military, the team is killed, or at least the mission fails, and NATO forces are taken by surprise when the Soviets go nuke..
jtr1962
Flashaholic
Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm also aware of the possibility of missions existing which are considered so secret, the entire team is liquidated at the conclusion of the mission, whether they succeed or fail.
Obviously in a mission where the fate of the entire planet is at stake, you'll do whatever needs to be done to ensure success. I also should point out that either capturing or killing the girl would elicit the same response from the locals-namely at least a search party. Really, it sounds like the best option is to make sure nobody stumbles on your position, because once they do, you're screwed no matter what you do.
I doubt that , unless you want to tell us some American military history about our fellow veterans that none of us has ever heard of or imagined, except by the freaks in Hollywood.
I explained why it was impossible in that scenario to carry the girl, so taking her wouldn't be an option, concealing a body is very doable.
The difference is that if she tells authorities that she stumbled across a team then the full force hunt is taken over by high ranking military and internal police units, on which in that scenario taken from the actual situation during the Cold War, involved specialists teams from the GRU and KGB who hunt LRS teams and of course with the aid of conventional military, if she merely disappears, then it is a concerned community of amateurs looking for a child.
jtr1962
Flashaholic
I never said the USA did this, but I don't doubt it was done by some of our adversaries who pretty much regarded anyone in their population as expendable if it furthered their cause.
Considering how quickly she managed to get adults with weapons to attack the team, I'm wondering if the "child" perhaps wasn't a child at all, but a slightly built adult posing as a child to gather info. Seriously, if you have that many armed adults ready to spring into action that quickly, then they know they're in or near a combat zone, and wouldn't let their children wander around to possibly stumble upon hidden enemy who might shoot them. We'll probably never know exactly what transpired here but thanks for sharing the story. The people in uniform defending our nation have deal with things morally and physically which most of us can't comprehend.
