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?
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.
You have your family camped at your secure "bug out" location. You have 3 months of supplies.
What do you do?
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.
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.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.
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.
Another option could have been to use nonlethal force to capture her, then keep the girl as a prisoner until the mission was over.
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.On some missions, at some stages of the mission, even a team member with a twisted ankle may not be able to be saved.
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.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..
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.