I remember the humorous reflection of a person who had bought some 100,000 matches. I contend "preparation" may have a life of its own... sometimes outside of rational behavior.

My original entre to this forum was a cross-post. In my essay, I contended the average family had little or no chance of defending itself against a decent aggressor force. Fixed position defense has a long, interesting history... but time and again the lesson is clear. Any fixed position (read Y2K "stronghold") is vulnerable. [Can you say "Maginot Line?"] Those who believe in the "Milne" scenario might well consider this.

I contend in a true "Apocalypse" situation, survival depends on multiple factors. In short, staying mobile or well hidden may prove more useful than having a full pantry. From experience, I can also vouch for the value of luck and extensive training and more luck.

If Y2K falls just short of "The Postman," there will be a functional society, albeit one far different than today. In this scenario, there is enough social structure (and enforcement power) to prevent chaos and protect private property. In this scenario, there is likely to be a functioning economy (of sorts.)

In this range of scenarios, stored food, water, etc. may prove handy. Will it mean the difference between life and death? In America, probably not. During the Great Depression, the Civil War, even the War for Independence--there was still a functional economy. Mass starvation was not a pressing issue and the social welfare network is much larger in today's society.

Oh, there are folks who claim there will be a massive loss of capacity in food production. In basic economic terms, a shortage of supply means higher prices. The demand for food is rather inelastic. (We must eat.) As food prices rise, people will re-arrange spending. Higher prices will also spur production. Finally, as a country, we could probably survive on a little less.

Am I saying mass starvation in America is not possible? Of course not. It simply isn't very likely. As always, if there is suffering, it will be worst among the poor.

A different scenario is short-term breakdown of basic services followed by a reasonable recovery. With the increasing confidence in the "iron triangle," this seems less likely. Even so, a modest bit of preparation can provide the average family with the goods needed to weather the "storm" comfortably.

The rest of the scenarios range from a second Great Depression to a "bump in the road." In this case, the usual "preps" may extend one's budget, but hardly seem the stuff of life and death.

So, from my perspective "preps" are most useful in a narrow band of scenarios where we stop short of total collapse, but move well beyond the Great Depression, Part 2.

While many of you may disagree with this analysis (surprise), it does explain how a "reasonable" person can pass on storing a year's supply of rice and beans. My decision NOT to store metric tons of food does not make me unwilling to accept the possible end of our society. More than some folks, I know how ugly this possibility could be... sort of like the hooligans from Mad Max drop in on "Little House on the Prairie." (Let your mind play with that for a moment.)

My decision does not make me unable to understand Y2K or its ramifications. When the pessimists tell me I'm betting my life... they are only partially right. There is no life without risk. I simply do not believe extensive (30+ day) preparations significantly increase my chance of living given the range of most likely scenarios. I also question the utility of extensive preparations if civilization expires.

Agree or not... can we move beyond questioning the sanity and/or intelligence of every optimist?

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 01, 1999

Answers

Y-E-S

-- David Butts (dciinc@aol.com), November 01, 1999.

IMO, what preps buy is "time".

Time to get through severe short-term supply shortages/outages. Time to exist WITHOUT having to mortgage your soul (so to speak) for a bag of flour, or a gallon of gas.

But mostly, preps buy time to THINK, and decide on a rational course of action, without the (potential) extreme pressure of having NOTHING to fall back on. People think more clearly when they're not desperate.

Personally, I think it's just the smart thing to do.

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), November 01, 1999.

I think what Decker is trying to say (in extremely simplified terms) is that even if the entire tower collapses, there is still enough Legos laying around to build another.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

-- Rant (dmiller@hoobly-boobly.com), November 01, 1999.

No, I'm not saying we can easily build a new society. If you want an analogy, extensive preparations are like a 15/16" wrench. It fits with a particular Y2K "nut." (No pun intended). Good financial preps are more like a monkey wrench. Not perfect, but it fits a greater number of situations. The second "layer" of my point... even if you find a 15/16" situation, having the wrench may not be enough.

OK, I've tortured that analogy enough.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 01, 1999.

The amount of supplies to be stored is equal to the amount which will give a feeling of security to the individual doing the storing. That amount varies from person to person. It may be 30 days for one, 6 months for another, a year or two for someone else. It is up to the individual to decide what amount is right for him or her--it is nobody else's business.

Those in the flooded areas down east who stored two months or more of supplies are awfully glad they did. Of course, those who saw all but the roofs of their homes disappear under fifteen feet of water had their supplies ruined, along with everything else they owned. However, there are even more families who live in the affected area who were not flooded but have contaminated wells and (for some time) no power who enjoyed/are enjoying the convenience of their supplies.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), November 01, 1999.

Preperation can also buy a person independence and quality of life. To the degree an individual is prepared they are not dependent upon the "system" to provide them the basics of life. There is also the quality of life. I doubt many of us, whether polly or doomer, would welcome being part of long lines or rationed supplies to live at bare sustinence level.

I for one would rather have the means and ability to to take care of myself and my family versus becoming part of the "welfare" state which may become a way of life for sometime for many in this nation. IMO it is irresponsible to make someone other than myself responsible for my welfare.

-- Stacia (ClassyCwgl@aol.com), November 01, 1999.

More slimy Decker table-turning.

Accuse US, on our own forum (a preparation forum, remember) of "questioning the sanity and/or intelligence" of OPTIMISTS!

As if this questioning - or slander - weren't the PR firm/Government/Media Cartel tactic that saturates our lives on a daily basis. We deal on a daily basis with a media that ignores the problem, shows all preparers as apocalyptic paranoids; we deal with a power structure that has, through the FBI, targeted us as dangerous political dissidents for STORING FOOD, and you have the balls to accuse US of tarring people as stupid or nuts for NOT preparing?

How about you stop acting like WE'RE stupid first, then try posting something that doesn't undermine the stated purpose of the forum.

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), November 01, 1999.

There are good arguments for preparation, some of simple pragmatism. I save money buying certain bulk items at Costco. On the other hand, it is possible to find a comfort level with far less than the forum "standard." Finding the oft-mentioned "three days" reasonable does not mean the post is an idiot, psychologically unable to comprehend the issue or a "shill." I wrote the post because I was tired of hearing the recurrent accusation that anyone who was not storing for years of unrest was lacking some critical mental ability.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 01, 1999.

Ken

IMHO experiance = survival. If there is a major problem all the food in the world will never match experiance when dealling with survival. That is a pretty harsh word, that means you life could be on the line.

Experiance will reduce panic, make you aware of what is important, know the best means to acheive your goals and know better than to rely on what won't work.

Still your little essay you are reffering to is a bit of a joke because if folks have the experiance to be a sniper and follow tactical plans then they aren't going to be after mom and pop camps. They will be after fuel, food, drugs, ammo and what not that would have value to others and themselves.

I know what it is like in isolation during the winter and have lived and worked with the best. Survival is not a silly little story, it is life or death. The best rely on minimal resources to do the job. Live off the land and have the right tools to achieve their aims.

It is true that having to much can be a hinderance. But if folks are faced with that situation then god help them. I personally do not expect that.

I think people fear the unknown more in this case.

Funny up north it is the kids that do the trapping. Interesting eh?

-- Brian (imager@home.com), November 01, 1999.

Oh and a handy little survival trick.

You always cache you stuff, you are right about the "fixed position" mobility is a must.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), November 01, 1999.

Brian,

I agree. You cannot learn survival from an Internet forum. Real field experience (and luck) will make the difference. As for "Liberty's" accusation, Russ Lipton has a dedicated "prep" forum on this same Greenspun server. This said, my original post is about preparation. What can be more "on topic" than considering if preparation is actually useful in terms of different Y2K scenarios. For one trying to approach Y2K preparation from an intellectually honest perspective... this is a necessary topic of discussion.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 01, 1999.

Ken, once again, you equate only to a binary world -- either teotwawki or bitr -- but, once again, the most likely result is somewhere in between.

This being the case, your "narrow range" is actually the most likely range, and preparation becomes extremely valuable. Put another way, nearly all can survive bitr, nearly no one can survive TEOTW. Few here argue for TEOTW -- most argue for disruptions.

Even your examples are binary. Has anyone ever claimed, for instance, that "food shortage = starvation" is an absolute? Of course not. It's another Decker straw man. Food shortages may only lead to weakness, severe hunger, perhaps even malnutrition. That's not starvation, nor is it BITR.....it's an in between state. It is a state to be avoided if at all possible, since it leave one open for all sorts of bad things.

If Y2K falls just short of "The Postman," there will be a functional society, albeit one far different than today. In this scenario, there is enough social structure (and enforcement power) to prevent chaos and protect private property. In this scenario, there is likely to be a functioning economy (of sorts.)

A couple of non-sequiter arguments here. Falling short of "The Postman" does not guarantee sufficient social structure and enforcement power to prevent chaos and protect private property absolutely. It simply guarantees that things don't get to total anarchy immediately. We're probably able to pull back and regroup, but the cost in time and lives may be substantial.

In this range of scenarios, stored food, water, etc. may prove handy. Will it mean the difference between life and death? In America, probably not.

Don't think that you can make such a claim. How long will you live without water? Your scenario does not guarantee the arrival of the cavalry ......opps,. sorry, FEMA.....with food and water in time for everyone. It simply guarantees a non-zero chance of survival for a substantial number of people. Oh, yes, most will make the FEMA/ARC mandatory 3-days (barely), but if help doesn't get to people shortly after that, they become statistics.

"During the Great Depression, the Civil War, even the War for Independence--there was still a functional economy. Mass starvation was not a pressing issue and the social welfare network is much larger in today's society."

First, the social fabric is much weaker in today's society. Second, society in general was an agarian society, so that the path from field to the table was much shorter -- go pick some food from a field, as opposed to having the food shipped from Montana or Idaho to New York City. The further back you go in history the greater the difference between the society of today and that day.

"Oh, there are folks who claim there will be a massive loss of capacity in food production. In basic economic terms, a shortage of supply means higher prices. The demand for food is rather inelastic. (We must eat.) As food prices rise, people will re-arrange spending."

This, of course totally ignores the fact that re-arranging spending is not an option when there is no food on the shelf.

Higher prices will also spur production.

Think, Ken......how long does it take the pipeline to fill up again? (Providing the cause of supply line disruptions has been cleared from the system, which takes time itself.) The very purpose of storing food is to buffer against just such disruptions. Think of it as a flywheel, storing energy (food) on one portion of a revolution in order to be able to use it to complete the revolution.

Even an optimist, as you profess to be, should realize that the general purpose of preparation is just to provide one's self and family with that buffer from the increasingly fragile system with which we must deal. One can claim optimism because they are prepared to deal with disruptions that do not result in the end of the world, or one can claim optimism because they don't think anything will happen. Being optimism because of advance thought and preparation is no different than a football team being optimistic because they have prepared for everything next Saturday's opponent can throw at them. Being optimistic because one simply dismisses out of hand any idea that bad things happen is.....shall we say....stupid. I know you're not stupid, Ken

-- de (delewis@XOUTinetone.net), November 01, 1999.

Mr. Decker

Preps for me have given my-self an ez-way-out. To many variables next year. 3 day storm to 3 year night-mare. Can-not cover all the bases. I personally only bought a years worth of everything, and on a day to day basis tell my-self Im cool. I explian to relatives who live close, the simplicity of a basic Y2K insurance prep. If its bad and they dont have enuff, they can have some of mine. But on the flip side who knows what any-one of us is capable of doing then if it really gets bad. The lucky folks that have been pre-vy to Y2K discussions on forums like this, a long time prior to the event have been afforded the time to contemplate, many many many senarios. Some Im sure will have a chance next year to act-out some or all of them. But I bet there will be alot of personel surprizes. Such as the heavily arm guy, who thought of every contengency, when the time came didnt fire a shot, felt compassion and joy-fully handed out his preps. I think we all live in a defferent world, and share the same planet...---...

-- Les (yoyo@tolate.com), November 01, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

In the short time remaining, I doubt there will be any change of position from those viewing this TB2000 site. We would be wise I think to stay the course chosen for our families feeling of security, whatever that may be. Its time to let go this optimist/Doomer debate. There are many here not posting (and some that are) who would not fit in either camp, and financially would be hard pressed to prepare beyond 30 days. (you have prepared for 30 day, haven't you?)The question for this forum, is what do we have to offer to those needing to make decisions for their families future. Their NEED may be far different than yours' or mine.

BTW, I must have missed something. What is this 'Iron triangle' that we are to have confidence in?

-- Tommy Rogers (Been there@Just a Thought.com), November 01, 1999.

First, let me point out that any realistic reading of the posts on here do, indeed, show a predisposition to question the sanity and/or ethics of anyone who is not overly concerned about the coming rollover. This is not to say that there aren't some who post here who deserve all of the taunts, flames, and general hooraw they get, shoot, most of them appear to be looking for exactly that! Just that people like Decker, Flint, et al., aren't necessarily of that stripe. They just hold opinions as to the possible level of disruption which are different than those held by the majority of posters on this forum.

Ken --

To answer your question, it is a matter of degree. What one person does to prepare may look way out of proportion to another. This doesn't mean that either are 'wrong'. From their own perspectives they are right. It may turn out, come next year, that neither one had it right. Or it may turn out that one or the other 'guesstimated' the situation which obtains then closer than the other.

What is probably most important right now, is that each person prepare (or not), in such a way as to find the greatest peace of mind for them. This is an unsettling time for any who have given this serious thought. From the 'pollies', who worry that maybe they aren't giving enough weight to the evidence, or are possibly misreading it, to the 'doomers', who have to worry that maybe they are reading too much into what has to be seen as 'not enough information', or haven't given the information available the weight it deserves and, thus, haven't gone far enough.

Since there is no way to *KNOW*, until the situation unfolds, we are all operating in the dark, feeling our way forward, afraid there may be a trap ahead, but unable to do aught by continue, desperately wishing for light. Well, the light dawns, one way or another, for pollies, doomers, tinfoils, trolls, and middle-roaders in just over 60 days, whatever any of us wish. Here's hoping the pollies are right.

About your statement about 'fixed defenses'. All too true, under some circumstances. But remember the battle of Fredricksburg. A cautionary tale about the wisdom of accepting *any* 'dictum' in the case of war. For those who feel that he is blowing smoke, though, a study of the battle of Petersburg might sway you. Lee had basically 'horse-whipped' every general (except Meade at Gettysburg and McClellan at Antietam, and in the first he was believed to have ill, in the second his plans were in the hands of the enemy), JUST as long as he kept it a battle of manuever. Once it came to 'trench warfare', it was a different story. The point of this discussion being, *think*. In the event you must defend yourselves or families, *this* is the most important thing you can do.

While most are unlikely to be up against the 'trained, experienced team' of Mr. Decker's vision, even those are not invincible. Certainly, every effort to take the measure of a place to be defended would be useful. But the idea of carrying the fight to the enemy would also be highly useful.

Just a thought.

-- just another (another@engineer.com), November 01, 1999.

De,

I express a huge range of possibilities... far from a binary argument. The "narrow" range I discuss is not very likely because it requires civilization to approach total collapse and stop just short. It's like saying instead of staying afloat or sinking, the ship will find neutral bouyancy.

I mention starvation because of the forum's focus on food. I am the first to admit malnutrion is a bad thing. I just think it highly unlikely food supplies will be diminished to the point of the U.S. becoming unable to feed its own population. You may disagree. Part of my argument is based on over 200 years without the famines of an Ethiopa.

I am not depending on FEMA for food and water. The last time I checked, FEMA does own any farms. The free market will provide goods, just like it provided booze during Prohibition. I am also responsible for a small jurisdiction where we'll continue producing water. As for food... there may be some disruptions in the supply line. I am not saying every food item will be available, but there will be food.

I anticipated the "good old days" argument. I can make an argument that the social fabric is actually stronger today. Imagine your fate as an African-American slave, or a woman with no property rights. We have always been a volatile society struggling with integration of diverse peoples. Now is no different... but unlike 25 years ago, it is not socially acceptable to be a bigot, or hate monger.

As for the agrarian dream, we may have lived "closer" to the land, but we produced far less food. Hunger and malnutrition were far greater problems in earlier decades than now.

What your argument fails to address, De, how much of the pipeline do we really need to get by until full production can be resumed. Do you realize how much food we waster every day? I think food production could drop substantially, and we could still eat and survive as a nation. We have grain rotting in silos due to low prices.

I am buffered against what I feel are likely scenarios. I have no debt, a modest lifestyle and a wealth of experience. Will this be enough? Perhaps. Do I think my odds greatly improved by a year's worth of food? Not really. Again, we can disagree, De, without either of us being an idiot.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 01, 1999.

Tommy,

The "Iron Triangle" mentioned refers to the Banking, Energy, and Telecommunications sectors. Each one is dependent on the other two, so if any one sector fails, the other two could potentially fail.

Check out http://www.y2knewswire.com/dominoes.htm for an in depth explanation.

-- Clyde (clydeblalock@hotmail.com), November 01, 1999.

Decker discourages preparation. That's what he does here; it's his contribution to the forum.

He says he posted this because he was tired of being maligned. Well, I'm tired of being accused of plotting to "shoot anyone who is hungry" because I'm preparing. Should I start a post on how my feelings are hurt about that? People with food ALONE have FBI gunsights on them; they've been branded as "dangerous" and "potentially violent" on this basis. If you're tired of the "doomer" viewpoint, go to debunky.

Decker is playing "good cop" to the FBI's "bad cop." He's gently pursuading his victims not to prepare, while they are ridiculed and threatened by media and government. It will take them both tactics to succeed.

Liberty

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), November 01, 1999.

Never trust a man who quotes himself (i.e., "I contend"). Like, so???

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), November 01, 1999.

Ah.... once again. Where do I encourage anyone to "not prepare?" Do I need a disclaimer on every post? "Make up your own mind about Y2K." Again, here are my points.

1) I am not convinced extensive (30+ days) of preparation are vital.

2) A reasonable person can reach this conclusion. This does not mean the person is an idiot or psychologically incapable of grasping Y2K.

Personally, I do not feel maligned by people who criticize "DGI's." I think the label reveals more about the person using the acronym than about those it is intended to describe. For the record, I have never claimend ALL pessimists plan to shoot neighbors on sight... on the off chance they want to borrow a cup of blackstrap molasses. (Bonus points for the origin of the "molasses" reference.)

As for the FBI, the "gun sight" rhetoric is hyperbolic. The FBI is responsible for protecting the U.S. against terrorists, foreign AND domestic. For my money, if someone is advocating a violent overthrow of the current government... they should be considered a potential enemy. I hardly think the FBI is monitoring canned goods purchases.

In truth, there are some radical fringe groups who may wish to take advantage of the rollover to cause mischief. I hope the FBI (or whoever) stops them before they do harm.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 01, 1999.

There are other reasons to stockpile more than "30-days worth of food" than just to ward off potential starvation. Bartering, emergency relief for neighbors, and staying out of harms way while the supermarkets are in turmoil are a few.

Furthermore, food is but one variable in the equation, Ken, you know that. Some of the other important ones are water, heat, light, and money. And depending on just how bad of a depression you anticipate, procurement of other supplies that may be hard to come is warranted.

I appreciate your post Ken, but the bottom line is that the "optimists" (some would say liars) have very effectively prevented 99% of individuals from amassing any inventory of essential goods whatsoever. Thanks again.

-- a (a@a.a), November 01, 1999.

Ken:

I think your image of a preparer is very mislieading. It appears to be misleading you as well. While I admit I haven't visited the preparation forum either, I can't believe many preparers have opted for the "ton of rice and beans" strategy. I see preparations as useful for:

1) Temporary insanity. Nice to have a couple weeks worth of cash on hand as a hedge against bank runs or temporarily scrambled bank records. Nice also to have a couple weeks (or more) of food on hand in case some trigger event stampedes people into cleaning out the groceries for a while.

2) Short term outages. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some power outages (and related water outages) in some places. An auxiliary supply of heat, light and water should be available.

3) Longer term specific shortages. Personally, I bought stuff I like. Just because food is available doesn't mean your favorite food (or brands) might encounter problems. Similarly, your choices of other goods might be limited. So if you have plans for new tools or a new vehicle, this might be the time to get them.

4) An unemployment buffer. If you can live on your preparations (comfortably, I hope) for some time, you can reduce your living expenses substantially if your income is cut off (for those of us who lack big savings, anyway). My own preparations are sufficient to reduce my monthly expenses by nearly half, for nearly a year. Indeed, I intend to use them for just that purpose, required or not!

5) Savings. No, that's not preparations per se, but I've gotten into the habit of buying larger quantities of items on sale that I'll use up anyway. This reduces normal expenses without the time consumed by clipping coupons.

Yes, I know you give lip service to these uses, but then you fall back into the "narrow band of scenarios". None of these uses requires a Great Depression, Part II. They simply recognize the fairly high probability of inconveniences due to glitches, and provide buffers to coast through a lot of different glitches with reduced aggravation.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 01, 1999.

"a,"

I have been civil on this thread, but yours is a lame response. How am I responsible for the behavior of another consenting adult? This is the most ironic of ripostes. Many of the Y2K pessimists are politically conservative. A cornerstone of conservative thought is personal responsibility. Does "personal responsibility" only apply to welfare mothers and drug addicts?

Your contention, "a," sound much like the person who blames their parents for their bad behavior. "Gosh, Judge, I wouldn't robbed the store and killed those people, 'cept my parents beat me."

This is a nation where everything is someone else's fault.

NOW HEAR THIS! Everyone reading this... MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION! I am not your father, your minister, your lawyer or your best friend. It's your money. It's your life. It's your choice.

Now, if we can just get everyone to grow up and stop blaming others for their problems... we might just have the America "a" thinks we used to have.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 01, 1999.

Flint,

Now that is Pascal's Wager! (laughter)

You frame preparations in a manner where there is minimal cost to the preparer, no downside and many positive outcomes. Were your "preps" the forum norm, do you think I would have bothered?

As you must realize, Flint, I support your freedom to make whatever "preps" you feel appropriate. I simply contend a reasonable person can make a rational argument for modest preps. Of course you can defend your decisions, Flint. The logic is familiar to you. (laughter)

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 01, 1999.

How about:

Prepare for the worst.

Hope for the best.

Mind your own goddamned business.

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), November 01, 1999.

How about,

Liberty takes his own advice, for once.

-- (please@oh.please let him do this one thing), November 01, 1999.

Regarding the subject line: Does Preparation = Survival?

Short answer: No

Longer answer: Preparation can be either an increased or a decreased chance of survival. Depends on the risk of whatever you fear vs. the risk of preparation. The odds of TEOTWAWKI are greater than zero and less than one -- personally I consider them closer to 0 than 1 but still high enough to be worth considering. But preps can be risky if not carried out properly, for example the idiot who sealed his containers before allowing the dry ice to completely evaporate which subsequently exploded.

Restated a bit shorter (and perhaps agreeing partially with your point) is that the preparations should be rational considering both the risk of the anticipated problem and also the risks/costs of the preparation.

Mikey2k

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), November 01, 1999.

Red,

Just for speculation: if your 30 day pantry was exhausted and there was nothing on the grocery store shelf and no national guard supply trucks expected, what would you do to get what you need? Would you take what you need by force from someone with less tactical advantage and skill?

There seems to be a profound dark side to your confidence in your own military training and skill with a firearm.

Perhaps, I think this now because I recently talked to some people who share your point of view and they were honest enough to admit that their survival would take priority over Americans, country, and God. They are armed and have killing experience in the field, but they aren't prepared. I wonder if the FBI has tabs on these people too. In fact, these people may be the greater threat when you look at the near future from the middle of the road.

Those on the move with killing skills... without families to protect, feed, and care for... all they have to lose is themselves.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), November 01, 1999.

P.S. Preparation does not equal survival, IMHO.

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), November 01, 1999.

There seems to be a profound disconnect developing here. Ken, since you think a disaster is not in the making, why don't you volunteer to hand out Pop-Tarts in Watts if things get dicey?

-- a (a@a.a), November 01, 1999.

OK lets try this

Preperation = hedging your bets.

Try and make it win - win, BITR your ok, disruptions your ok.

Next topic :o)

-- Brian (imager@home.com), November 01, 1999.

Preparations only provide an opportunity, and an opportunity to do more than survive whatever disaster that might unfold. The question more interesting to me, however, is this: If things come to such choices: do you want to survive or fight for something more than your skin?

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), November 01, 1999.

"The question more interesting to me, however, is this: If things come to such choices: do you want to survive or fight for something more than your skin?"

Stan, do you realize what that would mean if Ken Decker would want to survive Y2K? I'd say he'd want to fight for something more than his skin. With his pittbull attitude on this forum, his "won't give-up trying to change preparer's minds and go away" attitude, his less than honest character, and with his obvious intellectual skills, I'd say he'd be wanting to fight for power. Just imagine the concequences.

-- Chris (#$%^&@pond.com), November 01, 1999.

Sheesh Ken,

If Chris is weighing in, I hope you've been eating your Wheaties. { Personal and Confidential to Chris's Hubby & Flint's Wife - even though the western US did not drop into the ocean as forcasted on this forum, I would be glad to contribute said vitamins to you both in the event that we should see any power disruptions during the CDC}.

When I started lurking on this forum there was not much info out there on the web. It was back when 5 posts a day here were alot. I remember Paul & Buddy making constructive contributions. Scary Gary had a great site for info at the time, but hailing from cult central - I was leery of the spin and trajectory with which he sent people on. Lots of luck pasting all of us into one tidy lump. I know when you attempt to do this you shortchanging not only the folks here, but hobbling yourself.

I'd like to interject a snapshot from the 'salad bowl of the nation'. In the old days we grew grain crops and sugar beets. With the development of the refrigerator car we moved to cole & salad crops. If you drive down Steinbeck's Long Valley, it has been transformed into one vineyard after another. The chicken farms I remember as a girl that filled the San Fernando Valley vanished long ago, as did the orange groves that filed Orange County. In California we've recently set a few plots aside to illustrate our agricultural history - but they are museum pieces, not reality.

-- flora (***@__._), November 01, 1999.

Very little of my preps are intended to be directly survival related. We had the basic 4 (shelter, heat, food, water) nailed down long before we heard about Y2K. And I strongly doubt that next year will see a significant rise in the number of deaths in the developed world.

Storing food is a as much a financial preparation as transferring a money market account to bonds. I buy food now because I know I'll need it then and I believe the price will be higher then. Same holds true with various other things, not just food. Plus I could be wrong about the severity of Y2K and there will be a greater need for food here than just the 4 of us.

-- Gus (y2kk@usa.net), November 01, 1999.

Where we agree:

--I contend "preparation" may have a life of its own... sometimes outside of rational behavior.

If Y2K falls just short of "The Postman," there will be a functional society, albeit one far different than today.--

-- In this range of scenarios, stored food, water, etc. may prove handy. (but not agreeing with the entirety of the paragraph)

The rest>>>>

--In this range of scenarios, stored food, water, etc. may prove handy. Will it mean the difference between life and death? In America, probably not. During the Great Depression, the Civil War, even the War for Independence--there was still a functional economy. Mass starvation was not a pressing issue and the social welfare network is much larger in today's society.--

In that period of our history, we (collectively - USA) were (stats vary) nearly independent for "A" food supply, either through personal farming or local farming communities. Not so today, Mr Decker.

--As food prices rise, people will re-arrange spending. Higher prices will also spur production. Finally, as a country, we could probably survive on a little less.--

Spending infers either income or savings available for barter. Not necessarily so Mr. Decker

-- In basic economic terms, a shortage of supply means higher prices--

You have finally scored one point, but it is a sad one at that, isn't it Mr Decker?

--The rest of the scenarios range from a second Great Depression to a "bump in the road." In this case, the usual "preps" may extend one's budget, but hardly seem the stuff of life and death.--

So the Great Depression was devoid of deaths as an effect of the root cause. I think history would disagree here Mr. Decker, and so do I.

Let's reread your post, let's see

--My original entre to this forum was a cross-post. In my essay, I contended the average family had little or no chance of defending itself against a decent aggressor force.--

Decent aggressor force, hmmmm ....an oxymoron Mr Decker, or just possibly moronic.

--Mass starvation was not a pressing issue (to whom?) and the social welfare network is much larger in today's society. (The bigger they are, the ....)--

Yep more of the same!

--Any fixed position (read Y2K "stronghold") is vulnerable. [Can you say "Maginot Line?"] Those who believe in the "Milne" scenario might well consider this.--

Any position is vulnerable, but having one is better than having none at all, wouldn't you agree Mr Decker?

--I contend in a true "Apocalypse" situation, survival depends on multiple factors. In short, staying mobile or well hidden may prove more useful than having a full pantry. From experience, I can also vouch for the value of luck and extensive training and more luck.--

So when the pantry is (may be) empty in, say, 30 days, what would you suggest to the DGI (past tense) Mr Decker? After all it is the middle of winter, so growing something to eat isn't an option, is it? Please respond to this point, even if you chose to ignore the rest. How are you going to fix an empty stomach, Mr Decker?

--Am I saying mass starvation in America is not possible? Of course not. It simply isn't very likely. As always, if there is suffering, it will be worst among the poor. --

Have I already covered this?

Since you/we seem to have come full circle, I must say, that I have endeared an new position for you on the scale, within the genus of Polly. I just can't find the words to express it. While many traits are endemic to the class, you have hit upon a twist that is ???

-- Michael (mikeymac@uswest.net), November 01, 1999.

"I think what Decker is trying to say (in extremely simplified terms) is that even if the entire tower collapses, there is still enough Legos laying around to build another. That's just my opinion, I could be wrong."

"-- Rant (dmiller@hoobly-boobly.com), November 01, 1999."

Not if the neighboring nations (like China and Russia) want to do away with you and they SEE their opportunity.

(and they WILL see it)

sdb

-- S. David Bays (SDBAYS@prodigy.net), November 02, 1999.

I'll vote for preparing as increasing chances of survival. It also increases comfort...and the ability to help friends and neighbors...

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), November 02, 1999.

Stan,

You hit the nail on the head (as you usually do).

My sentiments EXACTLY.

I get the same feeling about Decker - very confrontational, threating in a subtle (in his own "mind") way, I've lost count of the times he's asked posters like myself about "stepping outside", "behind the woodshed" to do??? what??? you tell me.

Seek treatment Decker.

Why even bother coming to this forum with your poison? I don't get it.

You are either being paid or you're a masochist with other problems as per Stan and myself's suspicions.

TREATMENT

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), November 02, 1999.

Decker,

You're betting on mobility and aggression to roam and take in order to survive. What you fail to consider is, those "Little House on the Prairie" families will be bonded together and well equipped to stave off barbarians such as yourself. Afterall, a good defence is the best offence. Ask Hitler. He failed to understand this and lost because of it. You and your kind will die. Yes, you will take some of us with you but after all is said and done, we will be the last standing. History proves it.

Decker, what is the definition of human success?

Survival.

Your plan is fatally flawed. You will not achieve survival by following it. So why follow it?

Because it's beyond your limited mental capacity to comprehend something larger than yourself. It's your kind that will be "naturally" culled from the human population, for the greater long- term good of humanity.

Be seeing you.

-- GoldReal (GoldReal@aol.com), November 02, 1999.

Well, a full plate of responses....

Stan, I see you have taken a page from Russ Lipton's book. You insinuate that I might become a looter... or worse. This type of sleazy suggestion reveals far more about your character than mine, Stan.

"--," I have recommended preparations on this forum. I just stop well short of the "extensive" preps so often discussed here. If asked, I will explain in great detail why I question the utility of extensive preps in a "collapse." (Though you seem to understand it rather well.)

"Mikey," we are still a net exporter of food. As a nation, we have relied on large-scale agriculture for the past two centuries. "Subsistence" farming was more common in earlier times, but self sufficiency is a myth. Small scale farming has always depended on trade. Period. Oh, people did die during the Great Depression, and I am sure some of these deaths can be attributed to the economic malaise... however, 1930s America was far better fed than sub-Saharan Africa during any point in the past century.

Now, to fixed position defense. Ask the French about the Maginot Line. It is better to have a realistic grasp of the tactical situation than a sense of false hope.

Finally, a "30 day" supply could probably stretch to 60 with tight rationing. This presumes NO other food will be available. Nada. Most folks I know could live out of their cupboards for at least a few weeks. (There's a box of barley on a back shelf that I know could be eaten... but why?)

The flow of food will not stop. It may slow. In dire straits, I am sure the U.S. will stop export contracts and keep food products within the domestic economy. In short, Mikey, we ain't going to run out of food... not if you have the means to purchase it.

"Andy" aka Weasel Boy, In America, "stepping outside" is a time- honored tradition amongst men who have failed to settle their differences using more civilized methods. "Going to the woodshed" is a Western phrase. In my youth, children were taken "to the woodshed" for a spanking.

Andy, you are a conspiracy theory crackpot with silly ideas, poor manners and few original thoughts. Now that I think about it, a trip to the woodshed might do you well.

Finally, "mobility and aggression" are not MY plan. It is the reality of a post-Apocalyptic world. The suggestion I plan a career as a marauder is just a noxious personal smear... though it's typical of extreme pessimists. In all these responses, only a few people had the intellectual courage to explore the validity of my thesis.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 02, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

It seems to me that you are prepared for an all-or-nothing situation, perhaps not seeing the wisdom of taking out insurance against the shades of gray. Will y2k be a fender-bender, or a head-on collision? Or a near-miss? Being a simple being, I would never consider that I had the ability to see the future. I do know, however, if it comes down to a situation where one must use military survival tactics to stay alive, I am likely a goner. I am hoping for a not-so-dire scenario. I do know, that a fender-bender can be awfully uncomfortable, however, and ugly, for a long time, if I do not have the insurance to cover the damage. In this light, I am preparing. I would probably stock up a year or twos' worth, if I could afford it, as this would be useful should we ever have en economic calamity, (and we are due). I will use what I stock, catastrophe or not, and try to keep it stock as a habit. In this day and age, one never knows what could happen. Surely, somewhere in your military training, you were taught the importance of being ready for any contingency? P.S., If by any chance, the worst case scenario does occur, and you are out foraging for your food, please don't pull a gun or knife at my door. Knock, and ask, and we will share what we have. Thanks.

-- M. N. During (megantuza@webtv.net), November 02, 1999.

Andy, you're a real piece of work! You have your posts edited because of the language content and turn around to badger Decker because he said something as mundane as "step outside"! Andy, take a look at yourself boy.

Ken, don't even acknowledge Andy's response; he's not worth the time and effort.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), November 02, 1999.

Maria, quit tellin' Ken what to do.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), November 02, 1999.

It seems to me that you're saying we should think outside of the boxes we tend to operate in? Whether it's polly or doomer or somewhere in between?

-- helen (sstaten@fullnet.net), November 02, 1999.

We already know the difference between being prepared and not being prepared. Seems pretty simple to me. Old Git is right, who's business is it how much one chooses to prepare? I'm prepared for that 7.0+ earthquake that the experts keep saying WILL (not if) happen. And if I want to purchase 100,000 matches or 2,000 rolls of TP, whose business is that? If that's where I think my comfort level will be then that's what I will prepare for. Seems pretty simple to me.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), November 02, 1999.

Helen,

You make an excellent point. We should look at "preps" outside of our own little box and ask all the hard questions.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 02, 1999.

You make an excellent point. We should look at "preps" outside of our own little box and ask all the hard questions.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 02, 1999.

But Ken the hard questions involve childern and the elderly. And you have not delt with those aspects. Raising a child or having a senior family member raises the stakes. Add medical problems and you have serious stress to which there are no pat answers. Worring about the "adult" aspect is trivial. So regardless of your status (I don't care) sometimes the box could be around you.

Plus, in regards to the cold weather aspect there are no contingency planning senerios for an urban enviorment on the net that impress me. Most are just rewarmed pap that you would expect. The Ice Storms have taught us little. This is a SERIOUS shortcoming IMHO to social "boxes" we can only hope that cities aren't effected by power - gas problems or it will be confusion. This is serious denial.

As you know this has always been my main focus in regards to Y2K and any cold weather problem. It is real, hasn't been delt with and Ice Storms alone can hit 4 months of the year or more in alot of North America. And of course the weather has been looking alot more extreme in the last decade.

Look into my box. Personally of course I love being out in any storm. Unless the boat is going down.

Keep your liners dry.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), November 02, 1999.

I'm not at all surprised at your sensible response, Bardou. BTW, Diane has info on a recent small earthquake in Wales, of all places.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), November 02, 1999.

Red,

Actually, I asked a sincere question. I didn't insinuate anything. It seems you have fallen into the same so-called doomer mentality that you castigate: seeing motives that are just not there. Let's be honest here. You're the one who has boasted about his military experience and skills with firearms. You're the one that seems much impressed with his ability to get by come hell or high water. You, Red, are the one that makes light of ethical, moral, and philosophical concerns about the character (or lack thereof) of the modern American. Finally, you are the one who has some contempt for real people and their concerns. These are just some basic observations of what you have written here.

That is not to say that you don't make some interesting points now and then. You write well enough. Forcefully, sometimes. Your style doesn't match up with the man I met, but I have harped enough on that. To your credit, you have owned up (however reluctantly) when it was time to own up. Perhaps, it might even be said that you bring some needed perspective to a discussion on Y2K. Well, some will say that much. Some won't. Back to the point: there is a profound darkness in your description of the so-called fallacy of the fixed position. You face up to that when you are good and ready. But I'm not saying that you are going to prey on people. I'm just asking what kind of man are you.

I think I have made it clear what sort of person I am... through my writings on this forum and elsewhere. Unlike you, I don't have military experience. My father being a military man, I had enough of the military in my life. I turned down offers to go into the nuclear school and intelligence. I haven't fired a weapon since high school marksmen practice. I spent some of my childhood years on a dairy farm (maybe 400 cows), but I didn't like that much either. Myself, I have no illusions about my failures, shortcomings, and lack of experience and skills. Unlike you, I have people to take care of. But with God's help, I'll do so with a clear knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong.

Since you are confused on some other things, do allow me to set you straight. I don't necessarily think someone is stupid if they don't prepare for Y2K. Their conclusions may be hasty and erroneous, but that doesn't make them stupid per se. I'd like to see more people have 14 days on preps-- since we don't know where or who will be hit hardest. And yes, that must mean that I don't think that the end of the world is at our doorstep. I don't see TEOTWAWKI as very likely. You know that. We've talked about it in emails. Just the same, if people can afford to prepare for such, I don't think they deserve our contempt. So I don't know why you strain so hard to laugh at them.

So what kind of man are you?

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), November 02, 1999.

Stan,

It's kind of like wondering out loud if someone might be a rapist or child molester. A marauder taking supplies from innocents hardly has a moral advantage over other scum.

I have not "boasted" about my military experience. To date, I have not given any details... just the fact that I served. This was necessary to establish my credibility commenting on small unit tactics.

As for your concerns about "character," Stan, I have read them... from commentators during the last 200+ years. It seems someone ALWAYS thinks we're on our way to Hell in a handbasket. By the way, my "contempt" is not for individuals (with a couple of exceptions), it is for fuzzy thinking. Big difference.

The darkness in my description of fixed position defense was earned. You are better served learning this lesson now... than having experience teach you later. You'll find my tuition much more affordable. It is far better for people to deal with the cold, hard facts... than to "prepare" as if we are going to live on Walton's Mountain.

You may find me a hard man, Stan, but I am not evil. You may not like what I say, but I will look you in the eye and tell you the truth. Now, the question to you, can you handle the truth?

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 02, 1999.

It is indeed wrong to imply that Mr. Decker might be a member of a gang or maruading thugs. He might (as well) turn out to be the one who pops in from the tree line to save your a**.

I thank my lucky stars that I am new to this forum. I have not yet received my "label". Decker is speaking from military expericnce, the very same truths that I, and my father, and his father as well learned in a places much like your nebulous '10'.

Bands of thugs, bands of terrorists, what ever you choose to call them are able to field many members. They are heavily armed and they seek to make themselves the law of the area. What you will do if we are faced with such a scenario is simple, you will do what Vietnamese villagers did when bands of armed VC came to the 'vil. You will trade your very children to survive. Agreed it is FAR better to have a village of armed people banded together to defend the area. Still what Decker speaks is the truth about survival in extreemly difficult situations. There comes a point where point defense is impossible and one must hit the ground (and running to beat hell).

I honestly believe Decker is trying to persuade people that the 'fortress' mentality will work in most scenarios but that there are more sever scenarios where it is destined to fail.

He (in my mind) is preping a very few to realize what happens when a position is OVER-RUN. When it gets so bad that point defense is NOT an option but rather becomes suicide. This is rare, but it does occur.

Decker, there are very valid points on BOTH sides here. Toss an elderly loved one or a very young child into the equation and you wind up with something very, very, difficult to handle. This is the point reached when you are defending a field hospital (for example) and you are faced with an overwhelming force. You remember, don't you.

To be honest there are a LOT of thinking people here. It takes REAL effort to hear each other. I was just reminded of that elsewhere.

-- (...@.......), November 02, 1999.

Red,

Are you a hardened man? Perhaps. I think that "bottled up" is a better description. (grin) Can I handle the truth? As much and as well as any other man or woman who seeks it with faithfullness and humility. It's not always pretty. Yes, I know. It does not always leave me with a sense of peace and satisfaction. I admit that I don't see how my asking you that question in the context of your self-admittedly dark essay is anything like me wondering aloud if someone is a rapist or child molestor. I'm sorry (sincerely) that it hit you like that. In the future, I'll ask such penetrating questions in a private email. The bottom line is I was only trying to get to the heart of a truth.

As for the cold hard facts and the practical advice that you may have to offer for a scenario that you or I are unlikely to find ourselves in, your counsel is to be light on our feet and keep moving. At one level, that means that you will get your best meals from those that are planted. Either as someone offering his services in barter or as someone who takes what he wants. At another level, you have cut yourself off from community; you'll be an outsider as long as you are light on your feet. You will lose some sense of what it means to be human. And if there was a chance of rebuilding things, when would you make the decision to drop your sleeping roll inside a fixed position?

In other words, at what point do you wait for other men to have made the necessary sacrifices before you would rejoin a seedling of society?

And fortunately for you, me, and everyone else, teotwawki is unlikely. Therefore, it is unlikely that our courage and character will be tested in such a way. Whether we are wolves or sheep dogs may remain mysteries for us to contemplate privately. But it is interesting to get glimpses of each other (wolf or sheep dog) however fleeting such glimpses are. Sure, some sheep dogs like to parade around as wolves and vice versa. But as much as you detest fuzzy thinking, you should admit that you find these speculations and imaginations of teotwawki fascinating. I wonder why. Is it because you also crave change? If so, you'll be a little disappointed when the sky doesn't fall on January 1, 1900.

Yes, I actually doubt that you are really concerned about the end of the worlders going postal. It's just one seemingly objective vantage point from which to enjoy some small (however stolen) participation in the interesting discussions that go on in this unusual salon. There's nothing quite like the real tension and drama of the pessimists as their intelligence and imaginations give intentional existence to uncertain dangers. This ain't Hollywood, and it ain't anything hollywood could give you. The sweat and tears are real, emotions run high, and the characters are actual people with actual concerns about the real safety of those they love. So, yes, I can handle the truth. Can you?

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), November 02, 1999.

Stan, you said, "Back to the point: there is a profound darkness in your description of the so-called fallacy of the fixed position...

... Unlike you, I don't have military experience. My father being a military man, I had enough of the military in my life. I turned down offers to go into the nuclear school and intelligence. I haven't fired a weapon since high school marksmen practice."

Stan, I grew up on this very farm. I've roamed every square inch of ground around this house and well away from it. When my husband and I were discussing possible problems with marauders, I was very uneasy about our ability to deal with it effectively. We weren't talking about y2k, we were talking about the kids and me being out here alone when he travelled.

Ken Decker put the reason for that uneasiness into words I could understand. I was instantly reminded of the war games we played here as children and realized that I myself could drop a person in any room of the house from a safe distance away without using a scope.

Like you, I don't have any military experience. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out a line of sight. I sure as hell don't like the message, but every word of Decker's post was true. While he hasn't mentioned having to take care of children and elderly, he may have helped me take better care of mine. Stating an ugly truth is not immoral. Sitting on information that could save someone else might be immoral.

Besides, for the umpteenth time, that post was lifted from another board.

-- helen (sstaten@fullnet.net), November 02, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

Personally, I don't believe I've ever questioned the sanity or intelligence of any Y2K optimist. I may, however, have pointed to the gullibility or the lazy mindedness of some of them. I believe others of them are treacherous villains.

Even before any of us ever heard of Y2K, preparing for possible large-scale disasters has always been a good idea. The fact that the lives of billions of unprepared people now hang in big masses on a few thin pipelines of supply is a crying shame!

In case of a zero Y2K effect, those who have prepared for a 10 are still way ahead. They are prepared for a wide range of other likely problems, and can continue their lives with the peace of mind and flexibility that come from having taken care of what Dr. Abraham Maslow calls their alpha needs.

In case of a Y2K bump in the road (levels 2-5), those who have prepared for more than this level of problems will benefit financially from not having to suffer the higher prices that shortages and supply line disruptions could bring. In such an environment, many people who die may not show "starvation" as the proximate cause on their death certificate, but rather, the disadvantaged (old, young, unhealthy and poor) especially, could experience an increased mortality which may or may not be recognized as having been due to Y2K.

In case of a severe Y2K hit (levels 6-9), many people will recognize that it would have been wise to have prepared. Mortality statistics will easily demonstrate that those who prepared fared better than did those who did not. Financial repercussions will be harder to document.

In case of TEOTWAWKI (anything worse than a 9), survival will go mainly to the physically and mentally fit and to the ruthless. Those who have been preparing for a long time may have an advantage, especially if they have taken steps to improve their health. We will be less apt to be blindsided since we are forcing ourselves now to consider what may happen.

Do I believe preparation equates to survival? No, not exactly. Never in history have so many been so very unprepared. In good times such as the West has experienced for most of this century, early deaths can be mostly attributed to reckless behavior and bad luck. If things were to get real bad, preparation may help, but there would also be plenty of bad luck to go around, too.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), November 02, 1999.

Stan, how is, "I think you might plan on becoming a looter" a "penetrating" question? It is a foolish question. A real "bad guy" would not be frittering away his time on this forum. If he were, why admit to malicious intent?

In my original post, I was not giving advice. I made a simple observation (as restated by Dancr). In a 9+ scenario, there will be groups of individuals who do not share my "moral compass." Throughout history, small communities have been forced to defend themselves against wandering hordes... with predictable results. If you encounter such a group, perhaps you can explain how they could resolve their feelings of angst by joining your community. (laughter)

Frankly, Stan, I have no idea what I might do in the 9+ universe. It does make for an interesting book... and I enjoy speculative fiction. I also enjoy a good horror novel... but have no desire to live one in reality.

Men are like soft iron, Stan. It takes fire and hammer blows to forge us. You seem a decent person, Stan. In good times, you'll be a fine husband and father. If I may speculate, I think you wonder how you'd measure up... in hard times. Deep down, I think you want to face the test.

That is the truth.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 03, 1999.

No, that is Decker's truth, which is not the same thing.

-- Stan's (one of the@good.guys), November 03, 1999.

In good times or bad, my measure will always be Christ upon the cross. Truth is there-- if you want my opinion.

Nudi nudum Christum sequi! Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), November 03, 1999.