During the Y2K debate, I wrote a little, tongue-in-cheek essay about the folly of a Y2K "bunker." Based on my experience, I thought the idea of a "Fort Big Dog" was pretty silly... but not everyone shared this opinion. It was almost as if the serious Y2K pessimists felt cheated by life in late 20th century America. We have no domestic war, no frontier, no "circle the wagons." Life is pretty easy for most folks in modern America... and I think some people are curious about how they would fare in a survival situation. Perhaps this explains the enduring popularity of survival/apocalyptic fiction. Without further ado...

*****

"I thought a bit about a favorite Y2K doomsayer fantasy--survival in a post-apocalyptic America.

As we learned... repeatedly, a fixed position defense is always, always vulnerable. Most Y2K "retreats" are classic fixed positions. Aggressive patrolling provides one of the better defensive strategies, however, it requires tremendous resources and skilled personnel. Without aggressive patrolling, a fixed position can be "reconned" by the enemy for any weaknesses and attacked at one's leisure.

The "non Y2K compliant" aggressor force can scout the fixed position and select the most successful tactical options. Were I the "noncompliant" squad commander, the most effective tactic might be a pre-dawn positioning of a sniper. When the "compliant" force stirs about, preferably outside the "fortification," the sniper takes his shot.

As a side note for the survivalist set, a high-velocity, scoped rifle of reasonable quality is extremely deadly in the hands of a skilled marksman. As an experienced hunter, I try to take my shots within 250 yards, but I can routinely place rounds in a target at 400+ yards. This means even an average sniper has a reasonable chance of killing one at a quarter-mile. With a "premium" weapon and exceptional skills, this range can be extended to a half mile.

Of course, the Y2K survivalist may choose to never leave the house.

A skilled sniper will wound the first target... hoping to draw other targets into the field of fire. Unless highly trained, family members will rush to the aid of a downed target... ouch.

Of course, ambush is a favorite small unit tactic. If the "compliant" force has a patrol pattern, an ambush can easily performed. If the "compliant" force remains within the "fortification," there are multiple breaching options. By the way, all of this can be easily accomplished with off the shelf hardware. Most American structures can burn. Using Molotov cocktails or other combustibles can easily force a "compliant" force out into the open aka killing zone. Night attacks are particularly effective when attacking a fixed position.

Larger "compliant" forces can be reduced by a series of sniper attacks/ambushes. A sniper team makes a long range kill or two and then falls back to a safer position. The ambush team waits for pursuit. If no pursuit, the sniper team takes a new position and waits for targets. If pursuit, the ambush team adds to the casualty list.

Having read some "Y2K preparation" drivel, most preparations consist of buying a Mossberg 500 pump shotgun and a Ruger Mini-14 and then spending the day at the range. This is appropriate if you think marauders will ring the door like the "Avon" representative.

"Hello. We're here for your stored food and supplies."

A decent rifle squad with adequate NCO-level leadership will cut through a group of Y2K survivalists like a hot knife through butter. In fact, taking any casualties would be a serious embarrassment.

Military discipline and leadership is not something one can pick up from a book. Combat experience has a much higher price tag indeed. All in all, the odds of surviving a well-organized attack by a "noncompliant" force is slim. In fact, there are many more tactical options available to the aggressor force, but I am running out of lunch time.

To any Y2K preparedness fans... relax. I plan to spend New Year's Eve enjoying some decent wine... not leading a team of marauders in your neighborhood."

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 13, 2001

Answers >>>

-- Manny (No@dip.com), January 25, 2001

Answers

Guess my fucking troll knew what he was talking about. I hate it when that fucking happens.

-- Manny (No@dip.com), January 25, 2001.

Why I came back

Future shock you were very close with your mirror analogy. Anytime I see a thread started that explains how to kill a family with snipers over food it just doesn't set well with me. What kind of unfeeling monster could post such trash. These are human beings we are talking about, American citizens. You think Manny talks trash? Maybe you should read what kind of trash is posted here for all to see. A blueprint for murder. No I am not against guns and probably own more than anyone on this board. I am against stupidy.

-- Manny (No@dip.com), January 22, 2001

-- Manny (No@dip.com), January 25, 2001.

Manny, as has been said before, you appear to be a a frustrated, immature male. However,your dislike for left-wing totalitarian collectivists who have co-opted the term Liberal from its original meaning does seem to indicate that you are not totally lost. Pay attention to al-d and there might be hope for you yet.

-- Julie (Julie123@ertnog.con), January 25, 2001.

Perhaps my understanding of English is not complete, but I thought "tongue-in-cheek" meant some kind of jest. To me, the story seem both accurate and amusing. Throughout history, mobile, aggressive raiders have plundered small agrarian villages. Absent law enforcement, I do not think a family in a villa would stand much of a chance against a group of armed bandits.

I suppose Manuel also thinks the Hitchcock movie, "Psycho," is a training film to teach psychopaths how to attack a woman in the shower.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), January 25, 2001.