Making the rounds of the survival, survivalist, preper, sites I keep running across certain assumptions. A lot of people who have a long laundry list of worse-case situations that they tacitly assume to be nearly inevitable. I'm constantly reading about, know a few people, who have bought into one or more potential threats and take it as read that they are coming.

A friend a few years back read a bunch of articles on dirty bombs and has, since then, assumed that one going off near him is inevitable. So he went out and spent a good part of his savings on gear to deal with the potential situation. He spent thousands dollars for a fancy HEPA filtration system to pressurize the house and safe room, three suits per person, booties and spares, respirators and spare filters, special detergent and dedicated brushes to get nucleotides off of skin, and radiation meters.

Sounds good. It will come in mighty handy if/when such an event goes down in his neighborhood. Fair enough, except for one small issue. He lives in a very small town better than twenty miles away from any likely target. Realistic chances his home will see a dirty bomb or be downwind of one are slim to none.

He hollowed out a good portion of his savings and investments and is now facing a considerable amount of financial pain. Those thousands would be handier right now than all that gear. But he can't sell it and get his money back. Worse still, some of it will have to be replaced if it is to be depended on. Plastics, rubber and especially the filters, all have limited lifespans.

I think he has become a victim of Worst-Case Thinking:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/05/worst-case_thin.html

Preparation involving expensive gear is not all up-side. Every dollar you spend on it comes from something else. Not all potential scenarios are as likely as all others. Not all gear and provision are universally applicable. More is not always better in all categories. Preparing for the worse possible situation is not always the best way to go.

I too make the rounds of the sites, and each one makes me appreciate ETS a little more. Many of them have some good content, but I'm interested in survival, not survivalism. Despite all the bluster & bravado I think many people would find, if they ever were in a "PAW/TeotWaWKI" situation, that merely existing on for it's own wouldn't necessarily have much appeal. I am a part of a society, a civilization. If that civilization was gone, along with most of the human race, and wasn't coming back, I'm probably not real interesting in fighting the cockroaches for scrap. Not to mention that it's not particularly realistic- I mean, C'mon! If there's a nuclear war, eco-catastrophe or asteroid impact that kills off the bulk of the human race how do you really propose to prepare for that?

Worst case thinking can be insidious. In small doses it serves as a reality check, a warning that the comforts and conveniences that we take for granted can be fragile. But if you get your utilities disconnected because you spent all your money on a generator, isn't that sort of a false economy? I'm all for being prepared but I try to prepare for the scenarios I'm most likely to face. After all, I can't afford to build a 100' deep concrete bunker and stock it with 2 years food and frozen DNA samples of 2 of each of Earth's animals! But I can keep a couple days food and water on hand, and a lantern, matches, kerosene and candles around in case a T-storm knocks out my power (one summer if happended 5 times, the longest for about 6 hours).

Great post, Art!

BTW, one area where WCT smacks me in the face is my IFAK. If I put 3 ABD pads in there, it seems like I should have 5. Then I add a roll of Kerlix and I think, "wouldn't 3 rolls be better?" You can see where this is headed! There's only so much room in my IFAK (a Maxpedition F.I.G.H.T., very nice bag but not huge). If I cram it full of gauze, I have no room for any meds. If I stuff in all the meds I can think of there's no space for hemostatics. And then I'll read an article about the guy who got shot thru both legs and needed two tourniquets! And I don't even have one!

There's gotta be a balance between prepared and realistic. A 20 lb FAK would solve any medical issue I'm competent to address but it would usually be sitting at home where it wouldn't help me. Stock as well as you can but the best kit is the kit you've got on you at the time.

EDIT: I just read the full article. Very nice! It shows what happens when we tend to think Black Swans are common occurrences.

You are right on with this post. The most important part of emergency planning involves a realistic risk assessment. This should be followed with a thoughtful and well researched action plan and only then, the procurement of necessary (and preferably multi-purpose) supplies and equipment.

You can't be hermetically sealed against the rain, you just need an umbrella.

Without knowing all the details, I would guess that this gentleman might have been adequately served (mostly psychologically) by having food and water for a week and an all-hazard radio (multi-purpose). For the radiological threat; an evacuation plan for every wind direction, or if he preferred to sit tight; some plastic sheeting and duct tape for windows, iodine tabs, and some decent dust masks. Maybe a $150 invested in the radiological threat.

My worst Case thinking is..

Flood: Likely to happen, happened in 1992.

Hurricane: Never going to reach this far inland, Dont need to prepare for it.

Eatrhquake: It happened earlier, I dont remember when but, I should prepare a little.

Avalanche:...Yeah Right!!!

Land Slide: I live on flat land!

Volcanoes: None around!

Blizzards: Maybe, not likely, I have stuff for cold and snow.

Drought: have 55 gallons stored and maintained!

Hail Storms:... What can you do..

Health Epidemic: I am not prepared for besides Germ-X

To protect his property this chap is thinking about modifying the cannon he used to shoot his wife out of, as a deterrent against vandals who have previously damaged his property. His siege catapult wasn't working too well.


Break in and make my day!!

As with most things, a little worst-case thinking is good, but any excess is bound to be bad for you.


I really like the perspective that having the resources to live "off the grid" for a limited time will give you a healthy buffer against the smaller predicaments that are more likely to occur. (Insert favorite bad-weather episode here, imagine truck drivers going on strike for a week, or power blackouts).


In the same vein, preparing for having to leave your home and most of your possessions behind is good advise. I am hinking along the lines of bug-out bags (or bug-out suitcases with wheels on them) and Blast's survival binder.


I don't buy into the "we need minimum one year supply, atomic bunker in our garden and a retreat in North Dakota" kind of survivalism. That is binding up too much resources into a highly unlikely pet fantasy scenario. I don't mind people having weird hobbies, but at least find a weird hobby that won't make your whole family economy revolve around it, will you?


No one has so far mentioned preparing against burglary, robbery and such - which happens every day, somewhere to someone.

I work in midtown Manhattan. Each and every day I see:

- Radiation detection equipment (fixed and mobile)
- Biohazard detectors
- Armed soldiers on patrol with leg-mounted gas mask bags
- HEAVILY armed cops on patrol (way more armament than the soldiers)
- Scores of emergency apparatus
- Metal detectors
- Bomb-sniffing dogs
- Reinforced glass windows (for bomb protection)
- Tens of thousands of cameras
- Millions of people

I have been here for the first WTC bombing, blackouts, steam explosions, bomb scares, plane crashes, riots and transit strikes. I managed to skip 9/11, fortunately. The bulls-eye of "worst case scenarios" is centered on my head.

And I too ponder why, exactly, near my home, which is 74 miles from the place I work, in place with limited cell phone service, where I can hunt in my back yard and we have no municipal water or sewer, no sidewalks, no streetlights, no police department, few large structures, no critical infrastructure, why do so many of my neighbors think that WE live in a "target" zone? Clearly they have no idea what "risk assessment" is.

Martin, with any (bad) luck, these hostile space aliens that the eminent Dr. Stephen Hawking was interviewed about the other day will land smack dab outside your office, cutting off any chance of escaping or even getting any take out food.

I have to wonder where some of us draw the line between preparedness and simply doing something like a hobby--because it's interesting to us? Do I really need a dozen different types of firearms to have a complete range of weapons in case of...well, heck, not sure, but in case of something. Or to be honest, just simply because you really like guns?! Or building an underground shelter and stocking it with all the attendant gadgets? Or buckets of junk silver and handfuls of gold coins? Like Phaedrus was pointing out, do these folks really want to survive whatever worst case calamity they are ostensibly preparing for? Or is it just fun to prepare for such situations?

Personally, I think most worst case scenario types are more like hobbyists, although I certainly don't want to leave out the True Believers either. Certain traumatic events can certainly turn people into True Believers, at least temporarily. And there are also the easily swayed masses, but I don't think they tend to spend as much time and money on exotic preps as the hobbyists and True Believers.

OK, back to reality. Gosh darn it...where did I leave my nerve gas antidote self-injector? It was right here this morning!

The Crypto-Gram is on my monthly reading list when it comes out, and I saw his comments on worse case scenarios. I was reminded of my younger brother. He lives outside Lubbock, and he's convince there'll be a suitcase nuclear bomb, so he's bough a year's worth of food from the local dehydrated survival place (at least he's spending his money locally). I asked him why he though Lubbock was on the terrorists' list, and he said he expects a suitcase nuclear bomb in LA or San Francisco and the fallout will drift over Lubbock. He's serious.

I pointed out the size of a suitcase nuke, but he's emotionally invested in his belief of a suitcase nuke in California destroying life as he knows it in Lubbock. The facts of fallout reaching Lubbock in life-destroying amounts from California are of no interest to him.

He's much more likely to get hit by a tornado, more likely to suffer a blizzard, so I hope all that dehydrated food gets some use, although I don't know where he'll get the water if his house is wiped out in a tornado. Or where he'll find a pot to cook in.

C'est la vie.

Again, this just reminds me of the movie "Wargames". It is always best not to play. Baghdad taught me that in the worst case most of us just don't have the means to adequately prepare enough to change our outcome. If things get bad enough you have to rely on an arsenal to survive, you've already lost. I never heard one case in Iraq where an armed civilian was able to successfully defend himself or his family from a coordinated attack, and there were a lot of well armed civilians in Iraq in 2005! Heck, even the Army couldn't keep it up most of the time. The last thing we want is for any conflict to precipitate on home soil. The best defense is a good offense, and I fully expect the conflict will follow us home from Afganistan.

Lubbock will never be on any terrorists' hit list. I know, I am from there. It is a good place to be from, let me tell you.

What you all need is a risk register where you list the possible risks their likelihood and possible impact.

From there you list mitigation and prevention.

Have a look at:

Wiki entry

And

UK Risk Register

It does not take much to produce a professional document.

> Lubbock will never be on any terrorists' hit list. I know, I am from there.
> It is a good place to be from, let me tell you.

:-) I saw that play the do about the settlement of the area, and one line stuck with me: "You can see farther and see less than anywhere else on earth."

Several posts above refer to the likelyhood, or not, of needing to survive nuclear radiation, as pointed out this is extremely unlikely in most rural areas.
Possibly a risk in large urban areas, or near nuclear power plants.
I would urge anyone concerned to buy a geiger counter for detecting radiation, these cost a few hundred dollars.
Other precautions may, or may not be justified according to the perceived degree of risk. But without a geiger counter you wont know whether to run away, to hide, to use protective gear, or to carry on as normal.
Remember that danger from radiation is cumalative, a radiation level that is acceptable for a few minutes could kill you if prolonged.
Without a counter though you wont know.
Very basic precautions can increase your chances considerably, remember that the radiaton level inside a typical home will be about one tenth of that outside, simply staying indoors helps.
In a deep concrete basement the level will be about a hundredth of that outside.
Stocks of food, water, fuel etc. would reduce the dose received by going out to seek these supplies, and would of course be useful for other, and arguably more probable disasters.
Even a basic respirator gives considerable protection against inhaling radioactive particles, and is a usefull thing to have in case of chemical spills or fires upwind of you, which again are more probable.

Should someone point out there is no such thing as a "suitcase" nuke?
(Naw; why spoil his fun.)

Not only are their suitcase nukes, but he swears the crater will be 20 miles in diameter. 20 miles. sigh. I pointed out photos of several kiloton atmospheric tests with soldiers closer than that watching the fireball, but he was unpersuaded.

I take his reference to suitcase nukes to be to these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke

But no way a 20-mile crater. _Crater_ of 20 miles. C'est la vie.

Actually there is, its a derivative of the W54 nuclear warhead (which was very old 1950s technology). The possibility of hand held grenade sized nuclear demolition charges with yields up to 10-50 tonnes are thought to be possible using modern design technology.



http://youtube.com/watch?v=Pf6uX0hODuE

Anyone recall the "Davy Crockett"? Fired from a jeep mounted recoiless rifle. The blast radius was further than the range. Talk about fire and forget, how about fire and fry? There was no way the crew could escape the blast. Needless to say, it was mothballed fairly quickly.

The M-65 was just a little too man portable for the politicians on both sides, (Spetnazs weren't only carrying shovels ) which is why it was mothballed and the secret fourth protocol agreements of the NPT adhered to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khyZI3RK2lE

I think my hometown would be about the last place in America that a terrorist would bother to strike. Guess that's one nice thing about living in the middle of nowhere. Of course, that doesn't stop Worst Case Thinking here. About five years ago we got a new courthouse, and it's a veritable fortress- bullet proof glass, a labyrinthine maze of hallways with mirrors and cameras, an array of scanners and metal detectors, etc etc. Ditto for the Sheriff's Office. It would take a Bradley vehicle or RPG to breach it! Some sensible precautions are wise but this smacks of outright paranoia...paid for with my tax money.

Even that link points out that the US was never known to have a true "suitcase bomb." The "backpack nuke" was still a little larger than the mythical terror tool in a rucksack that people fear. Obviously physics allows for a pretty small weapon, and it may well exist, but obtaining one apparently isn't easy or someone probably would have already used one. And while it would be devastating weapon, most of those micro-nukes aren't very powerful. While a blast 5 times larger than OKC bomb would be terrible it wouldn't wipe a city off a map.

I guess the point is that you can obsess about every possible scenario or you can analyse the danger realistically and do what you can. It's not realistic to think you can be prepared enough to deal with every possible scenario.

Very cool link, btw!