Government recommends BOBs

Now the government is telling us what we already knew:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99162,00.html

What I find most disturbing is the comment the one detractor says about how it isn't the public's responsibility for their own safety, that the government should do it. That kind of attitude pretty much describes most of what is wrong in this country today (IMHO).

I think it is nice to see the government pushing people to make some preparations, although I personally haven't seen any of these advertisements. Hopefully a few people will take heed though, and take responsability for themselves.

Greg

BEGIN RANT!!!

Does it surprise you that someone would detract from this great idea? The guy who was against it, completly misunderstodd the whole context of the BOB. He is the author of a terrorism survival handbook? Maybe I need to read his book to see what he is talking about.

It makes me mad how we (people from all countries) have literally killed the idea of common sense and self reliance? I don't know, I just don't know.

I have mine, and if I see anyone who is without, I will share. Maybe I shouldnt though? Maybe I should allow the gene pool to thin a little....

END RANT!!

Garrett

Lately everyone figured out that you can make big money by talking about NBC stuff. My ambulance corp receives about 6-7 letters a month from self thought "specialists" offering us seminars and courses and we can graduate with diplomas recognized nowhere. Prices vary from $700 to $2000 and depending where expert comes from sometimes lodging is requested. My EMT course about a year ago made a mistake of hiring such a guy guy to speak. I think that anyone in the class knew more than him based only on experience and book but somehow he looked more professional with power point presentation.

Matt

I think that many see the "new" terrorist threat as something completely different from what we faced before. The idea that all terrorism is either "over there and we don't need to worry about it" or "so overwhelming that unless you have a tank, hospital and bunker in the hills of colardo" is pervasive. Certainly if you are within the immediate effect radius of a conventional explosive, chemical attack, bio attack or nuclear attack you may as well "kiss you a$$ g'bye". OTOH, if you are in one of the ever widening circles of evacuation that will be implemented in such circumstances (which, BTW are identical in nature if not geography to the evac plans that have been on the boards for atleast 5 decades for storms, quakes, hazmat spills and nuke attacks) you will want some supplies to make the evacuation somewhat more manageable and comfortable.

If I were selling gasmasks and tyvek suits I would PooPoo the bob because you must either buy my gear and be able to survive the holocaust or die.

If I were selling Underground bomb shelters in the hills just off the interstate then I would PooPoo the Gasmasks and tyvek suits because you will either get the news in time and evacuate or die.

These are marketing statements. Truth is Gasmasks, tyvek suits, Big SUV's, and bomb shelters are all part of a continuum of preparedness that will increase your chances of being there when the sun rises over the carnage left behind. Could be that having a gasmask in you desk drawer is exactly what you needed to get to the SUV so you could drive home and pick up the BOB before the Natl guard closes the roads between you house and your bomb shelter. OTOH if you are unwitting victim of Bio attack and then implement a BOB scenario driving several hundred miles (stopping at convience stores along the way) to get to your hideout then you have become the dispersal mechanism needed for the effectiveness of the bio attack. (Bad you!) and you will probably have managed to leave behind the area where the immediate response will be using up all the available supplies that are required to help you survive the immanent collapse of your internal systems. But Hey, you didn't know that the event had already happened because the aerosol in the ductworks is impossible to detect until folks start showing up dead or nearly so at the hospitals.

Juval Aviv is a former IDF officer, El AL security consultant and currently with Interfor, a corporate security company. Mr Aviv may disparage other efforts as bandaids,but he is only a larger battle dressing for a world with major hurts.

Well said!

I believe firmly that the more resilient and tolerant and indepent each individual becomes within the parameters of a given society the more resilient that society becomes. For just one example, If we all know how to live off the grid for a few days / weeks and are prepared to do so then the terror threat to our infrastructure becomes less potent.

With this type of thinking, preparing to supplement / replace infrastructure dependancies is the best form of homeland defense. It won't necessarily reduce the likelyhood of events nor even the damage done to the immediate area of the event but it will mitigate the effect on our society and our way of life for those not in the epicenter of the event. This sort of effect is much more than a bandaid or battle dressing. This effect is the sole of survival for the society! IMHO!

Get a gun, ammo, water, candles, dinty-moore soup in cans -great for you! Go further and become trained as an EMT and an ARES HAM and then provide comms and trauma response to keep the village stable while things are bad. Go even further and join with a church or other community organization and help them put on a pancake breakfast or ham & bean supper. That will teach you how to be an organizer / server / survivor when the masses show up at the shelter. That not only guarantees you one of the best spots at the shelter but puts you first in line at dinner time.

What use is home defense or even homeland defense if it is provided by the constant thud of the tread of Jack-booted Nat'l Guardsmen patroling the street demanding "Papers! let me see your Papers!"? Get involved and help things remain workable and stable and the riots won't have to be as bad (perhaps) I'd keep the SUV packed and parked near the back door tho just in case.

I have read and reread the article and everyone’s comments. At first, I was put off by the “expert” and his comments, but having read the article once more (and maybe I am giving him more credit then he is due), I think what he is saying (abet poorly) is that having this bag or supplies is not the panacea the average person might think or be led to believe. We would all agree on one thing about assembling these supplies/kits, that it is an important step to get the average person to think ahead and plan for emergency situations. Where I would agree with him is that nothing in the kit will prevent a chemical or biological attack, only allow some type of minimal response. It seems to me that the government does have the responsibility to reduce/minimize the chance of an attack. Pete

"Jack-booted Nat'l Guardsmen" ? Actually they have lace up regular or steel toed boots for the most part. The National Guard responds to disasters, both natural and man made. In certain situations they have been been activated and placed in situations to control looting. Generally when they do this it means they leave thier families for a period of time to serve a greater good.....at least from the perspective of those who believe that service to one's country, whether as a Police
Officer, Fireman, EMT, Emergency Volunteer or even a "Jack-booted Nat'l Guardsmen " is worth while. Even though some of the citizens they serve may not see it that way or appreciate it those who do.

I will also add that, while I may not like the way you choose to characterize the National Guard and those who serve in it, I do believe that you have a right to express yourself as you choose. I think I can safely say that the majority of approximately 500,000 men and women who are "Jack-booted Nat'l Guardsmen" would too.

Turk
TNANG

Mini-me,


I'm drilling this weekend. Thanks for the ping! I have to remember to ask if my new jackboots have come in yet. Hopefully, when I ask the supply sergeant, he won't tell yet again that my jackboots are on back-order.

My old pair were ruined trampling the constitution that I have repeatedly sworn to defend.

On a less bitterly smart-assed note---yeah, the Guard (like anything else) can be/has been misused, and I certainly have my own problems with it, but when the hurricane hits, or the water is rising, or the forest fire is encroaching, or the excrement hits the oscillator bad enough to require it---we'll be there, doing our best to help out. Please try to keep that in mind.

Take care,

Andy

My neighbor came over after seeing the governments possition and asked my opinion on what he should include in his families emergency supplies. So......we sat down and I shared with him (again) what was in my families BOB and home supplies. He balked big time on procurring protection for himself and his family and I asked him one question. "Who do you think is going to come to your rescue?"

To my knowledge, he still hasn't put anything together, but at least he has a good idea of where to start.

I must post an explaination or retraction quickly!

First, I totally appreciate the job done by our National Guardsmen and women and all other volunteers that put themselves in harms way to protect us and our way of life! I also appreciate the work done for the community by all civic minded individuals.

I also believe that if we as individuals become totally dependant upon others to protect us from harm then we will continue to vote for legislation that enlarges the role of all forms of legislation, regulation and policing at the cost of liberty and individual responsibility. When the bartender has to go to court because his patron kills someone on the road it is beacuse the society needs to feel protected and is unwilling / unable to protect itself. The more resilient and independant individuals are; the more capable of supporting and defending themselves individuals are the less they will vote for legislation that infringes their liberties in order to get that warm feeling of safety that they crave.

It is always through these sorts of fears that totalitarian fascists regimes come to power. IMHO, we, in america, are on the edge of sliding down that same slope. Everything from politically correct speach legislation == censorship to the Patriot Act authorization of extended detention of the unaccused.

If we come to live in a society where our fears combined with our individual inability / unwillingness / ignorance re self defence and self reliance cause us to hand over our liberties in an effort to get safety it will be the jack-booted Nat'l gaurdsmen who provide us with all the warm fuzzy safety that can be had.

I posit this scenario not because I think that the extreme will likely come to pass but as a backdrop to view the alternative of personal responsability and the duty to become independant and self reliant.

Remember the Nazi's were voted in. They didn't take power through military coup.

MM,

No worries....something about the word "jackbooted". I dunno.

In most ways, I agree with you. Too tired and sore to elaborate right now (roadmarch yesterday--no jackboots, though <img src="images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />)


Take care,

Andy

For the record, I am active in ARES and I volunteer on the local EMS as EMT-B.

Jack-Booted is a comparison to the Gestapo or Nazi Secret Police. It has also been used in reference to Nazi Storm Troopers. I think when rhetoric of this nature is used it may distract people from the, possibly, very reasonable point you might be trying to make.
People do need to be prepared and involved, and I think your pointing this out is a very reasonable thing to do.
Besides taking responsibility for themselves, they also need to be responsibile for their society as a whole. Otherwise the negative elements that are a joke one day may be in power the next. You had a valid point. Your adjective just distracted from it.

Turk

Post deleted by Chris Kavanaugh

We are way off topic on this so I will only reply once and not engage in conversation in the forum but since you asked.....

Bartenders are neither doctors nor police, chronic alcoholics have extremely high tolerances, individuals may imbibe quite a lot without looking particularly intoxicated only to have the effects progressively worsen after leaving the bar without anymore intake. Bartenders have no knowledge of who is driving and who is not. Bartenders have no right to pry into whether I am driving or not.

A bartender is no more involved in an accident caused by an intoxicated driver than the clerk at walmart is involved in a drive-by shooting. Both retailers merely sold items that are legal to consumers that are legaly allowed to consume those items. The subsequent use or consequences of the behavior of the consumer is not the responsibility of the merchant. This attempt to avoid the personal responsiblity for ones own actions is deplorable. If an intoxicated individual or a non intoxicated individual kills someone through poor use of their vehicle then they are responsible for manslaughter. They and they alone are responsible for the decisions that led to that point. Whether it is because they are bad drivers or because they are intoxicated should not be part of the question. To make the bartender responsible you would logically also have to make the driver-education teacher responsible in the case where it is just plain bad driving or speeding or perhaps we should make the meteoroligist responsible when it is a weather related accident.

Certainly If a bartender chooses to sell liqour to an individual who legally is not allowed to buy (minor - someone who is clearly over-intoxicated, etc) then they have violated the law. That issue ends at the door of the bar. If someone has two beers and then gets in a car they will be in violation of the DWI laws. Presumably those DWI laws are set at the level where driving reaction-times become impaired. Certainly no bartender could conclude that the average individual is overly-intoxicated after two beers.

This society already attempted to ban the use of alcohol - that failed. To shift the responsability of the individuals actions away from the individual and onto all those around them is an attempt to make access to alcohol difficult and will also fail. Bartenders now have the burden of making it difficult for individuals to get access to the amount of alcohol that they individually feel is adequate for their individual purposes. To be actually safe from litigation bars would have to implement breathalizers to be used before each order is placed / delivered. This of-course won't stand. A bartender couldn't even be safe requireing a 1 drink maximum limit since the individual that they are serving could have easily had one at each bar on the street adding up to quite a few before comming into a particular establishment for their 1 drink maximum.

Making the individual responsible for their actions and not taking the intoxication level of the individual into consideration as a mitigating factor to their guilt would have a much more chilling effect on the bad behavior - poor driving while having no impact on the legal behavior - drinking. If I knew that I risked manslaughter charges for killing someone while driving drunk instead of a two year suspension of driving priveledges and a shared fine with the bartender I might choose to walk home or not to drink when I have to drive but on the occasion when I could get home without risking others lives I would be able to get as snookered as I might want without the barkeep poking his nose into my affairs.

for more conversation on this and other interesting / enlighteneing topics not related to survival feel free to PM me.

But where would you and your SUV go? Anywhere you went, refugees in any significant number would strain local resources. I doubt the locals would welcome you with open arms after they discovered your presence was inconveniencing them.

Even to my own pessimistic and cynical eyes, your post seemed pessimistic and cynical. Never fear, however, our family holds the National Guard in the highest regard. I actually cheered back when I saw the NG being deployed as moral boosters at airports, toting weapons.

When I later found out that many weapons were empty because there weren't enough bullets to go around -- (omigod!) -- my mood darkened considerably, but NOT toward you guys.

Some executive bean counter in a suit needs his head examined and his rear end kicked.

As with everything else it is a matter of PREparedness. If you look forward to the possibility that you may be submerged in a lake within your car then you plan ahead and carry a spring-loaded center-punch to break your windows. If you look forward to the possibility of needing the evacuate your home area for an extended period of time you will arrange a destination ahead of time and make friends / alliances with local, stock it with supplies and prepare it for occupancy. That may be as simple as sticking a 5 gallon bucket in the coat closet at Grandma's or it may be as complex as setting up a homestead complete with self sufficient garden and livestock. The level of complexity is determined by the scenarios you wish to prepare for. OTOH, if you have no prepared destination but you have a decent SUV and a tent in the BOB then you could get quite a ways off the beaten path into the wilderness and make a decent stand there. There are a lot of people - true but there is also a really big world here. If you let the population of manhattan loose in an evacuation scenario you will find most of them in other big cities. A small portion would be in the adirondacks in campsites, hotels, vacation homes etc, and an even smaller portion will be in the trackless places of the Adirondacks that may be accessible by driving along a rail-bed for some miles and turning off into the woods / swamps and going even further. Following such a proceedure you could get your SUV off the track and out of site, then pack in from there whatever you can carry on your back and probably make a couple of trips without worrying about having the SUV found. Then cover the trail from the SUV to your Bivouac and camo the SUV in place. This sort of plan when combined with well located geo-caching (perhaps the 5 gallon buckets or ammo-cans or whatever) could provide a secluded remote bivouac with supplies for a year. If the location is well chosen it could be secluded enough to avoid being stumbled upon by others. There was that guy that eluded police for a few years in a mountain-top hideout in PA I believe.

Craig,
I was in the local ARNG unit immediately following 9/11. Our local alert level was raised and the State directed that all armories be manned by armed guards 24/7. No big deal except that we don't store ammo locally. We only needed to go across the state to draw it. Two armed guards are required to draw ammo. The guards couldn't take weapons with them to the ammo draw because, you guessed it, you can only transport weapons off post under armed guard. Our battalion staff spent, no kidding, 2 1/2 hours coming up with a fix and another 1/2 a day getting it implemented.

Two unarmed troops went over to a unit on the same base as the ammo and hand receipted 2 pistols. Since they weren't leaving base they didn't have to be under guard. They then went and drew 20 rounds of 9mm and 20 rounds of .223. After loading the pistols they transported the box of rifle ammo back to our First Sergeant. Then they signed out 2 pistols from our armory, emptied the borrowed pistols and loaded ours. They then transported the borrowed weapons back to the owning unit and finally returned home.

And yes, the possilblity of an open purchase of a box of ammo at Wal-Mart was discussed. We were hamstrung by the fact that open purchases are limited to those items not readily available in the supply system.

It's this type of inspired decision making that prompted me to get out of the National Guard. It's also why you don't see truly "armed" National Guard at the airports, responding to riots, etc

Ed

Holy cow!

Who dreamed up such rules?

No doubt they came from Military Intelligence <img src="images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />