Prepper article on MSN

I'm not sure if this is good or bad that the PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. candidates are using doomsday scenarios in their rhetoric. It may move prepping more mainstream, or it may get us written off as "right wing, <insert favorite stereotypes here>, nutters". Either way, it's worth mentioning.



http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/what-pr...ness/ar-BBpmeXx

Edited for trying to get around the censoring software.

One of the best features of ETS is its apolitical nature - just a legitimate concentration on preparation for life'reasonably predictable emergencies. Years ago, I began my career working at a fairly isolated location - Wupatki National Monument (about fifty miles N of Flagstaff, AZ). It made a lot of sense to keep extra groceries, etc. on hand and be ready for relative isolation, perhaps with park visitors to care for. My boss was Mormon and I understood he kept a year's supply of food on hand - seemed like a good idea. I simply got into the habit of being ready to stand alone for a fairly reasonable length of time (at one point in my life I was 100 miles from the nearest grocery store). Even now in town, when there is a very good store about two miles away, i am sure we could go for at least a month with what is stored in our pantry.

I simply reject the political, extreme points of view that often appear on "survivalist" forums. The model they often propose is not really realistic and is frequently historically inaccurate. Of course, there is money to be made by selling all the necessary items, so the flames are fanned regularly.

Using an "all hazards" approach will make it less likely to have a political reason. It doesn't really look at the likelihood of a specific event, but the likelihood of common types of hazards. In this case the loss of electricity is the hazard and the cascading effect would still occur no matter if it is man-made or natural disasters. Having a plan for no electricity will get you further than thinking about some low-probability high-impact event. Plus, if you know enough about the low-probability high-impact event you can break it down into it's associated secondary hazards and ask about that. BTW, this is the modern approach to Emergency Management.

The first thing you have to decide is what you will specifically plan for. Low-probability high-impact events are NOT in my plan. Why? Because it's likely there are too many variables for me to plan for, but I can plan for the basics: Shelter, Water, and Food.

It is always sensible to prepare for disaster, whether natural or man made.
An EMP attack is not IMHO that likely, but it COULD happen and most of the preps would be useful for other disasters also, so prudent to prepare.
I doubt that the colour of the party in charge at the time would much influence either the risk of such an attack occurring, nor the severity of the consequences.

It does however speak volumes that politicians are even speaking about such subjects, rather than the traditional "vote for me and everything will be just fine"

Likewise, one should not IMHO speculate overmuch on from where such an attack might come, concentrating instead on mitigating the consequences if it does come.

I recommend the novel "one second after" for a fictional but in my view believable account of an attack and the grave consequences thereof.

Look at how much time, money, and energy you have for prepping. Assess your risks. Prep for the more likely disasters first. If you have resources left over for prepping for EMP, why not. As for me, I've got a whole list of things that are much more likely to happen, that my budget doesn't permit me to prepare for. For instance, if I get stuck on the toilet seat So I put prepping for EMP in the same bucket as prepping for an alien invasion. Maybe I'll get around to it one day.

Good volumes or bad volumes? Granted, fear is a time honored technique for public opinion campaigns. Vote for me because the other guy will "A)Damage the economy, B)Take away your rights, or C)Is beholden to special interests whose will harm you" is typical campaign rhetoric. Saying we're going to get hit by a WMD sounds more like a justification for an invasion then an election campaign.




I'm reading it. "Lord of the Flies" meets the 1977 New York Blackout as written by Kafka. I've got some technical issues with it, but I can't poke much more then pencil holes in the author's reasoning of the societal consequences. Generally speaking, a nuke a couple of hundred miles up would have lit up the entire sky over the US, and some distance over the horizon, for several minutes (Starfish Prime tests in the 1962). There would have been no doubt about what just happened.




I might put the computer backups in an ESD bag instead of the Ziplock bag they're currently in, but that's the extent of it. The probability of CONUS wide EMPs are so low that you could almost place it in with Black Swan events. Static electricity discharges on the other hand...