Fleeing millions equal a disaster to flee?

Let us suppose you neighbor an area which suffers a major disaster from which millions begin to flee in your direction, would that prompt you in turn to flee from the wave of refugees?

I guess that would depend if they were wanting to stop in your area or keep going and if they posed a threat. I think it would be case-by-case basis.

There's a reason why they say the home team has the advantage. Being a refugee has got to be worse than dealing with refugees.

As soon as I run out of ammunition...Seriously, I would protect what I have as best I could, like LED said, better to be a defender, than a refugee.

That's what a hurricane evacuation looks like in Houston and elsewhere.

Houston is actually well inland from the coast, far from any storm surge (flooding is a major problem, but it's not storm-surge related). When the coastal residents evacuate it's a large number of people trying to go through Houston.

The horde doesn't want to stop because they can see the crowd around them and know there will no vacancies. The locals should probably just stay off of the roads passing through and the evacuees will be like a swarm of locust that suck gas stations dry, but no worse.

New Orleans / Katrina is a good case study. Almost everyone evacuated along two roads. I've never seen an after-report on this: where did these self-evacuees go, were they given any directions, any evacuation destinations by the authorities?

"Be it ever so humble, there's no place like home"

I would not be inclined to abandon my home.

Best to hunker down and stay off the roads.

And volunteer to help organizational efforts to assist our fellow citizens.

Ditto here. I recently participated in a table top exercise that simulated a spontaneous evacuation from Vancouver BC south to Seattle and Portland. We had a land border to contend with (throughput - Customs will process only so many travellers per hour), 4-6 hours between the border and Seattle, a winter storm that hampered travel, and a reduced likelihood that every one from 1MM+ might self-evacuate. We ended up feeding and sheltering just over 30,000, with many more covered by cities all along I-5 as far south as Portland. All in all it was an interesting excercise, and the major takeaway for me was we were in need of more volunteers to cover all the shelters we eventually opened.

Dagny, if I can recommend - if you want to help organizations during such an event, volunteer with them now: taking in spontaeous volunteers during a disaster can happen, but most relief organizations will thank you for signing up ahead of time. The Red Cross has something called the Reserve Corps, for volunteers who don't want to volunteer for routine fires and flooding, but may turn out for larger events. You do one day of training, and a criminal background check, and are issued a RC ID. Check with your local chapter to see if they currently offer Reserve Corps in your area.

Thanks for the tip about Reserve Corps - sounds interesting and useful.

If you are living in the country or in a very small town, I guess you have to assume and hope that millions of folks fleeing a dense urban area will look to find another such area and not show up to stay indefinitely on your doorstep.

But, what if?

Yer welcome. Red Cross isn't alone in pre-soliciting volunteers, I know several cities who actively solicit non-active volunteers to help when disaster strikes by an early sign up. During a disaster you basically want your volunteer services folks concentrating on recruiting from among known volunteers, not training and vetting spontaneous volunteers. Generally if the disaster is big enough and the need dire enough, they'll do whatever they need to.

You on one side saying "sorry, move along" and thousands upon thousands of desperate people on the other. Sure, they will all be polite and reasonable ....

Unless the refugees/fellow citizens are all from a maximum security prison, most probably won't be acting like savages.

Are we to assume this is a Mad Max scenario?

Is there a history of hurricane evacuees/"refugees" ravaging the east coast?

Hmm, let's reverse this notion and consider the perspective. Then we can make some assumptions. If I were forced to evacuate and become a transient, how would I act moving through neighboring communities who are not facing the same threat I was?

Considering I would be travelling well armed, and with limited supplies otherwise, is there a point at which I become desperate? What happens when I run out of fuel and have to consider abandoning my vehicle and most of my equipment and supplies. If I am familiar with the area, what can I get away with without drawing too much attention from the locals or the LEOs in the area? If I had to, what would make the best opportunity for me to re-fuel/re-supply?

Likely I'd want to avoid really public locations, as the number of witnesses/interferences/competition would be impractical. So finding an out of the way target that I can recon for defensive/supply potential makes some sense. Then it would ust be a matter of choosing the right time, and it's as easy as that.

This is, of course, a thought experiment and also a way to see if anyone can pass along their experience with this kind of thing in the real world.

Very remote areas with small populations and a commensurately smaller resource base are certainly less likely to find millions of folks showing up. But that does not describe the whole country - much less other countries.

Displaced persons with pressing family and personal needs, even without criminal attitudes, are going to stress resources where they land. Millions of them, with the best and most honest of intentions, could well feel forced by circumstance to do what they must to help their families and selves survive.

I would hope it never happens, but I thought it worthwhile to extend our thinking to consider if, at some point, such a flood of evacuees might themselves become a diaster or danger that we should in turn consider fleeing from them.

Scenario one: I am at home and the refugees are coming here. I will be polite, help where I can and offer assistance to the polite ones. Try and take something and Mr. Ruger will assist you in leaving my area.

Scenarion two: I am the refugee. I ask politely and offer to pay, say thank you, and don't take any more than what I need. Any assistance I can offer in the way of helping my benefactors is given.

It's all about being polite and not greedy. Expect nothing, be thankful for what you get and take no more than what you need.

Please. Factor in you are starving, cold, ill, and afraid - perhaps injured. Your babies, kids, and friends are the same. Your significant other is trying to be brave but you can see them suffering. The homeowners are warm, have food, have medications, have warm clothes, have first aid supplies, etcetera, and say no.

At some point you and the millions like you are likely to be overwhelmed by need and your perceived duty to your loved ones, aren't you?

Living in DC, in these scenarios I suppose I'm as likely to be a "refugee" as anyone in America.

Pretty sure my city friends and I won't resort to pillaging the Virginia, Maryland and West Virginia countryside.

Except perhaps at the local boutique pet store where my dog may be desperate for Wellness Whitefish & Sweet Potato. Based on previous experience near bins of pig ears and cow hooves, she's not above shoplifting.

Reminds me I need to put her comb and shampoo in my bugout bag.

May need her to charm the locals out of some biscuits and gruel.

Does this assume some government response will be quick enough and adequate enough to meet your basic needs?

What if no such response? You can die from ... Rule of Threes. You going quietly into that goodnight?

So it's cold and presumably then not hurricane season.

Am I and my millions of refugee cohorts on foot?

Having fled what?

The fed-state-local governments, Red Cross, et.al. are just going to stand by while we shuffle up the highway on foot scavenging for dandelions?

I am confident that the American people won't just stand by and watch that nightmare play out with fellow Americans. That is not our nature.

If that's the Mad Maxish scenario and millions are fleeing the Washington-Baltimore corridor, then residents of the little towns in our paths out of here (likely I-66, I-70) should be afraid. Very afraid.

City folk have guns, too. Even in strict gun control jurisdictions.

I, of course, ETS-trained, will have driven my food-laden vehicle as far as it would go on a tank of gas and then will be on a bike, riding with friends on bikes, pulling bike trailers laden with camping gear and food. When that food and all my cash are gone then I'll probably just slit my wrists with my Ritter MK5.

Another consideration for the good folk in their warm homes with full cupboards, what do you suppose happens to the American economy after something so calamitous occurs that millions of us abandon a region indefinitely and are left shuffling up the road starving and cold?

Perhaps some of those refugees used to keep a vital part of the regional power grid operating.

Maybe some of those refugees worked at food processing plants. Or oil refineries. Or medical supply plants. Or maybe had something to do with electronic records keeping track of other people's wealth.

Unless you're off-the-grid, grow your own food and have a water well, we're rather more interdependent than we'd like to think we are.

The WTL must be greater than that surely, You've still got your legs and as most in the western world a reasonable amount of subcutaneous fat still left. Good to go for another 3-4 months I reckon, heck a lot of the folks in the southern states are good to go for year. It might be prudent to pack some decent walking shoes or boots as well. It could well give you another 1000 miles action radius before resorting to the Ritter MK5.

The Ritter MK5 is not the best tool for the job. I would much prefer a Kabar (certainly an ironic use of a survival knife). Much less messy and certainly more "honorable"

Sorry about the thread hijack. Perhaps this should be a new thread.....

I am a woman so this subcutaneous fat conjecture is treading in dangerous territory.

What's "WTL?" Weight-to- ???

Yes indeed on the shoes. And I have an assortment of Ritters to choose from: MK1, mini, MK3, MK4 and the 5.

Have to figure out which ones of those I'd barter and which to keep. Hmmmm....

In such a horrendous scenario, I think a lot of people would choose the way out of the wife in Cormac McCarthy's "The Road."

No food, no housing... no cable. So many just could not be bothered with the struggle.

That would be a particularly gruesome thread and entirely contrary to Equipped to SURVIVE.

;-)

Weird, WTL isn't on the list of ETS Acronyms, but is one of the most important because it is at the foundation of the Survival Pyramid of 'Kit' then 'Knowledge' then 'Will To Live'.

Within a very short time I'm sure there would be radio broadcasts advising people where emergency shelters/aid stations are located. And since there are only so many main arteries in and out of cities I imagine most people would use the most obvious routes like freeways and interstates where traffic could easily be blocked or diverted by authorities. Not saying it would be well organized but there would be some order within the chaos. And if things got truly out of whack, wouldn't it be more likely people would head for super wal-mart and other big box/grocery stores rather than homes? As long as you're not a parking lot security guard you should be okay.

And when you get there to find them fully occupied or empty of goodies by the other millions of you?

And when the resources of the local and regional Red Cross, churches, etcetera, are gone, I ask again are you assuming the government can and will adequately respond?

We can continue this infinite regression [you post a what if and I counterpost a what if not], but I guess it comes down to this: do you prepare for the potential for evacuees and refugees overwhelming local resources as if it was in itself a disaster or emergency, or do you think your preparations for other disasters and emergencies covers the situation.

I propose that you think through the first possibility. If you have done so and decide that scenario is too unlikely or that you are already prepared for it with no changes, fine.

Dweste, you haven't defined the scenario well enough to venture a reasoned assumption on the government's capacity to respond or in what time-frame it could adequately respond.

What is "it?"

Two million evacuees? Five million? Ten million?

The entire New York metropolitan area?

Washington, D.C.? Denver? Los Angeles?

In winter? Summer? Spring? Fall?

Was the place they evacuate from obliterated so they can't go home again for a decade, or ever?

Did they have a heads-up, such as in a hurricane, so that they could pack their cars with supplies? No warning, ala earthquake or nuke? Dirty nuke and bio-terror that could compel a populace to flee and have the opportunity to do so?

Where, what, when and how many matters, a lot.

I don't believe that Americans (or any other civilized people) fleeing a metropolitan area for any reason will be left to fend for themselves -- abandoned by every level of government, in every state, by every other entity in America (for-profit companies as well as non-profits have helped with other disasters) and the American people.

And I don't expect those people to become a massive mob of marauding savages. If our televisions still function, we're going to be seeing video of people just like us: children, seniors, disabled, women, men. Odds are that some of them will be old friends, colleagues or family.

So, no, I won't flee. I will sit tight and help as I can.

And if our government doesn't help our own people in that situation, there will be heck to pay at the next election.

The scenario is to imagine that there is a point at which the mere presence of evacuees / refugees become themselves an emergency / disaster to which you must respond. If you do not think it could ever happen and have thought it through, scenario has served its purpose and is over.

"Reminds me I need to put her comb and shampoo in my bugout bag. May need her to charm the locals out of some biscuits and gruel."

Although her smile may get her what she wants, a few tricks might be of value. Not to mention valuable 'retrieving skills'. Her biggest problem may be that tendency to glow in the dark.

Sue

Dweste -- the tabletop exercise is worthwhile.

Get specific -- event, place, time of year. Pick a more precise number of refugees.

Then we can speculate on where they'd head, how they'd travel, how they may be equipped and how the public and private sectors may respond.

I think this country is capable of effectively responding to horrendous local and regional circumstances that impact millions of our countrymen.

Ha. Yeah, bad camo unless there's snow.

She'd be good at retrieving cats, if they were de-clawed.

What do you mean "must respond?"

Shoot them or run? Are we to assume they'll be kicking the door down to get to our refrigerators?

I am not making my point very well, or maybe I am mistaken in thinking I have a point. Let me try again.

The proposition is that eventually evacuees or refugess can become themselves a disaster or emergency in the areas to which they flee. If you find the proposition nonsensical, then we can agree to disagree. If you can see the proposition might come true, then let us discuss its ramifications on preparedness.

To be as specific as I think is necessary:

The event is whatever would send a wave of millions of refugees / evacuees into your neighborhood.

The place is your neighborhood.

The time of year does not matter for the basic question, but can be posed for each time of year for purpose of discussion. I suppose the dead of winter would pose the greatest challenge.

The precise number of refugees / evacuees is whatever number would exhaust the resources of any organized response in your neighborhood.

Well, I am in an unusual neighborhood.

I've been on Constitution Avenue during a reported 600,000 strong march. Could feel the heat of the crowd two blocks away from the first of the marchers. Takes hours for a crowd that big to move.

Millions of people in a neighborhood of single family homes.

They're going to trample the flowerbeds.

Now imagine them cold, angry, frustrated, hungry, thirsty, in pain, scared for their loved ones, ....

I think that the biggest problem with People fleeing an ara isn't those that have the means or the resorces to eveacuate. Those of us on this list have plans in place, have solutions and thus I would say those on this forum I would be comefortable having in my house.

Fleeing people proved to be an issue during Katrina. There were un-substantuated reports that those that were offered houseing were steeling from those that shelterd them. Now I need to re-state that this was un-substantuated, but I would say that letting strangers in your house would be opening yourself up for true issues.


If things were to deteriorate to the point that people were murading through your neck of the woods, I would like to think that you would know about it and see it comeing. To be blunt, if things got to that point, you should know about it and have taken precautions.

Maybe as people slip through your neck of the woods escaping what ever disaster would increas petty crimes, but I don't see or would not predict huge crime waves. The best defense would be to park the car in the Garage, lock all the doors and windows and take necesary precautions, but I would not bug out.

Bugging out would be like running with the lemmings. Rather than solving the problem, your adding to it.

There are times that bailing before the hord arives is a wise choice, but we are going back to very apocoliptic scenarios.

Defense against a few, doable; defense against thousands or more, unlikely. Is it such a stretch to consider that honest but desperate people in vast numbers will do what seems necessary to survive and that at some point you would be just another resource however much they might regret doing what they feel thay must do?

"Bugging out would be like running with the lemmings. Rather than solving the problem, your adding to it."

If running is the best strategy, perhaps you want to be the front lemming - going furthest and fastest, hopefully beyond the ability of those following so you and yours wind up in a more survivable situation. Preparation to flee and a good early decision process would seem worthy goals, hence this thread.

"If running is the best strategy, perhaps you want to be the front lemming - going furthest and fastest, hopefully beyond the ability of those following so you and yours wind up in a more survivable situation. Preparation to flee and a good early decision process would seem worthy goals, hence this thread."



I am all for being the first leming out into the open.. being the first, farthest, and fastest lemming is the smarter route.

Hell I know I always calculate the fastest and most obscure route out of where I live to ensure that I am the fastest lemming.

While tabletop scenarios can be fun to discuss, useful in preplanning and help provoke thought, without realistic specifics or parameters they can become nothing more than fantasy.

I think most of us like the mental stimulation of “what if”, but this scenario seems to more along the lines of sweeping hordes of unstoppable zombies invade your community, now what do you do?

I think that unless there is logistical reason such geographic or conditional causes of single point evacuation, most residents will disperse in multiple directions. Short of a major weather event (hurricane, flooding) affecting a region, most real world evacuations are local events. Even in a regional event such as a snow or ice storm, evacuation is a local or a series of isolated events with most residents hunkering down or relocating to family and/or friends outside the affected area(s).

I think rather than speculating upon what seems to be a never-ending scenario, we look to real world examples of local and regional evacuations (there have been many in the last 5-10 years) and analyze what worked, what didn’t and how we may incorporated those experiences into our disaster planning.

Just my 2 cents-
Pete

Nah, the moat will keep most of the out, and the laser cannon will take care of anyone who makes it past that.

Around here, that's known as "Spring Break".

Unless a large enforcement presence is established, I would expect anarchy in pretty short order, as the have-nots will quickly become the majority.

Either you'll get martial law in some form, with detention camps and/or relocation routing, or you'll get riots and looting, or you get shades of the two mixed depending on the depth of the response by authorities.

As a resident, my first priority is to make myself the least desirable target of opportunity in my vicinity. Heads on poles always seems to be a good deterrent.

I think large and medium scale shelters to aid refugees are a far more likely scenario than "detention camps" to contain them. The first few days are likely to be chaotic, and crime rates may tick up, but large scale violence and rioting are unlikely.

In my extensive experience with displaced persons, I've found them to be very cooperative and reasonably orderly, on the whole, and I've seen the ability law enforcement has to exercise it's surge capacity in disasters (court officers, probation officers, fish & game officers, reserve deputies, DMV officers, campus police, marine patrol, state troopers, National Guard, Federal Protective Service, FBI, Border Patrol, airport police, etc.)

+1

People carry their problems with them - displaced persons who are alcoholics still need to drink, dopers need their drugs, gangs will be gangs, and pushers will be coming along to sell them their dope. Aside from that, people are people, and most of them are pretty good, and willing to lend a hand doing whatever it is you need doing.

Realistically speaking, what are most refugees in the USA going to do? I'd say ... keep on driving. You can get a long way in a car - provided you've got snacks, water and a full tank of gas. If connecting roads are open, then even a huge herd of refugees can dissipate over a wide area.

So if you want to avoid having a major hassle with these people, all you really need to do ... is to give them access to convenience stores and a gas station. Keep the major streets open - sooner or later they will pass on through.

The only problem is for bedroom communities that are located within walking distance of major cities. If the entire city has a disaster, and for some reason people cannot drive out, then you're going to wind up with a flood of people who walk a few miles. But the good news ... many Americans are obese and they probably won't walk huge distances.

I'd like to hope that human nature is generally good and that most people will assist refugees ... by offering some water or snacks. Try to keep in mind - if a huge number of Americans are really forced to flee - then these people have probably already been through hell.

And I suspect that the folks living in Idaho are pretty safe. Nobody's going to flee that far.

cheers,
other Pete

We will indeed be safe surrounded by superheroes who can intimidate unlimited adversaries 24-7 for an unlimited period of time.

And so long as all future emergencies conform to those of the past, we can prepare by looking only backward in time. You know, getting ready for the "last war" about which we can develop near perfect information and specifics.

The potential reason for developing bug-out strategies would seem to be acknowledging your bug-in location might become untenable. If you do not think this can ever be a possibility, then I congratulate you on having an amazing bug-in location and this scenario is indeed irrelevant for you.

Every few blocks around here is a Golden Arches -- that'll keep 'em moving at least until Warrenton. Slim pickins after that, so to speak.

Dweste,

If bugging in becomes untenable, we'll bug out.

If we see on the news that the Floridians, South and North Carolinians are marching up I-95, or the Bostonians, New Yorkers and Philadelphians are coming down I-95, we may be inclined to leave the human locusts in our rearview mirror.

We'll load up on cash, gas, food, some water and as many valuables as possible because our home will surely be looted after they've stripped the shelves bare at Harris-Teeter, Whole Foods, Costco and eaten all the home fries at the local diner.

We're going to get the teardrop trailer out of storage near the mountains and head west.

Need to look at the insurance policy to see if damage due to refugee hordes is excluded from coverage. That would influence our decision.

DC is presently under an "epic" storm watch. So the local hordes are stripping the store shelves bare as I type this.

Don't get between Weather Channel watchers and the Charmin.

n.b a comment on my bug-in location, aka my home: yes, it is my castle, yes it is where I hang my hat, yes it is where I keep emergency supplies - but like my flashlights, its only stuff, if necessary I can abandon it. If necessity demands that 100 people camp out in my living and dining room to escape the wet and cold, VX gas, invading al Qaeda paratroopers, or a teeming alien presence, or 250 people camp in my front or back yards, or my wife and I operate a soup kitchen for the masses from the only working stove in our zip code, I'm fine with that. These inconveniences would be as temporary as they are unlikely.

Yeah, bug-in under duress can only be sustained for just so long before an attrition of supplies, wits, and resolve take hold. Zen would be to realize when staying put is no longer as desirable as packing up and heading out.

My whole premise is to try and ward off the first major wave of immigrants/invaders, and hope that subsequent waves are greatly attenuated. However, if the bubble went up and there was a prolonged lack of authoritative response, then I suspect some form of anarchy would be inevitable.

Basically, it is just to try and hold on until the cavalry comes. There's really no such thing as a perfect defense; only a suitable deterrent.

I believe 2 feet of snow is predicted for the Washington Area. A great opportunity to practice building a quinzhee and test your sleeping bag/bivi bag out perhaps. Are there any hills nearby for a good toboggan run.



Give it a few weeks and the right conditions then even building an igloo might be a possibility depending of course if you get the right type of snow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKQ-WyPJq2o

We're going to snowshoe on the Mall. Take lots of pics.

Sounds like a great plan while sitting inside warm and cozy.

:-)

"Need to look at the insurance policy to see if damage due to refugee hordes is excluded from coverage. That would influence our decision."

Insurance companies would probably lump it under 'Act of God', which isn't covered. As I was reminded by a friend in the business: Insurance companies are in the premium-collecting business, NOT the claim-paying business.

Sue

"The potential reason for developing bug-out strategies would seem to be acknowledging your bug-in location might become untenable."

It is an interesting Catch-22: if the hordes of refugees make your bug-in unlivable, you become a refugee. What is better than a million refugees, two million? As they all move outward, they make everyone else's location untenable, so there is a massive, growing wave of refugees swarming over the countryside like lemmings to the sea? I fail to see this as an improvement.

Like having an underground shelter during a tornado, the best thing to do might be to just make yourself as invisible as possible and wait until it passes.

Sue

Here in Britain it's a bit different. We're a small island. If global warming happens and the sea levels rise, we'll likely lose all our coastal towns and cities, which is a lot of them. London flooded etc. Everyone will move inland. Nowhere is more than 70 miles from the coast - we're that small. So everyone not on the coast is going to have to deal with refugees.

We're all going to have to help - it won't be viable to treat it as "someone else's problem". Probably it'll happen over decades rather than overnight, though.

(I know a lot of Americans are sceptical about global warming, and I'm not meaning to start that debate; just treat it as another "what if" scenario that some of us think isn't totally outlandish.)

I don't want to start a global warming debate either, to me its mostly just another scenario we're either prepared for or not - but I agree, the US is a bit behind in preparing for climate change. I recently ran across this article which at least indicates that emergency management folks are starting to consider the ramifications of climate change - http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/rise-sea-levels-threatens-california-ports-infrastructure?page=0,0. (If the URL doesn't resolve for you just connect to the homelandsecurity.com website and search for the Dec 15 article "Rise in sea levels threatens California ports, infrastructure.")

What would you re-evaluate if near you there was something like Haiti's tragic fact pattern?

My arms supply.

My region's food supply. The prospect of 3 million Oregonians or Californians suddenly on Washington's doorstep will need to be fed. Sysco, Food Services of America and the other food suppliers will need to step up shipments into the area, pronto, and develop their contingency plan should our supply lines (I-5, I-90, US2, and a few rail lines) be cut off. I would also expect local and national authorities to step up and begin shelter operations, and FEMA (there's that word again) to begin resettlement of the displaced. And why not, a sudden influx of people is a disaster that needs treating no matter where or what origin. I doubt that any refugees will seek to camp out in my backyard. I might open my house to some friends from down south if they are among the refugees - life with another couple and their kids isn't optimal, but shelter for them is better than the alternatives.