Discussion: Defense Strategy

[IYAAYASwarrior]

Getting people to work together for a common goal can be just as hard as getting a plan together. Having a clear chain of command is one of the most important and difficult thing to do. Once that is agreed on the plan will seam easy. Focus on getting a leader. Sometimes when looking at a group like this you might have to "elect" a good person instead of the best person. Remember that.

I agree that in the end it would be best for all to have clear leadership. With that being said, what would you look for in a leader in the case of a SHTF scenario? Do you go the route of having someone with military/law enforcement be a leader or go for someone like a mayor or town director? For those of you that have read One Second After you will notice there was a "council" that made decisions and from that council the colonel emerged as the face of leadership. I reference this because he was not aggressive in the pursuit of leadership, it just kind of happened. Would it be best to elect someone as you stated and maybe let true leadership shine through and re-attack the issue at a later date to save precious time? For those of you with any Professional Military Education or have been to an NCO academy you know that one of the basic traits of a great leader is the ability to follow....just a thought....

[simple1]

Well...****. Time to buy some SLAP rounds and a fifty.

I'm planing to give jarhead a call. I've got 2k acres and few like minded folks, I figure we can be friends
S/F
S1

[docsherm]

I agree that in the end it would be best for all to have clear leadership. With that being said, what would you look for in a leader in the case of a SHTF scenario? Do you go the route of having someone with military/law enforcement be a leader or go for someone like a mayor or town director? For those of you that have read One Second After you will notice there was a "council" that made decisions and from that council the colonel emerged as the face of leadership. I reference this because he was not aggressive in the pursuit of leadership, it just kind of happened. Would it be best to elect someone as you stated and maybe let true leadership shine through and re-attack the issue at a later date to save precious time? For those of you with any Professional Military Education or have been to an NCO academy you know that one of the basic traits of a great leader is the ability to follow....just a thought....

Some good points. I feel that right off the bat there needs to be SOMEONE in charge. For a larger group of people, I think that it would be best if there was an "elected" person leading right away. As time goes on and things get very bad the true "cream" will rise to the top and changes will be made.


One thing that most people overlook in a SHTF situation is that people will want things to be normal……having an elected official in charge will be what they expect. They will also not want a LEO or MIL type in charge. They will transition to their new world easier if there are some similarities to the “way things were”.


I would go one step further and say that in a large group (such as the housing development in the book Lights Out) it would be even better to have a break down in powers. What I mean by that is have your elected official in charge and then have a separate security (MIL) leader and health care (doctor) leader that answer to him, as an example. Then have several other sub-leaders so that those with the true knowledge can be in charge of what they know and do the best.

[alienb1212]

I'm planing to give jarhead a call. I've got 2k acres and few like minded folks, I figure we can be friends
S/F
S1

Got room for an old fat ex-army guy and his wife? :P I shoot gud.

[SMETNA]

Leadership:

Agreed with what others have said. There should be one executive, probably the owner of the house/property. His say is final. This person should be of sound mind and listen to reason. Because he will take advice from advisors in:

• Security
• Medical
• Farming
• Resource Management (primarily water, but also wood, soil, game)
• Food Prep/Nutrition
• Carpentry/Engineering/Mechanical
• Transportation
• Communications
• Worship (if that's a factor for you)
• Any other missing

These advisors are experts, or as close to experts as you can muster up, in these fields. They will give their informed opinions to the executive, who will consider it, and make a final decision. There can be no squabbling over policy during "yer on yer own" time. A chain of command is important.

That means its important that your groups' executive is a smart and reasonable person.

[PA PATRIOT]

I think having a plan is the way to go but the total collapse of peaceful society is so fluid and insane with conditions that would be changing so rapidly that unless your team is all recent combat experienced military veterans most normal people will likely not be up to the task of staying their ground during combat and following orders from a single person.

In todays world everyone wants a say in whats happening and whats best for them and I can see conflict in the group during hard times. Now the first response of dealing with the issue maybe to eject the individual/individuals and their family's but all that may lead to is a gun fight within your own perimeter.

I think your first plan has to be to evacuate immediately from the hot zone with enough gear to support your family for at least 30 days in the field. Now I know most here may have no were else to go and a stand and defend what you have is the only option but this is were those who are going to survive and who is going to perish begins.

Now of course this all depends on the event type, size and your location to the event but society (Even your group members) is a power keg with a short fuse and the only person you can really trust is "YOU" to do whats best for yourself and family. So with this in mind those who can put the most distance as possible from the event/events maybe the safest plan then trying to fight it out in a shit storm with unsure alliances.

[pete57]

The loudest, most domineering personalities in your group will no doubt seek the role of leader. Most of the time those personalities are the least equipped to be leaders and unfortunately people who are naturally followers cling to and trust this type of personality for its inherent arrogance which is falsely perceived as strength. The followers will likely "elect" this type of personality. This is bad.

Dogmatism, narcissism, and arrogance are common traits of politicians who "govern", and those traits among other things has gotten us to where we are today. People who are attracted to power naturally hold more roles of leadership in our society....but the attraction to power is not a virtue in a leader, it is a fault, because those who love power usually do not mind using coercion to achieve power...their followers follow a title, not a man. Good leaders are followed by choice, not because of the authority a title carries.

Military or leo experience, while highly valuable, is a non-factor for leadership. I have met more than a few leo's who are enslaved by their need for power....that addiction to power negatively influences decision making...it becomes a factor in every decision.

If you want to be in charge of your own life and your own destiny as I assume is the case with most of us here, then you must abide by this one rule: If you want to lead your own life then follow no one. People may follow, they may not. But if people look to you and follow your direction it is of their own free will they do this. There will be no need for in-fighting or elections. No man needs coerce another. If you lead your own life well, others will follow naturally.

You never have to worry about the wrong person being in charge of your group because your group is made up of people who of their own free will chose to follow you. The concern about conflicts arising in respect to establishing authority suggests that more than one person will desire the role of leadership...this implies at least one person and likely many will "follow" against their will. The point is, if you want to be in charge then never try to coerce others to follow...simply lead your own life, if others follow they do so by choice, if no one follows you are still a free agent.

[rkba01]

Wanadi: "If I tell a man to do what he does not want to do, I am no longer chief." -- The Emerald Forest (1985)

[QuietShootr]

I think discussion of specific TTPs would be unwise for numerous reasons. But as mentioned above, use CARVER to determine how many cents of your figurative defensive dollar to spend, and don't forget to Red Team your setup - if you can't do it objectively, have a trusted friend who knows what they're doing do it.

[QuietShootr]

Rule #3: don't waste resources protecting everything in sight. Just because you have 100 acres doesn't mean it's realistic to attempt to secure 100 acres with limited resources. Secure 4 acres instead:

Decide what is your most valuable asset (water, shelter, food, fuel, power, weapons, vehicles, a road, a hill, a pond, a well, etc)

Then create an inner perimeter around that asset(s). This should have a clear 50m circle around it, free of anything adversaries could use as cover. 24/7 sentries.

An outer perimeter can cover other less critical assets. Random sentry patrols through here should suffice. Unless you have no comms. If you dont have comms, then stay within yelling distance to your friendlies.

ADS and surveillance systems are useful too. What I wouldn't give for some current REMBASS sensors and an obsolete GSR - I had mad skills with the GSR.