Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Doomsday planning for less crazy folk

lcamtuf.coredump.cx

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 340 posts

Re: Doomsday planning for less crazy folk

#301

Post by saalweachter »

fallingfrog wrote: post #278

I think placing thermonuclear war in the "Zombie Apocalypse" category is probably wrong; it should go into category #2. JFK estimated after the cuban missile crisis that the chances that could have developed into a full-blown nuclear exchange were about 1 in 3. Not terribly long odds. Given the current political situation the probability is much lower- but political situations change, and the weapons are still here.…

It's fair to note it as the most probable of the "Zombie Apocalypse" category, but "impossible" isn't the common theme of that category, it's "civilization ending".

Under all of the scenarios in Problem Space #3, the world is irrevocably changed and there is not necessarily any reason to think it will go back to the way thing are now in the survivors' lifetimes. In the other two problem spaces, you are looking at perhaps-widespread but finite disruptions. Maybe an entire country or region of a large country is hosed for years or decades, but you can either expect things to go back to normal eventually, or you can migrate to somewhere where things are normal. With either a zombie apocalypse or a nuclear one, you don't have that expectation, and whatever you do to prepare for that situation will be largely the same.

Re: Doomsday planning for less crazy folk

#302

Post by nl »

def_true_false wrote: post #298
nl wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's about 1/10th of the region that was in a war zone in the last 70 years (Yugoslavia, Eastern Ukraine), and those wars didn't really concern neighboring countries. That 70 years (which is debatable!) maybe the longest period of peace in the area in recorded history. Possibly the peace of 1871 to 1914 is the only other alternative. Here's a list of conflicts in Europe since 1945[1]. Even before the fall of the S…

The invasion of Czechoslovakia was relatively bloodless - compare with 1956 in Hungary.

Yes, good point. I can't believe I forgot that!

Re: Doomsday planning for less crazy folk

#303

Post by bluGill »

One that that needs to be emphasized is you only perfect preparation for about 2 weeks of the worst case, after that you need must less.

Lose your job for 6 months, cut your budget and use your emergency savings, but most of your supplies are not used (tap water is still safe to drink).

Complete collapse of civilization? 2 weeks to enough to understand how bad it is - when the power isn't coming back that implies such a reduced population that you don't worry about looting: in fact you should be with the few remaining people looting what there is. Break into WalMart for clothing. If you live in an area where you cannot support yourself farming break into a dealer's safe, get the keys to a new truck, and break into gas stations tanks along the way to fill it up until you get someplace you can survive long term. (the truck will be abandoned once you are there: fuel goes bad quickly).

On those lines, you don't need to move to a rural area and practice survival skills now. All those massive corporate farms: at best they have enough fuel to get in half the harvest so they need your manual labor now. Get out of the city and you will find rural areas with plenty of food in desperate need of labor. Almost nobody knows how to harvest corn by hand. Few people know how to use a horse. they need your help to figure it out. Make yourself more valuable by bringing seeds for vegetables that are not in the fields.

Re: Doomsday planning for less crazy folk

#304

Post by nl »

oblio wrote: post #265
nl wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's about 1/10th of the region that was in a war zone in the last 70 years (Yugoslavia, Eastern Ukraine), and those wars didn't really concern neighboring countries. That 70 years (which is debatable!) maybe the longest period of peace in the area in recorded history. Possibly the peace of 1871 to 1914 is the only other alternative. Here's a list of conflicts in Europe since 1945[1]. Even before the fall of the S…

After '90, if you discount all the Russia-provoked conflicts, there's basically only ex-Yugoslavia as far as conflicts are concerned. Every other event on that list would basically count as a normal day in Baltimore :) You can never predict the future but I'm willing to bet that the following countries will be peaceful for at least the next 20 years: - Czech Republic - Slovakia - Poland - Hungary - Slovenia - Croatia…

if you discount all the Russia-provoked conflicts

Hmm. I'm not sure that is a great way of looking at it while Russia is still there.

Poland

I'm not sure about that. The Kaliningrad Oblast is a real problem - historically oblasts haven't been very stable politically.

Generally speaking though, I think most of those countries are NATO members (not sure about Albania?). That means that if any NATO member country is attacked they will all be dragged in.

If the US got dragged into a war on the Korean peninsular then I'm not sure Putin could resist the temptation of Estonia or Latvia. And I'm not sure what would happen then.

Or who knows what will happen in (NATO Member) Turkey. Three years ago they nearly got in a shooting war with Russia. Now they are good friends.. at the moment.

I've spent some great times in Central Europe, and I'm cautiously optimistic about the area. But that doesn't mean there aren't real, significant risks.

Re: Doomsday planning for less crazy folk

#306

Post by bluGill »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #175
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There certainly is a middle ground - however why stay in the same place and expect a different future? New Orleans isn't that much more prepared for another flood. Houston re-did the entire bayou system about 5 years ago and yet here we are. People's aversion to moving, especially after a major disaster, boggles my mind.

Makes sense not to move if you own a home. Property will be hardest to sell right after disaster. Let alone moving means you need to convince your Family and their other family and their other family's family to move etc. Or go it alone but ties like that are strong. Is everyone on HN moving to their optimal place regardless of friends or family considerations?

Your current house is a sunk cost. I have sold a house at a loss and moved to a different city. I didn't like it, but moving was the right thing so I did.

Re: Doomsday planning for less crazy folk

#307

Post by bluGill »

JshWright wrote: post #264
cbr wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A "hundred year storm" doesn't mean we expect one per hundred years globally, but one per hundred years locally.

Even that is a little misleading (given how bad our intuition about statistics is). A '100 year flood' is flood that has a 1% chance of occurring in any given year (it's independent of what happened 1, 5, or 50 years ago). Calling it a '100 year flood' makes people think 'oh, good, now we shouldn't have one of those for another ~100 years'. In reality, the odds of a flood of the same magnitude occurring next year are…

The other thing to remember is a 5 year flood and a 100 year flood are often not very different in size.

Re: Doomsday planning for less crazy folk

#308

Post by bluGill »

im3w1l wrote: post #199
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, I re-read the beginning and I didn't see anything about the points I raised. I think your point that overzealous people who as you put it: begin by shopping for ballistic vests and night vision goggles; they would be better served by grabbing a fire extinguisher, some bottled water, and then putting the rest of their money in a rainy-day fund. is right on point, but IMO that just says - hey don't be insane.…

> No number of bottles of water in their basement Some bottles of water on the rooftop could allow them to stay a little more comfortable until help arrives.

water on the roof will not last as long though.

Re: Doomsday planning for less crazy folk

#309

Post by bluGill »

naravara wrote: post #205
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #56

The major thing overlooked here is mindset. After 14 years in the military and experience with several armed conflicts and humanitarian disasters, I have seen that pretty much all your plans and preparation will go out the window, so you need to learn to move adapt and improvise. If you're going to survive any contingency scenario you need to be resilient, excruciatingly innovative and mentally tough. Think more like…

I can't imagine that a large metro area after a natural disaster like a flood will have much there to scavenge? It would be hard enough to find things that aren't soaked in toxic sludge-water, but the number of other people also trying to scavenge are bound to outstrip whatever meager resources are available.

A large metro after the flood will have emergency help coming from all over. You just have to live a couple weeks. As all the scavengers outstrip the local supplies aid will come in.

Re: Doomsday planning for less crazy folk

#310

Post by bluGill »

rodgerd wrote: post #145
stutterSpeaker wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely being economically prepared as well would be useful. Having the gear both for bug out scenarios and bug in scenarios. I know it's fun to rag on preppers, but in what way is keeping a year of food stocked and rotated through a bad idea? How is having solar panels a bad idea?

Food for a week? Good sense, although plenty of people in supposedly rich first-world nations struggle to have enough food for now , never mind a week spare. Food for a month? Maybe if you live in a region that could easily be cut off in the event of disasters. Food for a year? Listen, if things turn so badly to shit you need a year of food, food is going to be the least of your worries.

Practically everybody has food for a year. Few have food for a week and less for a month. When you need food for a year you can safely assume that nobody will ever care if you break into all your neighbor's houses. Their canned soup is part of your food for a year. When you need food for a week all your neighbors are looking at the pantry at the same time and trying to figure out if they can last two weeks.

Food for a month doesn't really exist as a need. Either emergency supplies from around the world arrive in less than two weeks, and you are safe, or they don't and you need food for a year.

Post reply on HN