Thursday, March 22, 2012

Sorry Preppers, you lose!

When I was a kid the threat of nuclear war was very real to a lot of people. As I grew up that threat seemed to become less and less every year. While I was in the Army I found out that the military was not concerned much about nuclear war. The possibility of a devastating chemical or biological attack was very real though. These days people worry about economic chaos, natural disasters, anything that can disrupt their peace.

Essentially wars are about peace. The only reason for a war is to create peace. If people are oppressed they may eventually rise up and fight a revolution. If people don't have enough resources for their people they may fight with their neighbors. If someone's neighbors are harassing them they will eventually defend themselves. All wars are fought to achieve peace. What people require to live in peace is very different from one person, group or community to another.

Some people think peace is all about collecting and protecting their possessions. Others think peace is all about protecting their family. Others think peace is all about eliminating anyone who is a threat. Many people want to defend their idea of peace.

So here we are, worried about protecting our peace. Many people associate peace with stability and a particular place. We become so attached to a place that we will die defending it.

Patton tells us that fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of mankind.

Animals tend to be territorial, even migrating animals stay in the same places. The most successful conquerors, the Mongols under Genghis Khan, were nomads who moved constantly.

Farmers growing crops need to stay put. Herders with cattle, sheep or goats can constantly move. A fixed fortification will always fall eventually when under siege. The best defense people who are always moving have is that no one knows where they are.

Abraham, of Biblical renown, was a nomad.

When Katrina hit people had to move and they didn't. Their lack of mobility caused huge problems for them.

When I was a kid people who prepared for disaster were called Survivalists. My Grandfather was always prepared. He had food, blankets, etc in his car all the time but no one called him a survivalist. He was just prepared. These days they call people who prepare for disaster Preppers.

I'm going to make this as clear as possible for everyone out there. People who build huge bunkers and believe they can defend themselves from a siege using guns are idiots and will die.

People believe they can defend themselves by sitting tight. Not likely.

After the sacking of Rome by nomadic barbarians the public services were non-existent so the vast majority of people left the city and integrated themselves into other locations.

Essentially they just kept moving until they found somewhere they could settle down.

During Katrina some of the communities surrounding New Orleans refused to let refugees in. The same thing will happen if a nation or world wide disaster occurs. When idiots write about these disasters the plucky defenders fight off the raiding nomads and live happily ever after.

That is so not happening. What will happen is the same thing that always happens. The defenders will eventually lose.

There are isolated incidents where one non-nomadic group attacks another non-nomadic group and the defenders win.

With nomads that does not happen because the nomads have no where else to go. They have nothing better to do than keep attacking until they win or die.

About 70% of people in the United States are in urbanized areas. These people will become nomads the same way the people of Rome became nomads. The losers in rural areas will try to defend their agricultural lands and keep the former urbanites out. Having nothing better to do than win or die the urbanite nomads will harass and defeat the rural areas.

Why? It takes 1.25 acres to feed a single person for a year. That acre is 208 feet square with a perimeter of 832 feet. If I put one person every ten feet I to defend that acre I need 83 people to defend a single acre that can't feed a single person.

Lets take a square mile of agricultural land. 640 acres can feed 512 people. That is 128 people per side of the square. That is one person every 40 feet. No command or support structure. In the military the estimate is 4 support people for every 1 combat troop so now we have 102 people to defend 21,102 feet of perimeter. Lets assume we can get by with 4 combat troops for every 1 support troops. That means we have 410 troops to defend 21,102 feet of perimeter. One troop every 50 feet. How long would it take to break through somewhere on that line? Now lets add support land. Say 100 more acres for homes and barns. If there are animals those can take a lot more acreage to feed and all of that area has to be defended. Forget about it.

These writers plan the land, assume attacks are more likely from specific places and that ain't happening. The writers assume the defenders will have better strategists and tacticians.

Lets also assume that the numbers remain equal, 3 rural folks for 7 urbanite nomads. The odds are 2:1 in the nomads favor. Not bad you say? Yeah, well the rural people have to defend their entire perimeter and the nomad just have to attack at one location, wait for the perimeter to be pulled to help defend that location and then attack on another flank. Super simple strategy.

I know country boys can survive. I have lived in rural areas and I have lived in the city. I used to walk to work through a project so notorious that after being torn down years ago people in Detroit still talk about how bad Herman's Gardens was.

I know there are pockets of brutal people in rural areas just as there are in urban areas. In my opinion, as a general rule, urbanites are more comfortable with brutality than rural people. Sure, both are fighting for their lives and the lives of their families. When motivations are equal the person more comfortable with the brutality of shooting a little girl in the face wins.

In the end the small enclaves of rural peoples will be eventually over run and destroyed, one by one. There won't be a single big battle. There will be a series of small battles which cause the urbanite survivors to group together and defeat the rural people. The result will be an union and acclimating to each other since the invading urbanites are only nomads because they were forced to be.

The Mongols conquered Europe for these specific reasons. The Europeans had castles, but, those walls did not protect the agricultural areas they required. By controlling the agricultural land the Mongols controlled the Europeans. Sea-nomadic Vikings did the same thing to the agricultural people in Britain. The Mongols and Vikings typically won because they were more comfortable with brutality and knew where their enemies were.

For the most part the United States cavalry, a nomadic style unit, defeated the nomadic Native Americans because their weapons and logistical support was much better.

Sorry preppers, your weapons and logistical support will be about equal after a disaster.

In the end people will either find a way to work with each other OR they will decide to fight to the death.

Where do people who are “defending” their “land” expect the urbanite refugees to go? In reality unless rural areas take control and offer a solution the nomadic urbanites will have absolutely nothing better to do than band together and lay siege.

I know all you preppers believe your defenses are so great, you abilities to shoot so wonderful that you can each defeat 100 enemies for every prepper who dies. So what if it takes 1000 urbanite nomads to kill everyone in your little group of 10. You still lose.

No comments: