Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Haighus wrote:
does ever manage to detonate a nuke in the city you are in, maybe these fun hypotheticals could save someone's life. Who knows?

Let it be London... If it doesn't happen in London, it doesn't happen. According to the media and Londoners anyway, so let them have it

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
The amount of paranoia in this thread is terrifying.

This is Brexit, not world war three.

Everything.
Is.
Going.
To.
Be.
Fine.

I'm reminded of the Humanity vs. Humans monologue from Men In Black.


Seriously, Britain did fine before the EU, they'll do fine after. If anything it may be better in the long run as they don't get to chip in for Greece's bills.

This is Brexit, not world war three.

Everything.
Is.
Going.
To.
Be.
Fine.

We don't know. While it would be reasonable for things to end rationally that is not how politician's think. I cant give a direct reason for this due to current forum rules so let me give you an analogy instead.

In World War One generals had two options, simply put, continue to send men over the trenches into machine gun fire to horrific loss of life, or admit to themselves that they had lost control of the situation and didn't know what they were doing.
Human pride and ego triumphed and men were still sent 'over the top'. Hence the phrase.

I think the mentality is similar to what it was a century ago.

We might have a No Deal Brexit, and it might be a disaster. Note that I am not saying we will, and not saying it will be a disaster if it happens. But I cannot say it won't. Hence I prep.

I think those who are saying everything will be fine, are fixed on a false certainty because of the stigma of prepping.

Please do not mistake Brexit prepping for alien invasion/zombies/sudden fascist guv'ment.

Everyone, I think we should steer away from the politics of Brexit and if it will be a disaster- much as I would love to engage in it, that is banned territory. Lets stick with how to deal with any potential FUBARs, not how likely they are. I don't want the thread locked.

 Orlanth wrote:

In World War One generals had two options, simply put, continue to send men over the trenches into machine gun fire to horrific loss of life, or admit to themselves that they had lost control of the situation and didn't know what they were doing.
Human pride and ego triumphed and men were still sent 'over the top'. Hence the phrase.

I'm pretty we had a big thread about this on Dakka a year or so ago... but suffice to say much of this is just the modern mythos of WWI. The politics behind WWI and reasons for fighting were obviously dumb and a failure of diplomacy, but what the generals did was usually logical and far more complex than simply "send men over the top".

While I appreciate some people are engaging in an interesting nuclear fallout thought excerise, some posters have been actively advocating 'prepping' for Brexit.

If there is one thing that will cause issues when Brexit happens [if it happens] is everyone panic buying stuff. Or hoarding stuff.

Don't be the problem you want to solve.

If you want to prep for possible disruption in the UK in in early April, buy some extra stuff every time you go shopping.

You won't be panic buying, just stocking up a bit like you do when relatives come to stay.

In four or five weeks you will have enough spare food for a week or two, which is all you will need in even the worst case scenario.

 Orlanth wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
For added durability you could also pour concrete around it .

If you want your underground extension to be safe you will need to do this. A number of survivalists have bought shipping containers and buried them, then found that unless set in concerete they get crushed by the pressure of earth on their walls.

I would love to add a 8x16 extension under the house, for any purpose, space is at a premium here.

Ditto. I've been tempted to put a bunker type thing in the garden, low enough that I can still plant a lawn on top for the kids to run about, and big enough to use as a mancave and workshop.

I always found it pretty disappointing how UK houses don't come with basements, it just seems like a lot of wasted space.

 Haighus wrote:
Everyone, I think we should steer away from the politics of Brexit and if it will be a disaster- much as I would love to engage in it, that is banned territory. Lets stick with how to deal with any potential FUBARs, not how likely they are. I don't want the thread locked.

 Orlanth wrote:

In World War One generals had two options, simply put, continue to send men over the trenches into machine gun fire to horrific loss of life, or admit to themselves that they had lost control of the situation and didn't know what they were doing.
Human pride and ego triumphed and men were still sent 'over the top'. Hence the phrase.

I'm pretty we had a big thread about this on Dakka a year or so ago... but suffice to say much of this is just the modern mythos of WWI. The politics behind WWI and reasons for fighting were obviously dumb and a failure of diplomacy, but what the generals did was usually logical and far more complex than simply "send men over the top".

Two points here.
I think it is totally OK to mention that Brexit might be a disaster. We need not describe why, and so far nobody has tried to. If it is potentially true, it's a social issue not just a political one. It can effect you and me in our daily lives. What we are discussing is prepping. Now nuclear prepping is a nice theory for discussion. Brexit prepping is a current high risk scenario. Its not just a theory, I am hoping that someone will benefit from what I am saying, or at least think through the options themselves. All I will say here is that high risk doesn't mean certainty and no party political or factional blame is atrributed, that isn't the point of the topic, and would get the topic shut down, which would not help me warn anyone.

As for World War One generals, yes there were some good ones, and Haig routinely sacked or gave out of the way postings to those who were both forthright and competent enough to oppose him. This is what happened to Allenby. He was a rising star on the Western front and knew what he was doing, and criticised the strategy, so Haig got rid of him. In doing so he was shipped off to Egypt, just to get him into a 'useless' position. This made him his own boss, and gave him an small army, and thus he was able to show what he could do. It was perhaps accidentally the only 'smart' thing Haig actually did.

Sadly the short sightedness and the catastrophic consequences of such were no myth, and no exaggerated. May I suggest The Psychology of Military Incompetence by Norman Dixon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Psychology_of_Military_Incompetence

Dixon summises that it was easier for generals to continue to send men to their deaths than to move outside the comfort of their own thinking. I mention this because delusion can still proliferate when the stakes are very high, as what stakes could be higher than the lives of multitudes. You can apply this to our current situation as and how you choose.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
While I appreciate some people are engaging in an interesting nuclear fallout thought exercise, some posters have been actively advocating 'prepping' for Brexit.

If there is one thing that will cause issues when Brexit happens [if it happens] is everyone panic buying stuff. Or hoarding stuff.

Don't be the problem you want to solve.

The panic buyers will be those who do not prep. Preppers prep in the good times, panic buyers prep in the bad. My supermarket visits and stocking of tins does not cause a resource spike. Yes I buy a lot of tins but a responsible prepper need not buy every tin of tomato on the shelf, unless there are only a few left, which is just being another shopper. I don't say, today I am buying my full supply of a particular product. For two reasons. First I am not prepping for one weeks supply or two weeks supply so I can buy items in sequence. I am buying half a weeks supply of preserved foods, than another half a weeks supply, once i feel I have enough I still buy more but as an when I feel I can afford. My prepping now is very casual. There are exceptions to this, items needed for prepping supply but not for casual consumption, most of those will be batch bought later when i know I need to. My personal deadline for those items is one month to Brexit.
The second reason I don't suddenly buy lots of tins of tomatoes, is because it is irresponsible to cause a resource spike like that, it messes with stock control. Tins of tomatoes are a case in point, because my local supermarket has a long term offer of 25pt tomatoes, its a quality product not white label goods, and also an EU import. Tomatoes are a catch all as you can make soup from them, add them to various foods and also help feed any veggies I have as guests (though they have more than this). So I have disproportionately bought a lot of them. I buy a dozen tins per visit, which is a fair mount but not a spike.

As for hoarding. Preparation isn't a problem, lack of preparation is a problem. You are proving my point, those who do not prepare will want to take from those who have. The first problem is from those who prepared being seen in a negative rather than a positive light, as its helps self justify what might happen next. First opportunity is to label foresight hoarding, which I mentioned earlier. And we have one poster who is a regular prepper, to some degree or other and claims to have seen this, or at least experienced other in his community who have known same. I agree wholeheartedly, if you prep, others who do not prep will turn nasty when they get desperate.
Now even if there is a problem with Brexit it is highly unlikely to get that bad. But the principle of prepping remains, keep it to yourself that you are stocking up, as in don't let people know where the stash is, warning people that it might be a good idea to consider prepping is still responsible.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you want to prep for possible disruption in the UK in in early April, buy some extra stuff every time you go shopping.

You won't be panic buying, just stocking up a bit like you do when relatives come to stay.

In four or five weeks you will have enough spare food for a week or two, which is all you will need in even the worst case scenario.

That is in my opinion semi-wise. Two weeks is a lot better than none. If we get a poor resolution to Brexit the disruption will potentially last longer than that.
People who prep for bad weather, Universal Credit rollout etc can settle for a two week backstop. In fact that really is just stocking a larder not prepping. Most housewives in past generations would stock up that much.
I remember the 1970's, there was a lot of industrial action and thus a lot of stoppages. Having a supply of essentials was the norm, you were a bad housekeeper if you didn't have tins for a fortnight already there for when the unions decided to throw a strike and throw the whole country into chaos. People forget this. I was only a small child at the time and don't really remember much directly, other than the frequent electrical shortages in the late 70's, which we found a lot of fun. The current generation has never known want, other than by individual circumstances. I hope this continues to be so, but maybe just maybe, it won't.


Just remember an insightful prepper wants to be proven wrong.

The [threat] is coming for us, we will all face ruin, and then you will believe me!!
vs
There is a potential problem in the forseeable future, I suggest we stock up responsibly in the event of [threat] materialising.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
Everyone, I think we should steer away from the politics of Brexit and if it will be a disaster- much as I would love to engage in it, that is banned territory. Lets stick with how to deal with any potential FUBARs, not how likely they are. I don't want the thread locked.

 Orlanth wrote:

In World War One generals had two options, simply put, continue to send men over the trenches into machine gun fire to horrific loss of life, or admit to themselves that they had lost control of the situation and didn't know what they were doing.
Human pride and ego triumphed and men were still sent 'over the top'. Hence the phrase.

I'm pretty we had a big thread about this on Dakka a year or so ago... but suffice to say much of this is just the modern mythos of WWI. The politics behind WWI and reasons for fighting were obviously dumb and a failure of diplomacy, but what the generals did was usually logical and far more complex than simply "send men over the top".

Two points here.
I think it is totally OK to mention that Brexit might be a disaster. We need not describe why, and so far nobody has tried to. If it is potentially true, it's a social issue not just a political one. It can effect you and me in our daily lives. What we are discussing is prepping. Now nuclear prepping is a nice theory for discussion. Brexit prepping is a current high risk scenario. Its not just a theory, I am hoping that someone will benefit from what I am saying, or at least think through the options themselves. All I will say here is that high risk doesn't mean certainty and no party political or factional blame is atrributed, that isn't the point of the topic, and would get the topic shut down, which would not help me warn anyone.

As for World War One generals, yes there were some good ones, and Haig routinely sacked or gave out of the way postings to those who were both forthright and competent enough to oppose him. This is what happened to Allenby. He was a rising star on the Western front and knew what he was doing, and criticised the strategy, so Haig got rid of him. In doing so he was shipped off to Egypt, just to get him into a 'useless' position. This made him his own boss, and gave him an small army, and thus he was able to show what he could do. It was perhaps accidentally the only 'smart' thing Haig actually did.

Sadly the short sightedness and the catastrophic consequences of such were no myth, and no exaggerated. May I suggest The Psychology of Military Incompetence by Norman Dixon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Psychology_of_Military_Incompetence

Dixon summises that it was easier for generals to continue to send men to their deaths than to move outside the comfort of their own thinking. I mention this because delusion can still proliferate when the stakes are very high, as what stakes could be higher than the lives of multitudes. You can apply this to our current situation as and how you choose.

Well, we will have to start another thread to discuss WWI in more detail, but I do disagree that men were simply sent over the top when considerable innovation in military tactics occurred throughout WWI.

My concern about the thread was for some posters veering into discussing the benefits of Brexit itself (someone mentioned Greece for example), rather than prepping for potential bad outcomes (as you have been discussing). The latter is fine, the former could lead to a discussion that locks the thread. I don't want the thread to be locked.

Understood Haighus, I don't want it locked either. As you can see from the post you quoted. We are on the same page here.

My difficulty is that I cannot realistically talk about how long a target prepping window should be. If I said x months because of the Brexit consquences of so and so it wouldn't help thread longevity.
Thankfully my position is also well served by saying, prep for a reasonable time, then add to it if you can afford. If you over prep it matters not so long as you stock stores you will want to consume eventually anyway. Also means vary, if you have a comfortable income and can lay down enough supplies to last two or more months without your wallet noticing much, why not just do so?

Prepping is heavily cutting into a my hobby budget right now, as I am buying tins instead of Death Guard, and my income is limited. But if all is well from April I will only need to buy fresh products like bread and milk for the whole summer, and my hobby budget will be able to be increased. I might even be able to afford a Realm of Battle, or more Mechanicus terrain.

I will likely keep a months supply of tins from now on though, use and replace as necessary. Universal Credit and similar 'threats' are not going away. Thing is once the outlay is made, it's made. Prepping need not be a consuming obsession, and those who fuel that stigma shouldn't be the yardstick for everyone else who wants to be prepared.

 Orlanth wrote:
Understood Haighus, I don't want it locked either. As you can see from the post you quoted. We are on the same page here.

My difficulty is that I cannot realistically talk about how long a target prepping window should be. If I said x months because of the Brexit consquences of so and so it wouldn't help thread longevity.
Thankfully my position is also well served by saying, prep for a reasonable time, then add to it if you can afford. If you over prep it matters not so long as you stock stores you will want to consume eventually anyway. Also means vary, if you have a comfortable income and can lay down enough supplies to last two or more months without your wallet noticing much, why not just do so?

Prepping is heavily cutting into a my hobby budget right now, as I am buying tins instead of Death Guard, and my income is limited. But if all is well from April I will only need to buy fresh products like bread and milk for the whole summer, and my hobby budget will be able to be increased. I might even be able to afford a Realm of Battle, or more Mechanicus terrain.

I will likely keep a months supply of tins from now on though, use and replace as necessary. Universal Credit and similar 'threats' are not going away. Thing is once the outlay is made, it's made. Prepping need not be a consuming obsession, and those who fuel that stigma shouldn't be the yardstick for everyone else who wants to be prepared.

Absolutely- having a fortnight of long-lasting food available is eminently sensible. I would like to be able to do such a thing myself.

Unfortunately, I have the current misfortune of being semi-nomadic, and a large amount of food (especially heavy tins) is difficult for me to keep transporting around. The exit date falls right around one of my moving periods too, so it is awful timing for me. I'm not going to be able to settle till the summer at least.

Hey, at least you could make a lot of scenery out of the empty cans and packaging...?

Not Online!!! wrote:

The fallout of this however will not be worth the Schadenfreude.

Not in a hundred years.

I disagree. The only people feeling the pinch from this will be the people who voted for it, who deserve everything they get.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

The fallout of this however will not be worth the Schadenfreude.

Not in a hundred years.

I disagree. The only people feeling the pinch from this will be the people who voted for it, who deserve everything they get.

Sadly, that is not at all true. Brexit voting lines were not split by wealth or class, but by age and rural/urban. Older and rural voters/voters with less contact with immigrants were more likely to vote leave. Many of these were well off. They will be some of the least affected- rural folk have access to more food availability through local produce, and the lower access to shops means that rural folk already tend to stockpile resources more than urban folk- there is an element of basic prepping. The elderly are also more likely to stockpile- as pointed out, this was the norm for previous generations, and many of them won't live long enough to see many of the effects of any brexit outcome. The elderly also typically hold allotments in cities, so are the main urban group with some self-food production. However, the elderly might be affected most by any NHS impact, so there is that.

On the other hand, plenty of poor remain voters are going to be most affected by any Brexit outcome, and have very little ability to deal with it. Places like Sunderland.

From the perspective of the thread, urban poor are those most in need of basic prepping, but also one of the groups with the least means to do so. Most people living in a city can't just plant a veggie plot to supplement their diet for example.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

The fallout of this however will not be worth the Schadenfreude.

Not in a hundred years.

I disagree. The only people feeling the pinch from this will be the people who voted for it, who deserve everything they get.

No, the ones that actually are accountable, cough the politicians that so avidly insisted that it will be a good idea to leave, with as much lying as possible, will not suffer.

You can't expect a populus to vote directly on such a matter when they don't do it regularly and for this, there should've been a propper information campaign, neutral and expansive.

Atleast that is how we vote directly here.

Also if the uk leaves there will be more influence for france and germany within the EU, and neither of those show leading capability or the will to lead / the ressources to do so.

In essesence this will hurt all the wrong people.


Edit: this argument is to be understood as a philosophical argument of the stateform / methodolgy of finding and legitimating policy, not to be interpreted as political in it's nature.

 Haighus wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
The amount of paranoia in this thread is terrifying.

This is Brexit, not world war three.

Everything.
Is.
Going.
To.
Be.
Fine.

We are no longer discussing prudent preparations for a poor Brexit outcome, but just general planning for major disasters, in this case a large scale nuclear attack. In part because it is a fun thought exercise.

Probably none of us will ever need it. But if a terrorist or something does ever manage to detonate a nuke in the city you are in, maybe these fun hypotheticals could save someone's life. Who knows?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:


https://i.imgur.com/lNQNa5a_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium

Heh!

While improvised Nuclear bombs are possible, The detonation of a nuke by a terrorist is a very unlikely scenario, and would almost certainly be state sponsored. a Dirty Bomb or some sort of improvised chemical weapons is much more likely, and those scenarios are generally much easier to contain.

Herzlos wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
For added durability you could also pour concrete around it .

If you want your underground extension to be safe you will need to do this. A number of survivalists have bought shipping containers and buried them, then found that unless set in concerete they get crushed by the pressure of earth on their walls.

I would love to add a 8x16 extension under the house, for any purpose, space is at a premium here.

Ditto. I've been tempted to put a bunker type thing in the garden, low enough that I can still plant a lawn on top for the kids to run about, and big enough to use as a mancave and workshop.

I always found it pretty disappointing how UK houses don't come with basements, it just seems like a lot of wasted space.

If you do so, remember to form the roof like a A, or a half circle.
That said if you also want to use it propperly Isolation and a certain confyness should also be done.

Depending on the ammount of water you might need to also Plan a "Sickerleitung"
I don't know the word in english so here you go.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:


While improvised Nuclear bombs are possible, The detonation of a nuke by a terrorist is a very unlikely scenario, and would almost certainly be state sponsored. a Dirty Bomb or some sort of improvised chemical weapons is much more likely, and those scenarios are generally much easier to contain.

True, but then most of the major terrorist attacks in the West in the last two decades have been carried out by large, powerful organisations with some degree of state backing.

I am not going to rule it out, especially with the increased instability in the world at the moment. I think a terrorist nuke is more likely than full nuclear war, in part because of the plausible deniability afforded to states by acting through terrorists rather than directly. Still not likely, but more so.

 Haighus wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:


While improvised Nuclear bombs are possible, The detonation of a nuke by a terrorist is a very unlikely scenario, and would almost certainly be state sponsored. a Dirty Bomb or some sort of improvised chemical weapons is much more likely, and those scenarios are generally much easier to contain.

True, but then most of the major terrorist attacks in the West in the last two decades have been carried out by large, powerful organisations with some degree of state backing.

I am not going to rule it out, especially with the increased instability in the world at the moment. I think a terrorist nuke is more likely than full nuclear war, in part because of the plausible deniability afforded to states by acting through terrorists rather than directly. Still not likely, but more so.

yeah I'd agree, but I'd still put it fairly low on the likelihood list, not zombie apocalypse low, but almost. You'd be better off learning how to react to a conventional IED attack

The scale of those are incomparable except perhaps in the largest examples though (something like the Arndale bombing maybe). But yeah, I take your point!

Although aside from running, what else can you do in a conventional bombing? Run into less-obvious escape routes to avoid secondary bombs?

There are, of course, the first responder aspects, if you are willing to risk getting stuck in. If you are trained in such things, then absolutely that is an option. It is likely where I'd end up, if I didn't feel like I was going to become an additional casualty.

That is probably a valuable point actually- having basic life support and first aid skills is definitely a useful part of prudent prepping. Disaster scenarios typically involve overwhelmed emergency services (see recent Manchester bombing), so some degree of self-sufficiency in coping with medical matters is very helpful.

 Haighus wrote:
The scale of those are incomparable except perhaps in the largest examples though (something like the Arndale bombing maybe). But yeah, I take your point!

Although aside from running, what else can you do in a conventional bombing? Run into less-obvious escape routes to avoid secondary bombs?

There are, of course, the first responder aspects, if you are willing to risk getting stuck in. If you are trained in such things, then absolutely that is an option. It is likely where I'd end up, if I didn't feel like I was going to become an additional casualty.

That is probably a valuable point actually- having basic life support and first aid skills is definitely a useful part of prudent prepping. Disaster scenarios typically involve overwhelmed emergency services (see recent Manchester bombing), so some degree of self-sufficiency in coping with medical matters is very helpful.

Yeah. Once the blast has happened, theres not much you can do, apart from avoiding any crushing masses of fleeing human bodies. I was thinking more along the lines of finding an armed device. things like knowing what info emergency services require. size, position, components etc. for example, a device containing a phone or radio parts presents a much bigger problem to EOD than a pipe with a battery.

First Aid wise, the biggest problem is triage. People dont know how to prioritise and group casualties for treatment. I heard that the majority of the Manchester bombing deaths could've been avoided if proper triage had been in place and those with the worst injuries were treated first. I'm lucky to have been trained as a combat medic, so I know that I'm looking for catastrophic hemorrhages as top priority. I dont really know how you'd transfer that knowledge to the general public though. its not really something you could cover in first aid at work for example. Same as knowing how to apply or affect a tourniquet, or the use of direct/indirect pressure on wounds.

Terrorist threads with nuclear or chemical components are not far fetched at all.

Al Quaeda did attempt to create a chemical weapons lab in Morocco a few years back. They failed, probably with side assist, but it is not a stretch that they might have succeeded.

In Japan a doomsday cult was able to obtain chemical weapons, some fundamentalist groups are far better supported and organised than that.

I take it as a given that Al Quaeda and associated organisations have an agenda for procuring WMD. What if they succeed?

Problem is there is no prepping possible for this sort of scenario, by the individual, you are caught unawares and breath in the nasty stuff or you are safe.

 Orlanth wrote:
Terrorist threads with nuclear or chemical components are not far fetched at all.

Al Quaeda did attempt to create a chemical weapons lab in Morocco a few years back. They failed, probably with side assist, but it is not a stretch that they might have succeeded.

In Japan a doomsday cult was able to obtain chemical weapons, some fundamentalist groups are far better supported and organised than that.

I take it as a given that Al Quaeda and associated organisations have an agenda for procuring WMD. What if they succeed?

Problem is there is no prepping possible for this sort of scenario, by the individual, you are caught unawares and breath in the nasty stuff or you are safe.

Thats not what I said. I said the detonation of a nuclear device by a terrorist, eg an improvised, yet full yield nuclear bomb (which is different to a radiological device, AKA dirty bomb). This scenario is possible yet highly unlikely. A dirty bomb, or chemical device is a totally different scenario, and you'll find I didn't disagree with you in that regard. There are things you can do if that happens though. distance and wind direction. get upwind, put some space between you and it, get in a car and turn the exterior vents off. If its inside, get outside. gases like chlorine dissipate rapidly and simply opening windows and doors can negate any hazard if the device initiates. Of cource this isnt always the case. in the Aum Shinrikyo case you mentioned, the sarin wouldve been better dealth with if the carriages were isolated and closed. it all comes down to human thought process. if you read the narrative around that event, theres all sorts of crazy things done in the moment. I believe one of the bags was kicked onto a platform by a passenger, who then carried on his way regardless.

queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
The scale of those are incomparable except perhaps in the largest examples though (something like the Arndale bombing maybe). But yeah, I take your point!

Although aside from running, what else can you do in a conventional bombing? Run into less-obvious escape routes to avoid secondary bombs?

There are, of course, the first responder aspects, if you are willing to risk getting stuck in. If you are trained in such things, then absolutely that is an option. It is likely where I'd end up, if I didn't feel like I was going to become an additional casualty.

That is probably a valuable point actually- having basic life support and first aid skills is definitely a useful part of prudent prepping. Disaster scenarios typically involve overwhelmed emergency services (see recent Manchester bombing), so some degree of self-sufficiency in coping with medical matters is very helpful.

Yeah. Once the blast has happened, theres not much you can do, apart from avoiding any crushing masses of fleeing human bodies. I was thinking more along the lines of finding an armed device. things like knowing what info emergency services require. size, position, components etc. for example, a device containing a phone or radio parts presents a much bigger problem to EOD than a pipe with a battery.

First Aid wise, the biggest problem is triage. People dont know how to prioritise and group casualties for treatment. I heard that the majority of the Manchester bombing deaths could've been avoided if proper triage had been in place and those with the worst injuries were treated first. I'm lucky to have been trained as a combat medic, so I know that I'm looking for catastrophic hemorrhages as top priority. I dont really know how you'd transfer that knowledge to the general public though. its not really something you could cover in first aid at work for example. Same as knowing how to apply or affect a tourniquet, or the use of direct/indirect pressure on wounds.

All good points. Honestly, I think triage is just something that improves with experience. It is included within the basic life support algorithm: DRcABCDE, in that you should go through the assessment logically and prioritise the most serious dysfunction (so catastrophic haemorrhage followed by airway obstruction etc.). I think the difficult part is being able to quickly rule out which patients are lower priority and procede to those who need most care- discounting the patient walking around screaming as likely low initial priority, for example. This is especially complicated in mass casualty situations because of the overwhelming numbers, and you really need some experienced to direct the scene as early as possible.

You can definitely practice haemorrhage first aid though, although access to good models helps a lot.

Orlanth wrote:Terrorist threads with nuclear or chemical components are not far fetched at all.

Al Quaeda did attempt to create a chemical weapons lab in Morocco a few years back. They failed, probably with side assist, but it is not a stretch that they might have succeeded.

In Japan a doomsday cult was able to obtain chemical weapons, some fundamentalist groups are far better supported and organised than that.

I take it as a given that Al Quaeda and associated organisations have an agenda for procuring WMD. What if they succeed?

However for me the real nightmare scenario would be a if enough terrorists with conventional firearms and explosives were able to mass for an attack on a nuclear power plant. Go in with assault rifles, plant explosive charges in nasty places. Blow the charges and then defend the installation against clean up teams. Your fighters are already martyrs at this point due to radiation so there is no reason for them not to stand their ground. So special forces teams will have to fight against an entrenched opponent in high radiation before you can even begin to do something about the problem. You could cause a level 7 INES disaster by this method, Chernobyl sized, or bigger. I think twenty fighters are more than enough to pull this off properly, and most will not need specialist training, just 'muscle' terrorists.

I see chemical and radiation bomb attacks as being similar to large conventional attacks- they are still much lower in magnitude than a full nuclear device. Nuclear devices are far more difficult to build and deploy in secret, hence their low probability and need for state support. Of course, a terrorist chemical/radiation attack is relatively likely, but they are more complicated than simple bombs, and have more points of failure. The low number of bomb attacks in the UK in recent years is testament to the difficulty of planning and executing such an attack without being picked up by intelligence services.

I don't think such an attack on a nuclear plant is terribly feasible without significant state support. Consider that nuclear plants are routinely overbuilt to contain disasters as much as possible- they are large sights with good security, and relevant areas are generally encased in very thick concrete. The response to any attack is likely to be very rapid- there are almost certainly counterterrorism contingencies in place for every nuclear site in the country- and the quantities of explosives needed to crack the concrete used is goimg to be enormous. We are talking metres of concrete. There are WWII bunkers of equivalent thickness still standing because the quantities if explosives needed to demolish them were unfeasible with nearby settlements.

That means any such terrorist attack needs to stockpile a huge amount of explosives- already a risk of discovery, and difficult today. It then needs to be able to transport said explosives to inside the facility- I don't think 20 attackers carrying it is likely to be sufficient. This is on top of procuring sufficient military-grade firearms and eauipment (also very difficult with the UK- see recent terrorist plot foiled when attempting this exact thing). Even if you manage to amass such resources, you then have to wonder if it would even be more effective than deploying the explosives in multiple large attacks in London, with distributed marauder attacks using firearms.

There are just too many points of failure, and frankly not much benefit for such a risky plan over typical civilian targeting. Only an extremely well funded organisation could do it, and it would almost certainly be state backed (and basically be a proxy military attack).

Same as knowing how to apply or affect a tourniquet, or the use of direct/indirect pressure on wounds.

Well, in Germany that is part of any first aid course, including the one you have to pass to be eligible for a driver's license.

A few years back I was looking for a .pdf of a long out of print gaming supplement from the 1980's.

Often old stuff like that is considered the print equivalent of abandonware and available on .pdf with minimal problems.

The product was so obscure it didn't even have that except for one site which had a .pdf under that name. Not quite a googlewhack because some sites linked to fans of the game, but close enough.

It was a gaming related name, so you should have a clue how it goes, not mentioning for reasons that will not become obvious.

The .pdf I opened was a how to guide for chemical weapons. Real deep web crap, though for some reason findable on google under that specific name.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Haighus, I edited that theory out as too off topic while you were typing.

XuQishi wrote:

Same as knowing how to apply or affect a tourniquet, or the use of direct/indirect pressure on wounds.

Well, in Germany that is part of any first aid course, including the one you have to pass to be eligible for a driver's license.

Thats good. thats the sort of knowledge that should be included in things done by the public, because one day they might just need it, and being able to pull it from the back of their mind could save lives.

 Haighus wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

The fallout of this however will not be worth the Schadenfreude.

Not in a hundred years.

I disagree. The only people feeling the pinch from this will be the people who voted for it, who deserve everything they get.

Sadly, that is not at all true. Brexit voting lines were not split by wealth or class, but by age and rural/urban. Older and rural voters/voters with less contact with immigrants were more likely to vote leave. Many of these were well off. They will be some of the least affected- rural folk have access to more food availability through local produce, and the lower access to shops means that rural folk already tend to stockpile resources more than urban folk- there is an element of basic prepping. The elderly are also more likely to stockpile- as pointed out, this was the norm for previous generations, and many of them won't live long enough to see many of the effects of any brexit outcome. The elderly also typically hold allotments in cities, so are the main urban group with some self-food production. However, the elderly might be affected most by any NHS impact, so there is that.

On the other hand, plenty of poor remain voters are going to be most affected by any Brexit outcome, and have very little ability to deal with it. Places like Sunderland.

From the perspective of the thread, urban poor are those most in need of basic prepping, but also one of the groups with the least means to do so. Most people living in a city can't just plant a veggie plot to supplement their diet for example.

The British people voted for it. They deserve everything they get.

Reap the whirlwind.

Not helping the thread.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

The British people voted for it. They deserve everything they get.

Reap the whirlwind.

This is incredibly short-sighted. A huge proportion voted against it, and it also affects all of Europe (although less, proportionally, than it affects the UK), who dididn't vote on it at all.

There will probably be a global effect too, which may effect many different countries in foreseable and unforseable ways.

This does not only affect those who voted to leave by a long shot, and such a simplistic reduction of the issue helps no one.

I am not blaming Leave voters. I am blaming the electorate. Remain is just as culpable as Leave are for the current state of affairs and their supporters and voters will, deservingly, suffer because of their failure.

Or at least, those Remain supporters and voters who didn't see this [Expletive Deleted]-show coming a mile away and who didn't cheese it to the Colonies will.