The Foolishness and Fallacy of Not Making Your Retreat Defendable
SurvivalDan101.com
6/4/2018
An awkward issue that preppers have to confront when planning for a possible problematic future is what to expect from other people.
Will people peacefully unite and work together effectively to create win-win examples of mutual survival? Or will some group of society (maybe only a small minority) take advantage of a possible collapse of law-enforcement and in an anarchistic manner run amok in an orgy of looting, pillaging and plundering?
Opinions differ greatly as to what might occur. But the simple fact that there are credible concerns about a general decay into lawlessness is enough to require prudent preppers to plan for this. Whichever outcome might happen, a prudent prepper must necessarily consider not only the best case scenarios but also the worst case scenarios, and for sure, roving gangs of violent people who simply take anything they want by force is an unpleasant situation and some type of preparation for this must be considered and provided for.
A central part of the planning and preparing process revolves around one very big question: Is it practical to make your retreat fully secure against determined attackers? Is it even possible to do so? When (or if) you find yourself confronted by an armed gang of looters, what should you do? Shelter in your retreat? Runaway, leaving everything behind? Fight to protect yourselves and your possessions?
There are many different opinions on how to respond to such an event, and you should form your own decision after having carefully considered all perspectives, all opinions, and – most of all – all facts.
It is certainly true that it is difficult to build a totally safe and secure retreat, especially while trying to keep the cost of construction to an affordable level. Modern munitions have enormous power and can destroy very heavily fortified structures. Besides which, if the first explosive device fails to blow a hole in your outside wall, an attacker may simply repeat a second and third time, progressively weakening your external fortifications until they eventually fail.
So, if any structure can potentially be defeated by a well armed and determined attacker, is there any point in spending potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars to strengthen it, in a case where such strength will always sooner or later be insufficient? This is clearly a very important question and concept, and one which demands consideration.
A letter was posted on the Survivalblog website that raised some of these often discussed issues. It is short, so to save you clicking on the link, this is what it said
A comment on the dual ring village concept. If it is advanced as a defense tactic, I would urge remembering that the walled-town versus siegecraft dynamic is thousands of years old, and the survival of walled towns and cities is only possible if they are:
The Rest…HERE
