Emergency Action Plans for DEFCON Levels

RiffRaff

Deputy Director
Staff member
Wolfalisk said:
Thanks for sharing this information. Out of curiosity, what was the biggest factor in choosing what weapon yields to account for? Did you research modern warheads that would be deployed by likely opponents like China or Russia?

Good question. Your inquiry made me take another look at my maps and I realized that I made an error in my original post. The blast radius used on that map is for a 500 kiloton airburst, not 250, with the furthest ring indicating 100% probability of no harm if out in the open. I've corrected that in the original post.

To answer your question, I went through several versions of these maps trying to account for different weapon yields against various targets, driving myself crazy in the process, before I settled on using a 500kt (airburst) for every target. Although both the US and Russia still have large megaton warheads in active service, my understanding is they are reserved for hardened targets, such as Cheyenne Mountain's NORAD complex. Multi-megaton weapons are simply no longer efficient methods of destruction for non-hardened surface targets. Most active weapons in both the US and Russian arsenals range from 100kt to 500kt, so I just went with the maximum yield on that range.

If we are dealing with Chinese nuclear weapons instead of Russian, the situation gets both worse and better. It gets better because China doesn't have anywhere near the number of warheads that the US does, so the number of potential targets drops drastically. It gets worse because most Chinese weapons are still in the 1 to 5 megaton yield, creating a much larger danger zone around each target. I do not account for Chinese weapons in my EAPs because the route I've chosen from Point A to Point B is still going to be far enough away from major cities and military bases that a 5 MT hit will not affect us unless we're looking at it when it detonates, and we have a contingency for that situation.
 

RiffRaff

Deputy Director
Staff member
RichardWad said:
Curious also on your choices for where bombs will be detonated. Obviously the airport and downtown area would be on the list if they were targeting citizen locations.
What about Camp Atterbury and the National Guard armory on the east side of Franklin?

My target choices came from several different sources, including FEMA's Nuclear Attack Planning Base from 1990. I also assumed worst-case scenario and showed primary, secondary, and tertiary targets. The only strategic military targets in Indiana seem to be the old Grissom AFB, Crane Naval facility, and Ft. Ben Harrison. My guess is Camp Atterbury and National Guard armories don't have strategic value.

I'm going to add the text from the first page of our Evacuation EAP to my original post, with appropriate redactions to protect our specific location and destination. It explains a lot more about target selection and route selection.
 

RiffRaff

Deputy Director
Staff member
I am adding the text from the first page of our Evacuation EAP below, with appropriate redactions, to include more information about target selection and choice of evacuation route. Apparently there is a maximum character limit per post of which I was unaware, so I could not add this to the original post as I had intended.
DEFCON 1 Evacuation Route

The following planned evacuation route is based on several assumptions which are listed below. Obviously, in any nuclear conflict scenario, the situation will be extremely fluid and subject to unpredictability. Plans need to be reevaluated constantly and changes implemented with little to no warning or time to think. Alternatives should always be considered and constant situational awareness is imperative.

1. This route is based on a worst-case scenario, assuming that there has been insufficient warning to take more direct routes. The route avoids all blast zones of primary, secondary, and tertiary nuclear targets and encompasses XXXX miles of travel, requiring XXXX hours of driving and a minimum of XXXX gallons of gasoline under the best circumstances. Faster, more direct routes should be used to conserve fuel and time only if there is sufficient warning to travel through potential target areas safely. After the first nuclear detonation, however, Interstates will become congested with people trying to escape urban areas. Avoid interstates once this becomes a problem.

2. EMP may render any vehicle inoperable at any point along this route without warning. Be prepared to travel on foot, if necessary.

3. Detonation areas shown on the map are based on best available information, and depict the danger zone for a 500 kiloton airburst over each target. 500 kilotons represents the largest warheads likely to be used for both NATO and Russian Federation nuclear weapons. The use of smaller weapons on any given target is probable, and some detonations might be groundbursts. In both cases, the danger zone will be smaller than depicted on the map.

4. Ground Zero for every detonation is assumed to be exact center of the city or target unless more exact information is available. Actual impact areas may be slightly different than depicted.

5. There is the possibility of larger yield weapons being utilized, especially if China is involved in the nuclear exchange. However, the impact of these larger weapons along the planned route will be minimal.

6. Radioactive fallout patterns are not displayed on these maps. Weather conditions at the time and place of each detonation are too variable to make accurate predictions. Generally speaking, any fallout will occur to the east of each detonation. Refer to FEMA Nuclear Attack Planning Base Annex B for general fallout patterns by state and county. Personal radiation dosimeters should be worn at all times and checked regularly. Airbursts with modern nuclear weapons actually produce minimal fallout problems.

7. This section deals with actions to take upon reaching our destination and has been removed for security purposes.

8. The range rings of each detonation depict the following:
Inner Red Ring: 2,140 feet radius - 200 psi overpressure
Outer Red Ring: 1.39 mile radius - 20 psi overpressure
Inner Grey Ring: 3.43 mile radius - 5 psi overpressure
Outer Grey Ring: 7.98 mile radius - 1.5 psi overpressure
Orange Ring: 13.1 mile radius - Absolute minimum safe distance

Even beyond minimum safe distance, looking directly at a detonation could result in temporary or permanent blindness. The use of a patch over one eye should be considered while navigating this route, especially while traveling in the general direction of a possible target.
 
Thanks for all of the information on weapons. A crossbow sounds like a good idea (since I can't imagine that I'm likely to become an expert archer anytime soon).

If we're in an all out nuclear war it won't make any difference since my city is always a top target, but I keep as prepped as possible in the hopes that "all" we'll have to deal with is a single strike (hopefully somewhere else), coordinated terrorist activity, widespread civil unrest, breakdown of infrastructure and other depressing things...
 

Yingyang

Well-known member
RiffRaff said:
I am adding the text from the first page of our Evacuation EAP below, with appropriate redactions, to include more information about target selection and choice of evacuation route. Apparently there is a maximum character limit per post of which I was unaware, so I could not add this to the original post as I had intended.
DEFCON 1 Evacuation Route

The following planned evacuation route is based on several assumptions which are listed below. Obviously, in any nuclear conflict scenario, the situation will be extremely fluid and subject to unpredictability. Plans need to be reevaluated constantly and changes implemented with little to no warning or time to think. Alternatives should always be considered and constant situational awareness is imperative.

1. This route is based on a worst-case scenario, assuming that there has been insufficient warning to take more direct routes. The route avoids all blast zones of primary, secondary, and tertiary nuclear targets and encompasses XXXX miles of travel, requiring XXXX hours of driving and a minimum of XXXX gallons of gasoline under the best circumstances. Faster, more direct routes should be used to conserve fuel and time only if there is sufficient warning to travel through potential target areas safely. After the first nuclear detonation, however, Interstates will become congested with people trying to escape urban areas. Avoid interstates once this becomes a problem.

2. EMP may render any vehicle inoperable at any point along this route without warning. Be prepared to travel on foot, if necessary.

3. Detonation areas shown on the map are based on best available information, and depict the danger zone for a 500 kiloton airburst over each target. 500 kilotons represents the largest warheads likely to be used for both NATO and Russian Federation nuclear weapons. The use of smaller weapons on any given target is probable, and some detonations might be groundbursts. In both cases, the danger zone will be smaller than depicted on the map.

4. Ground Zero for every detonation is assumed to be exact center of the city or target unless more exact information is available. Actual impact areas may be slightly different than depicted.

5. There is the possibility of larger yield weapons being utilized, especially if China is involved in the nuclear exchange. However, the impact of these larger weapons along the planned route will be minimal.

6. Radioactive fallout patterns are not displayed on these maps. Weather conditions at the time and place of each detonation are too variable to make accurate predictions. Generally speaking, any fallout will occur to the east of each detonation. Refer to FEMA Nuclear Attack Planning Base Annex B for general fallout patterns by state and county. Personal radiation dosimeters should be worn at all times and checked regularly. Airbursts with modern nuclear weapons actually produce minimal fallout problems.

7. This section deals with actions to take upon reaching our destination and has been removed for security purposes.

8. The range rings of each detonation depict the following:
Inner Red Ring: 2,140 feet radius - 200 psi overpressure
Outer Red Ring: 1.39 mile radius - 20 psi overpressure
Inner Grey Ring: 3.43 mile radius - 5 psi overpressure
Outer Grey Ring: 7.98 mile radius - 1.5 psi overpressure
Orange Ring: 13.1 mile radius - Absolute minimum safe distance

Even beyond minimum safe distance, looking directly at a detonation could result in temporary or permanent blindness. The use of a patch over one eye should be considered while navigating this route, especially while traveling in the general direction of a possible target.

Any thoughts on welding mask?or is that just dumb .
 

RiffRaff

Deputy Director
Staff member
Yingyang said:
RiffRaff said:
I am adding the text from the first page of our Evacuation EAP below, with appropriate redactions, to include more information about target selection and choice of evacuation route. Apparently there is a maximum character limit per post of which I was unaware, so I could not add this to the original post as I had intended.
DEFCON 1 Evacuation Route

The following planned evacuation route is based on several assumptions which are listed below. Obviously, in any nuclear conflict scenario, the situation will be extremely fluid and subject to unpredictability. Plans need to be reevaluated constantly and changes implemented with little to no warning or time to think. Alternatives should always be considered and constant situational awareness is imperative.

1. This route is based on a worst-case scenario, assuming that there has been insufficient warning to take more direct routes. The route avoids all blast zones of primary, secondary, and tertiary nuclear targets and encompasses XXXX miles of travel, requiring XXXX hours of driving and a minimum of XXXX gallons of gasoline under the best circumstances. Faster, more direct routes should be used to conserve fuel and time only if there is sufficient warning to travel through potential target areas safely. After the first nuclear detonation, however, Interstates will become congested with people trying to escape urban areas. Avoid interstates once this becomes a problem.

2. EMP may render any vehicle inoperable at any point along this route without warning. Be prepared to travel on foot, if necessary.

3. Detonation areas shown on the map are based on best available information, and depict the danger zone for a 500 kiloton airburst over each target. 500 kilotons represents the largest warheads likely to be used for both NATO and Russian Federation nuclear weapons. The use of smaller weapons on any given target is probable, and some detonations might be groundbursts. In both cases, the danger zone will be smaller than depicted on the map.

4. Ground Zero for every detonation is assumed to be exact center of the city or target unless more exact information is available. Actual impact areas may be slightly different than depicted.

5. There is the possibility of larger yield weapons being utilized, especially if China is involved in the nuclear exchange. However, the impact of these larger weapons along the planned route will be minimal.

6. Radioactive fallout patterns are not displayed on these maps. Weather conditions at the time and place of each detonation are too variable to make accurate predictions. Generally speaking, any fallout will occur to the east of each detonation. Refer to FEMA Nuclear Attack Planning Base Annex B for general fallout patterns by state and county. Personal radiation dosimeters should be worn at all times and checked regularly. Airbursts with modern nuclear weapons actually produce minimal fallout problems.

7. This section deals with actions to take upon reaching our destination and has been removed for security purposes.

8. The range rings of each detonation depict the following:
Inner Red Ring: 2,140 feet radius - 200 psi overpressure
Outer Red Ring: 1.39 mile radius - 20 psi overpressure
Inner Grey Ring: 3.43 mile radius - 5 psi overpressure
Outer Grey Ring: 7.98 mile radius - 1.5 psi overpressure
Orange Ring: 13.1 mile radius - Absolute minimum safe distance

Even beyond minimum safe distance, looking directly at a detonation could result in temporary or permanent blindness. The use of a patch over one eye should be considered while navigating this route, especially while traveling in the general direction of a possible target.

Any thoughts on welding mask?or is that just dumb .

Well, the whole point is to be able to drive the evacuation route while still protecting your eyesight. Welding mask would protect your eyesight, but you might have trouble navigating curves in the road. ;)
 

Wolfalisk

Member
RiffRaff said:
Wolfalisk said:
Thanks for sharing this information. Out of curiosity, what was the biggest factor in choosing what weapon yields to account for? Did you research modern warheads that would be deployed by likely opponents like China or Russia?

Good question. Your inquiry made me take another look at my maps and I realized that I made an error in my original post. The blast radius used on that map is for a 500 kiloton airburst, not 250, with the furthest ring indicating 100% probability of no harm if out in the open. I've corrected that in the original post.

To answer your question, I went through several versions of these maps trying to account for different weapon yields against various targets, driving myself crazy in the process, before I settled on using a 500kt (airburst) for every target. Although both the US and Russia still have large megaton warheads in active service, my understanding is they are reserved for hardened targets, such as Cheyenne Mountain's NORAD complex. Multi-megaton weapons are simply no longer efficient methods of destruction for non-hardened surface targets. Most active weapons in both the US and Russian arsenals range from 100kt to 500kt, so I just went with the maximum yield on that range.

If we are dealing with Chinese nuclear weapons instead of Russian, the situation gets both worse and better. It gets better because China doesn't have anywhere near the number of warheads that the US does, so the number of potential targets drops drastically. It gets worse because most Chinese weapons are still in the 1 to 5 megaton yield, creating a much larger danger zone around each target. I do not account for Chinese weapons in my EAPs because the route I've chosen from Point A to Point B is still going to be far enough away from major cities and military bases that a 5 MT hit will not affect us unless we're looking at it when it detonates, and we have a contingency for that situation.

Interesting! It's very neat how survival prospects have increased (unless I've misunderstood something horribly) since the Cold War due to some of the major powers opting for lower yield weapons in the modern day. May I ask, if DEFCON 1 is reached due to events on the Korean Peninsula, do you intend to go through with your personal evacuation plans despite North Korea only having a limited arsenal? I suppose in other words, will your response vary depending on the capability of the adversary to simply deliver a nuclear weapon versus how many they can send? If that makes sense.
 

apollonights

Active member
Wolfalisk said:
RiffRaff said:
Wolfalisk said:
Thanks for sharing this information. Out of curiosity, what was the biggest factor in choosing what weapon yields to account for? Did you research modern warheads that would be deployed by likely opponents like China or Russia?

Good question. Your inquiry made me take another look at my maps and I realized that I made an error in my original post. The blast radius used on that map is for a 500 kiloton airburst, not 250, with the furthest ring indicating 100% probability of no harm if out in the open. I've corrected that in the original post.

To answer your question, I went through several versions of these maps trying to account for different weapon yields against various targets, driving myself crazy in the process, before I settled on using a 500kt (airburst) for every target. Although both the US and Russia still have large megaton warheads in active service, my understanding is they are reserved for hardened targets, such as Cheyenne Mountain's NORAD complex. Multi-megaton weapons are simply no longer efficient methods of destruction for non-hardened surface targets. Most active weapons in both the US and Russian arsenals range from 100kt to 500kt, so I just went with the maximum yield on that range.

If we are dealing with Chinese nuclear weapons instead of Russian, the situation gets both worse and better. It gets better because China doesn't have anywhere near the number of warheads that the US does, so the number of potential targets drops drastically. It gets worse because most Chinese weapons are still in the 1 to 5 megaton yield, creating a much larger danger zone around each target. I do not account for Chinese weapons in my EAPs because the route I've chosen from Point A to Point B is still going to be far enough away from major cities and military bases that a 5 MT hit will not affect us unless we're looking at it when it detonates, and we have a contingency for that situation.

Interesting! It's very neat how survival prospects have increased (unless I've misunderstood something horribly) since the Cold War due to some of the major powers opting for lower yield weapons in the modern day. May I ask, if DEFCON 1 is reached due to events on the Korean Peninsula, do you intend to go through with your personal evacuation plans despite North Korea only having a limited arsenal? I suppose in other words, will your response vary depending on the capability of the adversary to simply deliver a nuclear weapon versus how many they can send? If that makes sense.
You need to answer three questions:
A. How concerned are you about North Korean biological weapons?
B. How concerned are you about a North Korean EMP?
C. How concerned are you that you would actually be in a 100 KT strike zone from a worst case scenario NK attack? To be honest if you don't live in LA, Seattle, Honolulu etc you probably don't need to worry about C.
 

RiffRaff

Deputy Director
Staff member
Wolfalisk said:
Interesting! It's very neat how survival prospects have increased (unless I've misunderstood something horribly) since the Cold War due to some of the major powers opting for lower yield weapons in the modern day. May I ask, if DEFCON 1 is reached due to events on the Korean Peninsula, do you intend to go through with your personal evacuation plans despite North Korea only having a limited arsenal? I suppose in other words, will your response vary depending on the capability of the adversary to simply deliver a nuclear weapon versus how many they can send? If that makes sense.

Modern nuclear weapons are also a lot cleaner as far as fallout is concerned, especially if airburst, increasing survivability after the war is over.

Honestly, we will more than likely initiate our evacuation plan the minute a nuclear weapon is detonated in combat anywhere on the planet, regardless of who launched it. Too many nuclear war game scenarios see a single detonation escalate into a global exchange. I don't know that we would travel all the way to our final bugout location, but we would definitely get to a much safer location than the middle of Indianapolis and monitor the situation from there.
 

RiffRaff

Deputy Director
Staff member
apollonights said:
You need to answer three questions:
A. How concerned are you about North Korean biological weapons?
B. How concerned are you about a North Korean EMP?
C. How concerned are you that you would actually be in a 100 KT strike zone from a worst case scenario NK attack? To be honest if you don't live in LA, Seattle, Honolulu etc you probably don't need to worry about C.

A: Not as concerned as I am about nuclear and EMP. Reason being is KJU is so focused on becoming a nuclear power that I think he has abandoned all research into biologicals, at least for now. He is so obsessed with striking the US with a nuclear weapon. In an all-out conflict he might use his biologicals on ROK or Japan, but I think he would try to get his existing nukes launched at the US. Plus, it is much harder for civilians to defend against biologicals than nuclear weapons, requiring equipment that is expensive and hard to obtain. I kind of take a much more fatalistic approach to biological weapons than I do nuclear weapons.

B: I think we are ignoring the potential devastating impact EMP would have on our country, regardless of who launches it. In my opinion, EMP gives an attacker the most efficient damaging results per warhead, and DPRK is the newest nuclear power who needs the most bang for their buck. Couple that with their two "earth observation satellites" sitting in a polar orbit, and I think it's a higher risk than most people believe.

C: I am not worried about Indianapolis being hit by a DPRK nuclear missile, even if we are in range. What I *am* concerned about is nuclear escalation that brings Russia and/or China into play against the US, at which point we live too close to too many secondary and tertiary targets to risk remaining in the city.
 

apollonights

Active member
RiffRaff said:
apollonights said:
You need to answer three questions:
A. How concerned are you about North Korean biological weapons?
B. How concerned are you about a North Korean EMP?
C. How concerned are you that you would actually be in a 100 KT strike zone from a worst case scenario NK attack? To be honest if you don't live in LA, Seattle, Honolulu etc you probably don't need to worry about C.

A: Not as concerned as I am about nuclear and EMP. Reason being is KJU is so focused on becoming a nuclear power that I think he has abandoned all research into biologicals, at least for now. He is so obsessed with striking the US with a nuclear weapon. In an all-out conflict he might use his biologicals on ROK or Japan, but I think he would try to get his existing nukes launched at the US. Plus, it is much harder for civilians to defend against biologicals than nuclear weapons, requiring equipment that is expensive and hard to obtain. I kind of take a much more fatalistic approach to biological weapons than I do nuclear weapons.

B: I think we are ignoring the potential devastating impact EMP would have on our country, regardless of who launches it. In my opinion, EMP gives an attacker the most efficient damaging results per warhead, and DPRK is the newest nuclear power who needs the most bang for their buck. Couple that with their two "earth observation satellites" sitting in a polar orbit, and I think it's a higher risk than most people believe.

C: I am not worried about Indianapolis being hit by a DPRK nuclear missile, even if we are in range. What I *am* concerned about is nuclear escalation that brings Russia and/or China into play against the US, at which point we live too close to too many secondary and tertiary targets to risk remaining in the city.
It is hard for me to imagine a circumstance in which Russia would risk nuclear war over North Korea. China? Maybe on a 1 in 100 chance but Russia? I can't see it. That said given the relatively low risk of the U.S. and China going to war in the short term (even if things with NK heat up) the only thing you really have to worry about is that EMP (once again ignoring biological because fuck its hell to think about).
 

RiffRaff

Deputy Director
Staff member
apollonights said:
RiffRaff said:
apollonights said:
You need to answer three questions:
A. How concerned are you about North Korean biological weapons?
B. How concerned are you about a North Korean EMP?
C. How concerned are you that you would actually be in a 100 KT strike zone from a worst case scenario NK attack? To be honest if you don't live in LA, Seattle, Honolulu etc you probably don't need to worry about C.

A: Not as concerned as I am about nuclear and EMP. Reason being is KJU is so focused on becoming a nuclear power that I think he has abandoned all research into biologicals, at least for now. He is so obsessed with striking the US with a nuclear weapon. In an all-out conflict he might use his biologicals on ROK or Japan, but I think he would try to get his existing nukes launched at the US. Plus, it is much harder for civilians to defend against biologicals than nuclear weapons, requiring equipment that is expensive and hard to obtain. I kind of take a much more fatalistic approach to biological weapons than I do nuclear weapons.

B: I think we are ignoring the potential devastating impact EMP would have on our country, regardless of who launches it. In my opinion, EMP gives an attacker the most efficient damaging results per warhead, and DPRK is the newest nuclear power who needs the most bang for their buck. Couple that with their two "earth observation satellites" sitting in a polar orbit, and I think it's a higher risk than most people believe.

C: I am not worried about Indianapolis being hit by a DPRK nuclear missile, even if we are in range. What I *am* concerned about is nuclear escalation that brings Russia and/or China into play against the US, at which point we live too close to too many secondary and tertiary targets to risk remaining in the city.
It is hard for me to imagine a circumstance in which Russia would risk nuclear war over North Korea. China? Maybe on a 1 in 100 chance but Russia? I can't see it. That said given the relatively low risk of the U.S. and China going to war in the short term (even if things with NK heat up) the only thing you really have to worry about is that EMP (once again ignoring biological because fuck its hell to think about).

I agree with all that. My nuclear EAP is designed on a worst-case major exchange with Russia for two reasons:
1: They've always been the "bad guy" in common American culture
2: They have the most nuclear weapons to deploy against the US

It is a lot easier to adjust my EAP downwards for a less severe event than it is to adjust it upwards for something that is worse than planned. I know full well that Russia getting involved over DPRK is not likely. I also know full well that Indianapolis will probably not get hit as badly as my map shows. However, if we are prepared for what is shown on the map, then we are prepared for anything smaller in scale.
 

Bingo

Member
DEFCON 5 Normal peacetime level. No nuclear threats exist against the United States.
• No deviation from normal daily activities.
[[ in my mind, most of the heavy lifting of preparedness happens during times of ‘relative peacetime’ we refer to as DEFCON 5. Systems which would provide your family to live with some degree of normalcy, must be put in place now... folks who monitor this site would be wise to think thru survival priorities starting with the rule of 3’s. At higher DEFCON levels or when the general public is alarmed/panicked, supplies and equipment are stripped from the shelves of stores, and prices skyrocket due to price gouging and exaggeration of supply and demand. . Families should sit down and discuss the following three points ;
1) considering the services you use daily, phone, electricity, water, shelter heating, food and AC... which of these services makes life worthwhile. (If discussing with adult children, what can’t you LIVE without !
2) if you were NOT at home (work, school, Gym, etc) and conditions around you became unsafe, what would you do?
3) if you were at HOME and conditions became unsafe making it necessary to leave, what would you do.

Hospitals are required to hold two disaster drills each year. One large scale drill and one table top exercise. Families wishing to be prepared might also consider doing this. At a yearly tabletop disaster drill Is a great time to discuss Emergency Action Plans (EAPs)
DEFCON 4,3,2,1 all depend on what you planned and implemented during DEFCON 5]]

respectfully submitted.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hi, This is incredibly helpful. I am also British with no real guns. However we have three 150lb plus crossbows, two compound bows, four 50-80lb pistol crossbows, two air rifles which have good range for small game and two air pistol which will at least damage if needed. There us what you can use over what you wish. Thanks for a great article.
 

RiffRaff

Deputy Director
Staff member
Paul said:
Hi, This is incredibly helpful. I am also British with no real guns. However we have three 150lb plus crossbows, two compound bows, four 50-80lb pistol crossbows, two air rifles which have good range for small game and two air pistol which will at least damage if needed. There us what you can use over what you wish. Thanks for a great article.

Glad you found it useful! I have a .22 air rifle, complete with scope and laser. Do not underestimate the fear that putting that laser on an opponent's sternum will generate. Remember, *they* don't know what kind of rifle you're pointing at them.

One thing you want to consider for air rifles is the type of ammunition. You would be surprised at the variety of ammo for my air rifle. This is what I keep it loaded with:
https://www.amazon.com/Predator-Polymag-Grains-Pointed-200ct/dp/B00BKZMHZ0

When shooting a 2-liter bottle filled with water, these little babies will fully penetrate and exit the other side every time. Devastating to anything the size of a squirrel or rabbit. And if I ever have to shoot a human being with it, I'll aim below center mass for the abdominal area. No bones to interfere with penetration, and it is one of the most painful areas to get shot. They'll know they've been hit and that will make them stop and think.

Do you have any bladed weapons? Reason I ask is because all the weapons you listed are no good for close-quarters hand-to-hand combat. I have several multi-purpose survival knives, but I carry this with me daily for self-defense purposes:
https://www.amazon.com/Fox-479-Emerson-Folding-Karambit/dp/B077YGBSL8/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=karambit+knife+fox&qid=1557060380&s=sporting-goods&sr=1-3

That knife requires some professional training to use properly, but I assure you it is lethal, despite it's size.

Thanks for your input. Always good to hear from our neighbors across the pond!
 

Yingyang

Well-known member
RiffRaff said:
Paul said:
Hi, This is incredibly helpful. I am also British with no real guns. However we have three 150lb plus crossbows, two compound bows, four 50-80lb pistol crossbows, two air rifles which have good range for small game and two air pistol which will at least damage if needed. There us what you can use over what you wish. Thanks for a great article.

Glad you found it useful! I have a .22 air rifle, complete with scope and laser. Do not underestimate the fear that putting that laser on an opponent's sternum will generate. Remember, *they* don't know what kind of rifle you're pointing at them.

One thing you want to consider for air rifles is the type of ammunition. You would be surprised at the variety of ammo for my air rifle. This is what I keep it loaded with:
https://www.amazon.com/Predator-Polymag-Grains-Pointed-200ct/dp/B00BKZMHZ0

When shooting a 2-liter bottle filled with water, these little babies will fully penetrate and exit the other side every time. Devastating to anything the size of a squirrel or rabbit. And if I ever have to shoot a human being with it, I'll aim below center mass for the abdominal area. No bones to interfere with penetration, and it is one of the most painful areas to get shot. They'll know they've been hit and that will make them stop and think.

Do you have any bladed weapons? Reason I ask is because all the weapons you listed are no good for close-quarters hand-to-hand combat. I have several multi-purpose survival knives, but I carry this with me daily for self-defense purposes:
https://www.amazon.com/Fox-479-Emerson-Folding-Karambit/dp/B077YGBSL8/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=karambit+knife+fox&qid=1557060380&s=sporting-goods&sr=1-3

That knife requires some professional training to use properly, but I assure you it is lethal, despite it's size.

Thanks for your input. Always good to hear from our neighbors across the pond!

I'm an Aussie have three bows long, recurve being my favourite and a small compound. Three hunting knives, one bowie knife three small throwing knives and one large. A good tomahawk and several multi tools including two Swiss army knives. And gillie suit. Love your edc and totally agree a small blade can be most affective and nasty surprise. My edc consist of a small and medium sized lock blades. Even the small one can easily reach main arterial veins. No need to be crocodile dundee lol😉 and given the opportunity a nick above the ankle can be rather effective.
 

RiffRaff

Deputy Director
Staff member
Yingyang said:
RiffRaff said:
Paul said:
Hi, This is incredibly helpful. I am also British with no real guns. However we have three 150lb plus crossbows, two compound bows, four 50-80lb pistol crossbows, two air rifles which have good range for small game and two air pistol which will at least damage if needed. There us what you can use over what you wish. Thanks for a great article.

Glad you found it useful! I have a .22 air rifle, complete with scope and laser. Do not underestimate the fear that putting that laser on an opponent's sternum will generate. Remember, *they* don't know what kind of rifle you're pointing at them.

One thing you want to consider for air rifles is the type of ammunition. You would be surprised at the variety of ammo for my air rifle. This is what I keep it loaded with:
https://www.amazon.com/Predator-Polymag-Grains-Pointed-200ct/dp/B00BKZMHZ0

When shooting a 2-liter bottle filled with water, these little babies will fully penetrate and exit the other side every time. Devastating to anything the size of a squirrel or rabbit. And if I ever have to shoot a human being with it, I'll aim below center mass for the abdominal area. No bones to interfere with penetration, and it is one of the most painful areas to get shot. They'll know they've been hit and that will make them stop and think.

Do you have any bladed weapons? Reason I ask is because all the weapons you listed are no good for close-quarters hand-to-hand combat. I have several multi-purpose survival knives, but I carry this with me daily for self-defense purposes:
https://www.amazon.com/Fox-479-Emerson-Folding-Karambit/dp/B077YGBSL8/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=karambit+knife+fox&qid=1557060380&s=sporting-goods&sr=1-3

That knife requires some professional training to use properly, but I assure you it is lethal, despite it's size.

Thanks for your input. Always good to hear from our neighbors across the pond!

I'm an Aussie have three bows long, recurve being my favourite and a small compound. Three hunting knives, one bowie knife three small throwing knives and one large. A good tomahawk and several multi tools including two Swiss army knives. And gillie suit. Love your edc and totally agree a small blade can be most affective and nasty surprise. My edc consist of a small and medium sized lock blades. Even the small one can easily reach main arterial veins. No need to be crocodile dundee lol😉 and given the opportunity a nick above the ankle can be rather effective.

My plan if I'm ever confronted by some idiot with a knife, regardless of size, I'm going to use the old "That's not a knife; THIS is a knife." as I pull my karambit and it auto-deploys. I've always wanted to use that line in a contextually appropriate situation. :lol:
 

Obreid

Power Poster
Don’t forget a good machete, the longer reach is intimidating and their useage is more straight forward than a hawk. Hawks need to strike targeted areas correctly to be effective.
RiffRaff said:
Yingyang said:
RiffRaff said:
Glad you found it useful! I have a .22 air rifle, complete with scope and laser. Do not underestimate the fear that putting that laser on an opponent's sternum will generate. Remember, *they* don't know what kind of rifle you're pointing at them.

One thing you want to consider for air rifles is the type of ammunition. You would be surprised at the variety of ammo for my air rifle. This is what I keep it loaded with:
https://www.amazon.com/Predator-Polymag-Grains-Pointed-200ct/dp/B00BKZMHZ0

When shooting a 2-liter bottle filled with water, these little babies will fully penetrate and exit the other side every time. Devastating to anything the size of a squirrel or rabbit. And if I ever have to shoot a human being with it, I'll aim below center mass for the abdominal area. No bones to interfere with penetration, and it is one of the most painful areas to get shot. They'll know they've been hit and that will make them stop and think.

Do you have any bladed weapons? Reason I ask is because all the weapons you listed are no good for close-quarters hand-to-hand combat. I have several multi-purpose survival knives, but I carry this with me daily for self-defense purposes:
https://www.amazon.com/Fox-479-Emerson-Folding-Karambit/dp/B077YGBSL8/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=karambit+knife+fox&qid=1557060380&s=sporting-goods&sr=1-3

That knife requires some professional training to use properly, but I assure you it is lethal, despite it's size.

Thanks for your input. Always good to hear from our neighbors across the pond!

I'm an Aussie have three bows long, recurve being my favourite and a small compound. Three hunting knives, one bowie knife three small throwing knives and one large. A good tomahawk and several multi tools including two Swiss army knives. And gillie suit. Love your edc and totally agree a small blade can be most affective and nasty surprise. My edc consist of a small and medium sized lock blades. Even the small one can easily reach main arterial veins. No need to be crocodile dundee lol😉 and given the opportunity a nick above the ankle can be rather effective.

My plan if I'm ever confronted by some idiot with a knife, regardless of size, I'm going to use the old "That's not a knife; THIS is a knife." as I pull my karambit and it auto-deploys. I've always wanted to use that line in a contextually appropriate situation. :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
For those without access to firearms, here are a few weapons options:

1) Spear. Easy and cheap to make, and very effective - look it up.
2) Sling. Even cheaper and easier to make, ammo is free if you use stones, lead can be free if tire store can provide lead weights. Easy to learn, but difficult to master.

Please look into it, and acquire what you need, both materiel and training, before you need it.
 
Top