Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/6/2006 5:30:49 PM EDT
I currently own:
9mm
10mm
.40
AR
and a Savavge .308

I am sure I need to gat an AK, just so I can be familiar with one.
Most other rifles and pistols I am somewhat familiar with.

I HOPE ths S never HTF, but if it does, am I on the right track?
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 5:32:34 PM EDT
WWIII has been fought and concluded. I think you mean WWIV.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 8:34:50 PM EDT
Standardize on one caliber and platform for your SHTF guns.

i.e. multiple AR15s in 5.56mm and multple Glock 17s in 9mm.
Those are just examples.
A SHTF arsenal should be based off the same platforms.

Arsenal should include at minimum

A good centerfire rifle
A good defensive pistol
A good multi-role shotgun
A good rimfire rifle
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 9:17:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen:
WWIII has been fought and concluded. I think you mean WWIV.



Reagan took care of #3 for us.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 3:37:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
Standardize on one caliber and platform for your SHTF guns.

i.e. multiple AR15s in 5.56mm and multple Glock 17s in 9mm.
Those are just examples.
A SHTF arsenal should be based off the same platforms.

Arsenal should include at minimum

A good centerfire rifle
A good defensive pistol
A good multi-role shotgun
A good rimfire rifle



why a rimfire rifle? and while i don't necessarily agree with you on platform, caliber standardization is crucial.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 4:28:04 AM EDT
A rimfire rifle so you can hunt small game and eat it. don't want to be going hungry when the SHTF.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 4:41:53 AM EDT
I would dump the 10mm and get a good 12ga. and a 10/22.
Gump
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 7:43:08 AM EDT
Arsenal should include at minimum

A good centerfire rifle
A good defensive pistol
A good multi-role shotgun
A good rimfire rifle
A Peacekeeper ICBM
A M1A2 Abrams
A M240G
A FIM-92A
A Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier
A F/A-18E/F
A Beautiful Woman
A Bottle of JD


Now your set, with this you increase your chance of survival from .001% to .01%
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 7:58:02 AM EDT
Actually, if you are baselining SHTF on a full on nuclear exchange, I would rate your survival chances in this country as greater then 80%. With the current disposition of US startigic weapons, compare to the former Soviet Union (unlikley) or the PRC (more likley) then I would say odds are less then three warheads would make it to the United States, more then likley none if its the PRC. Submarine launched missiles with low warning to impact times combine with liquid fueled ICBM with long prep times = good recipe for premptive strikes.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 8:43:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:
Actually, if you are baselining SHTF on a full on nuclear exchange, I would rate your survival chances in this country as greater then 80%.


With the shutdown of military sites and the consolidation of strategic assets, I would think that the ability to mount a credible counter-force strike on the US has increased, not decreased. We currently have less than 500 strategic missiles concentrated within three AF bases. We have no strategic air assets anymore. Therefore, SLBMs provide our only credible deterrent.

Luckily, the Russian arsenal is weak, but China is only getting stronger (albeit at a slow rate).
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 9:35:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 55MEGATON_NUKE:
Arsenal should include at minimum

A good centerfire rifleGot
A good defensive pistolGot em
A good multi-role shotgundef. need
A good rimfire riflewhy?
A Peacekeeper ICBMOrdered one this AM
A M1A2 AbramsLoading one in KY on the 12th
A M240G?
A FIM-92A?
A Nimitz Class Aircraft CarrierOne for sale on Ebay- someone in Norfolk
A F/A-18E/Fcan pick up one at Cheatam Annex in VA
A Beautiful WomanWill a truckstop hooker suffice?
A Bottle of JDrather have weed- is that OK?


Now your set, with this you increase your chance of survival from .001% to .01%

Link Posted: 2/7/2006 12:55:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:
Actually, if you are baselining SHTF on a full on nuclear exchange, I would rate your survival chances in this country as greater then 80%. With the current disposition of US startigic weapons, compare to the former Soviet Union (unlikley) or the PRC (more likley) then I would say odds are less then three warheads would make it to the United States, more then likley none if its the PRC. Submarine launched missiles with low warning to impact times combine with liquid fueled ICBM with long prep times = good recipe for premptive strikes.




Okay, I may not work in the field of Nuclear Technology/Weapons/Strategy, but I am a very well versed amatuer of the various fields. If you honestly think that Russia is in such a state of shambles that they could only get 3 nukes over to us, then your smoking some seriously good stuff. Ignorance is bliss, up until the point it ends up killing you.

While its true Americas Submarine and Naval force is now unrivalved, that doesnt mean they wont go undetected. The Trident carrying subs will move into the Baltic Sea, Barents Sea, and White Sea, hovering close to the shores of Russia and various European countries, many will also move into various other regions. Russia will see this and it will prompt Russia to go to highest alert. Preemptive attack no longer has the element of surprise, it will be expected.

American missile silos prepped and ready, launch Peacekeepers and Minuteman III's for destinations across the world. Bomber groups leave bases for targets around the world. All Infantry and Naval groups move to predetermined areas. Submarines launch their Trident missiles, approximate detonation over Moscow from the Baltic Sea, 5 minutes. Russian radar picks up missiles inbound from various seas, already on high alert from inbound and stationary American forces, various active sites are ready to launch upon orders. Russia sends up all possible ICBMs, headed for targets primarily in America. Impacts occuring in Russia and China hit with missiles from sea borne vessels first. Americas targets in the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and all potential threats have missiles already impacting and inbound. Russian missiles enroute to America, China, Britain, France, and various other countries. Britain launches what it can primarily aimed at Russia. All nuclear countries attempt to launch, some do, some dont.

Sub-Commands kick into highgear and become fully operational, Moscow is hit by dozens and dozens of Tridents. Impacts occuring at miltary targets and civilian targets alike, Strategic and Tactical sites.

The few operational Russian subs head for target zones off America, most are destroyed by superior American fleets, some manage to slip through.

American Air Force tries to shoot down all inbounds, but taking out a ICBM moving at Mach 20 at 80,000 feet up isnt exactly routine, even SAMs will be hard pressed to stop them. Missiles will get through, far more then 3.
All manner of weapons begin seeing use, EMPs, Biological & Chemical, as well as Nuclear.

Russian missiles hit targets in the countries it aimed for. Eventually the subs launch there weapons. All in all, the world has just seen a good portion of its people killed. America could possibly survive, but it would be badly hurt.

Okay, thats the best I can write in fifteen minutes, give me a couple days and I can write up a more thorough and precise view on the subject. Let me close this by saying, YOUR SMOKING CRACK, if you think in a full on nuclear exchange only 3 missiles make their way to their targets in America. Thats absurd and so is putting an 80% survivability rate in a FULL ON NUCLEAR WAR!!!! That fails to take into account so many things, one major one being fallout. I dont honestly know what shaped your belief in that idea. Any person educated in Nuclear tech will know this, even Edward Teller (one of the biggest supporters of nukes) would laugh at you for such an obscene statement.

If the world went to an all out nuclear war, it means that America, Russia, China and a handful of other nations would attack not only their enemies but any potential enemies. America is now the king of nukes, in terms of deployability, but make no mistake, Russia is still ready to go and fully capable of a serious nuclear exchange (albeit less as impressive as it would have been in the cold war days).

You couldnt possibly deliver a death blow to Russian, Chinese, or American nuclear forces in a single shot. Russia and America have a headless nuclear war setup, there is no head to destroy nor heart to stop, thus no possibility of shutting down the body in one shot. Preemptive doesnt mean taking out your target in one fell swoop, it means attacking first, increasing ones chance of survival, but not ensuring it.

Sorry for being such a dick, but its a little too optisimistic of a statement to make, I mean seriously, 3?
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 5:53:54 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 9:05:38 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 10:02:46 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 1:44:55 PM EDT
Only one beautiful woman ?!?

I'm thinking a harem, have to help repopulate the earth and all....

In terms of weapons...

One of the weapons should be an AR style, in 223
mags, ammo and parts are everywhere. Build familiarity with the platform
as in the hypothetical situation of SHTF, ARs and M16s would likely be floating all
over the US.

Then a good rimfire, again this is for food and also pest control.
rats and other vermin populations likely to explode under SHTF conditions.
good precision rifle (hunting and other long range tasks)
and a good shotgun with multiple barrels (26 and 18)

Pistol is what you like, but 9mm is cheapest , easiest to get. Again in SHTF
you would find 9mm easiest to obtain, 40 SandW, 357 Sig ? you'ld better store
all you need, as me thinks the gun stores will be sold out...
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 11:39:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Outsider_10fp:

Originally Posted By 55MEGATON_NUKE:
Arsenal should include at minimum

A good centerfire rifleGot
A good defensive pistolGot em
A good multi-role shotgundef. need
A good rimfire riflewhy?
A Peacekeeper ICBMOrdered one this AM
A M1A2 AbramsLoading one in KY on the 12th
A M240G?
A FIM-92A?
A Nimitz Class Aircraft CarrierOne for sale on Ebay- someone in Norfolk
A F/A-18E/Fcan pick up one at Cheatam Annex in VA
A Beautiful WomanWill a truckstop hooker suffice?
A Bottle of JDrather have weed- is that OK?


Now your set, with this you increase your chance of survival from .001% to .01%




rather have weed??? now i know why you are acting a fool and pretending to be who you are not over the the blackwater threads.....
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 12:51:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/23/2006 12:53:34 PM EDT by glk19]
[i]Okay, I may not work in the field of Nuclear Technology/Weapons/Strategy, but I am a very well versed amatuer of the various fields. If you honestly think that Russia is in such a state of shambles that they could only get 3 nukes over to us, then your smoking some seriously good stuff. Ignorance is bliss, up until the point it ends up killing you.

While its true Americas Submarine and Naval force is now unrivalved, that doesnt mean they wont go undetected. The Trident carrying subs will move into the Baltic Sea, Barents Sea, and White Sea, hovering close to the shores of Russia and various European countries, many will also move into various other regions. Russia will see this and it will prompt Russia to go to highest alert. Preemptive attack no longer has the element of surprise, it will be expected.

American missile silos prepped and ready, launch Peacekeepers and Minuteman III's for destinations across the world. Bomber groups leave bases for targets around the world. All Infantry and Naval groups move to predetermined areas. Submarines launch their Trident missiles, approximate detonation over Moscow from the Baltic Sea, 5 minutes. Russian radar picks up missiles inbound from various seas, already on high alert from inbound and stationary American forces, various active sites are ready to launch upon orders. Russia sends up all possible ICBMs, headed for targets primarily in America. Impacts occuring in Russia and China hit with missiles from sea borne vessels first. Americas targets in the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and all potential threats have missiles already impacting and inbound. Russian missiles enroute to America, China, Britain, France, and various other countries. Britain launches what it can primarily aimed at Russia. All nuclear countries attempt to launch, some do, some dont.

Sub-Commands kick into highgear and become fully operational, Moscow is hit by dozens and dozens of Tridents. Impacts occuring at miltary targets and civilian targets alike, Strategic and Tactical sites.

The few operational Russian subs head for target zones off America, most are destroyed by superior American fleets, some manage to slip through.

American Air Force tries to shoot down all inbounds, but taking out a ICBM moving at Mach 20 at 80,000 feet up isnt exactly routine, even SAMs will be hard pressed to stop them. Missiles will get through, far more then 3.
All manner of weapons begin seeing use, EMPs, Biological & Chemical, as well as Nuclear.

Russian missiles hit targets in the countries it aimed for. Eventually the subs launch there weapons. All in all, the world has just seen a good portion of its people killed. America could possibly survive, but it would be badly hurt.

Okay, thats the best I can write in fifteen minutes, give me a couple days and I can write up a more thorough and precise view on the subject. Let me close this by saying, YOUR SMOKING CRACK, if you think in a full on nuclear exchange only 3 missiles make their way to their targets in America. Thats absurd and so is putting an 80% survivability rate in a FULL ON NUCLEAR WAR!!!! That fails to take into account so many things, one major one being fallout. I dont honestly know what shaped your belief in that idea. Any person educated in Nuclear tech will know this, even Edward Teller (one of the biggest supporters of nukes) would laugh at you for such an obscene statement.

If the world went to an all out nuclear war, it means that America, Russia, China and a handful of other nations would attack not only their enemies but any potential enemies. America is now the king of nukes, in terms of deployability, but make no mistake, Russia is still ready to go and fully capable of a serious nuclear exchange (albeit less as impressive as it would have been in the cold war days).

You couldnt possibly deliver a death blow to Russian, Chinese, or American nuclear forces in a single shot. Russia and America have a headless nuclear war setup, there is no head to destroy nor heart to stop, thus no possibility of shutting down the body in one shot. Preemptive doesnt mean taking out your target in one fell swoop, it means attacking first, increasing ones chance of survival, but not ensuring it.

Sorry for being such a dick, but its a little too optisimistic of a statement to make, I mean seriously, 3?


welcome Tom Clancy... is this part two of Red Storm Rising?
Just joking!! I pretty much agree that if people start throwing nukes around that were all fucked, and 80% chance of survivability is being more than optimistic.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 1:36:45 AM EDT
Anyone heard of Bias? This is a phenomenon where ICBMs fly over the poles and are disturbed by magnetic forces. Soviet ICBM's are years behing our own, especially the MX Peacekeeper which as an obsecne CIP, certainly capable of being a first strike weapon. Soviet missiles are much more succeptible to poor stock pile stewardship and phenomenon like bias. If the hammer were to drop, you could probably expect a 3-5% failure rate for Minuteman III, MX and SLBM platforms combined. The failure rate for Soviet equipment would likely be much, much higer. The money/resources aren't there to maintain ther strategic weapons and many have fallen into disrepair and while are still "active" would be of little utility during a nuclear exchange. GLCM,

ALCM and SLCM also provide a first strike ability, especially the latter two. All of our "first stike" weapons could very easily render a counter force strike impotent, if conducted properly. Even in a best cause scenario, you can expect to absorb a "few" missiles in return for your trouble. China has been developing ICBM's for years and are not to far away from roughly equaling our Titan or Minuteman I missiles. They have also deployed SLBM's, though not nearly as sophisticated or accurate as current American SLBMs. A nuclear exchanged would be one of the worst things to ever happen to the planet. It would be nearly unsurvivable and it woulndt be limited to just American and China. Everyone who opposed the United States and China would be struck just because. Madness. This would be nearly unsurvivable. Its unlikely strategic arms will ever be as prevalent as they were during the Cold War, but as more countries strive for ICBM/IRBM and

nuclear weapons, it makes an exchange that much more likely, inevitible if you ask me. America has greatly reduced its nuclear deterent in the recent years. Vietnam was the beginning of the end for the primarily strategic Air Force. Granted, our SLBM's could certainly handle our nuclear business. basing all of our B2's at Whitman, B1's at Ellesworth makes for an easy target which would be a devastating blow. Granted, assests are deployed here and there, if Whitman were destroyed our B2 program would be history. We have a fraction of the missile sights we once did, though some stocked with the new MX Peacekeeper, the most advanced ICBM on the planet. A Soviet style "swarm" attack could easily diminish our strategic deterent in the CONUS. The role of nuclear deterrence falls primarily to the Navy, which keeps Ohio and Los Angeles submarines and nucelar capable strike aircraft aboard carriers. Los Angeles class submarines are reputed and

widely believed to maintain a ready supply of nuclear tipped Tomahawk cruise missiles, in additon to other surface craft believed to carry the same weapon. While it may be possible to cripple the air force component, the Navy would be our ace in the hole. A nuclear exchange, especially in the CONUS is extremely unlikely for the forseeable future. Isolated tactical strikes, most probably in retalliation or nuclear terrorism seem the most likely options. The PRC and USA depend to much on each other economically to go to war, and this relations have been normalized. That being said, we have sworn to protect Taiwan and they have sworn to attack...this wouldn't likely turn nuclear, but war is war. I think Israel, followed by the United States are the most likely to use nuclear weapons, tactically of course. Iran could spark such a strike, and the possibility of India and Pakistan anihilating each other is ever present. Nuclear war isn't so much a concern this day, but nuclear terrorism should be. Natural disasters, terror attacks or "civil unrest" will be the most probable causes of SHTF.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 4:19:37 AM EDT
We have a lot of colors we can use to pust stuff.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 8:28:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/24/2006 8:29:14 PM EDT by VinnieBoomBah]
In '73 my dad scared the piss out of me with talk of "the north and south polls reversing" or some such crap. Every couple of years some new BS hits the headlines. Truth be told the only REAL SHTF most if not all of us will ever have to worry about is our wives finding out what we really paid for our latest toy!


edit to say: I miss Ronnie!
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 12:14:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/25/2006 12:15:35 PM EDT by DarkNite]

Originally Posted By 55MEGATON_NUKE:

Okay, I may not work in the field of Nuclear Technology/Weapons/Strategy, but I am a very well versed amatuer of the various fields...

While its true Americas Submarine and Naval force is now unrivalved, that doesnt mean they wont go undetected. The Trident carrying subs will move into the Baltic Sea...



American SSBNs in the Baltic? Who's smoking crack now? Do they get there via the Skagerak, Kattegat or the Kiel Canal? Tridents have a range of over 7000km and Ohio-class SSBNs would never be risked in a body of water as constricted as the Baltic.


American missile silos prepped and ready, launch Peacekeepers and Minuteman III's for destinations across the world.


Uh, LGM-118 Peacekeepers were retired late last year.


Sub-Commands kick into highgear and become fully operational, Moscow is hit by dozens and dozens of Tridents.


Easy there with the target fixation, fella. I think one or two might do the trick, at seven warheads a missile.


American Air Force tries to shoot down all inbounds, but taking out a ICBM moving at Mach 20 at 80,000 feet up isnt exactly routine, even SAMs will be hard pressed to stop them. Missiles will get through, far more then 3.


We have a hard enough time shooting down tactical ballistic missiles with assets already deployed. How do you propose the Air Force, who doesn't operate SAMs, take down any inbound warheads?

What you lack in knowledge you certainly make up for with imagination and enthusiasm. Time to hit the books, kid!
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 11:59:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mjohn3006:
We have a lot of colors we can use to pust stuff.




Do you see a ghost?
Top Top