"5 Things People Say They Can Or Would Do In A Survival Situation--And Why They Won't"

An article at Death Valley Magazine on "5 Things People Say They Can or Would Do In A Survival Situation--And Why They Won't." Although titled 5 things, the author actually discusses 6:

1.  Bug out on foot.

2.  Drink their own urine.

3.  Trade for goods.

4.  Eat someone.

5.  Defend their house.

6.  Eat cat food.

There is sort of an elitist, "leave it to the professionals," attitude to the article, but the author raises some valid points.

For instance, bugging out on foot is not the best option. The author mentions road blocks and gangs, which is true in many third world countries--particularly where law and order has broken down. Heck, even some of the cities around New Orleans during Katrina closed bridges and roads to stop those bugging out on foot. On the other hand, there are many historical examples of refugees fleeing areas on foot. During WWII, there were Jews that escaped from various ghettos on foot. It won't be easy, it won't be fun, and it may not work, but it is possible. But it should be a last resort, not a first choice. But, remember, you will be a refugee, subject to all the bad things that happen to refugees.

Drinking your own urine. Again, this falls into the category of not the best option. However, people have done so and survived. Some people even think it has health benefits. However, the use of urine in a survival situation is best limited to wetting a cloth or hat to aid in cooling the body.

Trade for goods. I would say that this is the first place the author falls down. Yes, if you or I had to go to a black market in a third world country, the results he predicted could very likely occur. Heck, if you or I were to try to buy something on the black market in the U.S., it probably would turn out badly. But if you and I were adjusting--with everyone else--to a post-disaster situation here, we would learn the rules of safely negotiating for goods as the markets developed.

Eat someone. Again, this is a personality and desperation issue. Obviously, someone like Jeffrey Dahmer would not have an issue with this. Under extreme conditions, certain people have resorted to cannibalism (e.g., the Donner party). Given the cultural mores, I think the author is correct as to this one.

Defend their house. The author's position is that attempting to protect your home against a mob is futile, based on what he knows from the Jakarta riots. And he may be correct, depending on the circumstances. However, the L.A. riots following the Rodney King trial also showed that shop owners were successfully able to protect against mobs and looters. So which is it? The colonial wars fought by Europeans against natives showed over and over how small groups of defenders in prepared positions can slaughter anyone stupid enough to make a frontal assault. Rorke's Drift, anyone? Basic military history shows that the success of a defense relates to how prepared your position is, the moral and skill of the troops involved, and the firepower that can be brought to bear. I have no doubt that a group of American preppers and their neighbors would be better armed than the Chinese apartment dwellers in Jakarta. And unless the mob is extremely motivated (whether by hatred, drugs, anger, or some combination), they probably will not proceed against a stiff armed resistance. If the resistance is strong enough (think of trench warfare) a mob may not even be physically able to approach the defended position. So, if it is just one person facing a mob of 50 people with a front that is 25 people wide, that person is probably not going to be successful. A group of 10 or 15 armed and motivated defenders, though, would present an entirely different situation.

Eat cat food. If you can eat liver pate or fish eggs smeared on a dry cracker, you can eat cat food.