The CommoFreq Method

[CommoFreq]

Well, I guess this is going to be my first substantial post outside of the "Communications" forum, but I wanted to share with you guys sort of a "template" which you can use and modify to suit your needs. Part of the danger of making plans that are too specific, can result in not having a plan that fits an emergency that wasn't anticipated. Rather than develop separate plans for different scenarios, the CommoFreq way of doing it, is to have a plan that fits all scenarios, as a "reaction" to an emergency.

So. A disaster strikes. It can be a nuclear-tipped ICBM. It can be a terrorist attack. Or, perhaps a total stock market crash. Maybe a giant asteroid. Who cares? This is what to do:


"City Folk"

Get the hell out of the city, to a predetermined remote location that is going to serve as your "safe haven"! If you don't have one, I recommend a national or state park for the time being (or even indefinitely, if it's a good enough spot). The farther you are away from other people, the safer you will be. That is a well-documented fact that every history book that was ever printed, proves. F--- off, quickly, and effectively, to a place with water and shelter. Many parks, for example, have running water in some of the least expected places. Buy a tent and some tarps to place over it (because few of them these days are actually rain-proof), and have these items ready.

The golden question therefore is - do I go home first and grab some things? If you don't have supplies stashed already at your "safe haven", then unfortunately, the answer is "yes". Unless your city is burning, there's going to be a short period of shock that you can take advantage of. For us Americans, firearms are a must. The risk to your life to head home so that you can lock and load, is less, than venturing out into what could in short order, turn into anarchy, while unarmed. For you Europeans. . . I wish you the best of luck.

If you, your spouse and your kids are generally in separate places during the course of a normal day, then you will need a contingency plan that everyone knows by heart, that can kick into action without communication. Use your home as the "rally point", and wait until everyone is home, before leaving the city. We have ham radios in our vehicles, and everyone knows how to use them - so there's never going to be a lack of communication between my family members.

Time is of the essence. The longer it takes to leave the city, the more difficult and dangerous it will be. While you're waiting on everyone to arrive, start stuffing your car, or, if you've been graced with the smallest car, arrange the supplies in a way that makes them faster to load. Dedicated preppers already have supplies that are waiting for this purpose - such as vacuum-sealed clothes, and such.

Opt for highways once outside the city, as the interstates will quickly become congested first. Move quickly, but confidently. There's no time for mistakes that result from panic and "over-rushing". Yet, also take social norms and toss them out the window. If it's safe to do so, run red lights. Drive 100mph. Just make sure that you are doing so as safely as possible. A traffic citation should be the least of your concerns during such a scenario.


"Country Bumpkins"

A lot of rednecks like to say they live in the country, when in reality, they're only 15 minutes outside of a city. For those of you who fall under that description, consider yourselves to be "City Folk" during an emergency, and follow the steps above. Otherwise, you're fairly safe where you are - to leave is likely going to be an unnecessary risk, unless the emergency is localized to your general location. If it's a national emergency, stay put. The CommoFreq family falls under this category. However, we do have a "Plan B" should it become necessary to leave. And by "necessary", I mean something dramatic, such as high-concentration nuclear fallout, landing directly on our rooftop.

Ain't nobody got time for that.

__________________________________

Everything from this point forward, is about general prepping and evolving this plan to make it more suitable for your individual needs. Conduct family drills to keep everyone's skills sharp. The first step in the face of an emergency is your safety and the safety of your loved ones. It is entirely possible to bury supplies deep in a national or state park, and they will never be found by others. That's the worst-case scenario. Otherwise, perhaps you know someone who lives in the countryside who would agree to be a part of your plan. Chances are good, that they are preppers too! Either way, your first reaction should be, "security, security, security".

 

[jeager]

@CommoFreq:

Nice to meet you and looking forward to your perspectives on prepping.
I'm just guessing but probably what works in your home in Germany
might not work in the U.S.
If there were a nuclear war I'm sure Germany would be a glass parking lot as would most
of Europe and even much of the U.S.
Borneo might escape a nuclear bomb but radiation will spread via air currents.
From Wiki:
Gun legislation in Germany is regulated by the German Weapons Act (German: Waffengesetz) which adheres to the European Firearms Directive, first enacted in 1972, and superseded by the law of 2003, in force as of 2016. This federal statute regulates the handling of knives, firearms and ammunition as well as acquisition, storage, commerce and maintenance of weapons. It also defines certain forbidden items, including nunchucks, switchblade knives and brass knuckles, and bans their possession and distribution.

A German weapons expert said that Germany's weapons laws were among the world's strictest, and sufficient for safety.[1] While gun ownership is widespread, and associations and ranges for shooting sports and the use of historical guns and weapons in festivals are not forbidden, the use of guns for private self-defence is restricted.

The U.S. the ONLY nation with anything like a 2nd Amendment.

German dose have a much lower crime rate than many European Countries and certainly
lower than the U.S.
Germany also suffers terrorist attacks as does much of Europe and this world isn't safe
and no place is immune.

Do you have "rednecks" in Germany?
My father spent a bit of time in France, Belgium, and Germany.
So did three of his brothers.
Dad, 3rd Armored, his brothers were infantry, and artillery.
1944 thru early 1945, they all got wounded.

I had a good friend named Manfred Klee. He was Hitler Youth.
Manfred and his wife Lelo were fine people, both educated in France.
Manfred was a supreme engineer. Lelo a teacher.

Are there a lot of preppers where you are?

 

[CommoFreq]

I'm living back in the States now (that decision had a lot to do with what you posted). Not only am I an American, but, I'm a redneck too! Nice post though. . .

 

[jeager]

I guess I can claim redneck status also.
My dad was from W.Va. and mother from Pa.
I was born in Michigan and raised in Ohio.
We were financially disadvantaged. (po' folk)
I didn't know that when I was younger however.
I grew up a few minutes walk from a small river and learned on my own to hunt,
shoot, fish, trap, ice skate, and other fun things that are now skills.

 

[Maverick]

I don't believe much of Germany nor the US would become a glass parking lot, unlike yesterdays nuclear weapons today's weapons are smaller and more strategic. Much of the first strike targets then have become secondary today and most aren't in the cross hairs today. The last known public release target list is from 1967/1968, all subsequent releases have been reprints from the 1967/1968 maps, the last known FEMA target map release was 1984 I believe, that was a copy of earlier releases. Most maps on the internet are modified maps from armchair/keyboard worriers from their own perceived threat assessment.

Most targets are going to be air-burst not ground-burst thus lessening the fallout. Almost all damage is going to be done by over-pressure of 5 to 50 PSI, almost all the bombs are going to be in the KT range not MT.

 

[CommoFreq]

It doesn't matter what comes - be it nukes, terrorist attacks, natural disasters - whatever. History shows that city-dwellers bear the brunt of the hardship. Now. Taking a look at "today's" city-dwellers (that being, a large chunk of millennial snowflakes), I would say that it's fair to say that they are the least prepared in all of human history. If doomsday were to reveal its ugly head, it's only a matter of time before they call come to the same conclusion. New Orleans (after Katrina), Aleppo, Syria, etc. . . the people eventually flee the cities during a catastrophe. They have no choice but to.

The trick is, to leave before they do. It takes them a while to figure it out - and that is an advantage!

 

[jeager]

I don't believe much of Germany nor the US would become a glass parking lot, unlike yesterdays nuclear weapons today's weapons are smaller and more strategic. Much of the first strike targets then have become secondary today and most aren't in the cross hairs today. The last known public release target list is from 1967/1968, all subsequent releases have been reprints from the 1967/1968 maps, the last known FEMA target map release was 1984 I believe, that was a copy of earlier releases. Most maps on the internet are modified maps from armchair/keyboard worriers from their own perceived threat assessment.

Most targets are going to be air-burst not ground-burst thus lessening the fallout. Almost all damage is going to be done by over-pressure of 5 to 50 PSI, almost all the bombs are going to be in the KT range not MT.

Gee whiz! I wish I had that kind of insider information.
Source?
Perhaps this old saying will ring true? "All's fair in love and WAR."

If there is a nuclear war nothing is sacred and all weapons will be used.
The U.S. wasn't compelled to use the atomic bomb to end WWII but to prosecute
that war further by invading Japan would have cost another million lives on all
sides.
The world then was war weary and the only nation willing to waste more human
lives was Russia.
One resource Russia always had in abundance was it's people.
Conservative sources estimate Russia lost at least 20,000 million people, combatants
and civilians.
No one knows how many of the Russian people Stalin had executed.
In the end Stalin was likely poisoned after the war as he had become a liability.
He was, after all, insane.
You wouldn't notice a modern Stalin. He excelled at seeming uninteresting. Most people think of insane people as being obvious. Stalin's are scarier because it's hard to tell who they are until it's too late.

So definitely insane but not the common perception of insanity.
Many source on the web.

Does anyone really believe Radical Islam gives a phatt ratts patoot about "collateral"
damage, killing all infidels? Infidel = anyone not Muslim.
109 verses in the Koran COMMANDING to kill the infidel anywhere, anytime, any way,
no matter what the consequences.
Google it.^^^
"Know thy enemy". A wise attitude.

 

[Maverick]

That's not so much insider information, it's well known with the information stored and maps reprints from SAC 1959 public release 1967/68 that are Stored at the national security archive at George Washington University.

Once the CD was replaced with FEMA in 1979 all public nuclear information was transferred to FEMA, thats a known fact. Almost all modern russian nuclear missiles are MIRV platform thus very very few would be in the MT range, practically all MIRVs are strategic, the US shrunk its arsenal by reducing the MIRV only creating single warheads with the most powerful being 1.1mt and less, Russia is 700kt and less all public knowledge.

Much of nuclear misinformation was influenced by dorothy day of the Catholic workers protest in 1946 through 1961 during the Red Scare when the catholic protest turned main stream to the peace movement through the 60s and onwards when the protest and some academics proclaimed 1 bomb would destroy the world. The information we get today on the internet regarding for and against are using old values to form modern conclusions. I don't use google for a lot of this information, I tend to research government open archives and universities, google can complicate to many things and it's full of pseudoscience

Edited; I noticed my post ran together, corrected it.

 

[CommoFreq]

If it's a nuclear war, I'm going to figure out a way to do the most damage while using the least amount of nukes (those things are expensive!). So, here's how I'd prioritize my target list:

1. Satellites in orbit (excellent as a first-strike objective, because it doesn't kill anyone [making a nuclear retaliation on the ground politically questionable], yet, does tremendous damage to communications infrastructure).
2. Known enemy ICBM silos
3. Enemy military installations - all branches
4. Major hydroelectric dams (I'd leave the nuclear power plants intact - too much of a mess to clean up after the war)

None of those target large populations of civilians, and would cause so much domestic chaos, that the enemy would be unable to fight. I personally don't think the Russians would target civilians with nukes. They're trying to win a popularity contest right now. That, and it's generally understood that you can only drop so many nukes before you cause a nuclear winter and the extinction of all life on Earth. With that in mind, I just don't think that incoming ICBMs will be as awful as many think it will. It's the effects thereafter that are going to suck.

 

[jeager]

Being in police work for a long time we were into disaster preparedness.
Situations from serious weather disasters, civil unrest, riots, (been there done that!) and
possible nuclear war.
I wrote disaster response policy.
In northern Ohio we are a heavily industrial area like many other places.
We were dead smack between Cleveland and Pittsburgh.
Cleveland has a huge industrial presence and due to the Great Lakes a major supply zone.
Pittsburgh sit on the confluence of three major rivers. Water routes and steel production
makes Pittsburgh a major target.
My area of Ohio isn't the only nuclear target I'm quite sure.
Russian nukes have those areas heavily targeted among others.
No doubt we have the same places in Russian targeted also.
It isn't possible to target industrial centers without also targeting the humans in those
areas also.
Collateral damage.
Point blank we in industrial n.e. Ohio are not going to survive an enemy first strike.
No one else in an industrial targeted area is going to survive a first strike either.
The "nuclear deterrent" likely has avoided a nuclear war. So far anyway.
Terrorism still remains a real and present danger.

By the way. If it's a nuclear war NO SIDE is going to give a fat rats patoot about
the economics of war.
How much money spent in a nuclear war would be irrelevant.

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

Einstein

A point to ponder I think.

 

[Maverick]

After my dad left the Navy he worked as a Fed in the Office of Civil Defense through the Department of Defense from the 50s to 1971 he left before the renaming and restructuring disagreeing in the direction of the departments. I seen a lot from behind the scenes in them times.

 

[CommoFreq]

By the way. If it's a nuclear war NO SIDE is going to give a fat rats patoot about
the economics of war.
How much money spent in a nuclear war would be irrelevant.

Yeah, I mean, nuclear war is all theoretical at the moment, but historically, war economics often determines the victor. Just before Germany's surrender in WWI, they were ripping lead pipes out of the ground to make bullets with. It's why. . . industry like in your area is strategically interesting. But, WWI was a war of attrition. In a war like that, as long as there are an infinite amount of supplies, they would have fought until nobody was left to fight. The main objective was simply to win in numbers, and continue the killing until the enemy is wiped out.

If a nuclear war were to break out, it would be experimental, given that no such war has ever been fought before, and it would really depend on what kind of a war is being fought. There are two possibilities:

A) Surrender. If the main goal is to cause the enemy to surrender, then theoretically, it shouldn't take too many nukes. But, there's also a possibility that I'm wrong. If that's the case, then. . .
B) War of attrition. Everyone is going to get nuked. Targets have a priority in terms of strategic importance to the enemy. Once those are all gone, and there's still no surrender, look out, because then it's time to start targeting civilians.

Now, in terms of the industry in your area - yes, I believe that you are correct in that it is strategically vital. However, the military has stockpiles that will allow it to fight autonomously for a certain period of time (and the specifics, I'm sure, is classified info). In the case of a nuclear war, I think so many people will be killed and so much will be destroyed in such a short period of time, that this stockpile will not be exhausted prior to the conclusion of the war. In other words, I think that nuking your area wouldn't have much of an effect due to this. But like I said - that's in a full-blown nuclear war.

In the case of a more conventional war, however, with troops and tanks and such (and maybe just 1 or 2 nuclear detonations). . . I think your area has a higher likelihood of being attacked. The more WWIII looks like WWI and WWII, the more danger you're in.

That's my theory on it.

 

[jeager]

My theory on "it" is that no side(s) will win and everyone looses.
Thus, so far, no nuclear war.
So far.
Let Radical Islam get hold of a nuke and they will use it.
Even if they die using one they will use it.
Dying for Allah gets them a trip to Allah and 70 virgins.
Or 70 goats, or a virgin camel and 69 virgin goats.

 

[CommoFreq]

Yeah, absolutely. I don't even make the distinction between "radical" and "moderate" Islam. Islam itself is "radical". Erdogan said himself that there "is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. You're either a Muslim, or you aren't".

They should all thank Allah that I'm not the US President right now. If I would start WWIII, I would make it count - and rid the world of them altogether. I'd go down as one of the most evil people in the history books, but at least those books wouldn't be written in Arabic.

 

[jeager]

Radical Islam is a Cancer on the backside of human kind.

That's you and I.

ALL Islam is a blight on the world.

 

[lonewolf]

i have never prepared having one thing for one scenario and something else for another one, I prep to survive no matter what it is. most of it is common sense, not that its that common any more, the snowflakes wont know what the hell to do.
its all very well saying "get out of the city" but where are they going? without any where specific to go they are just refugees and I think we've all seen enough of refugees lately to not want to go there.