4 ms·

I just went and dug up the material I was referencing, and the memoirs are from the third Balkan war of the 1990s. Here brother: http://shtfschool.com/communit

I just went and dug up the material I was referencing, and the memoirs are from the third Balkan war of the 1990s. Here brother: http://shtfschool.com/community/selco-one-year-in-hell/ http://shtfschool.com/community/selco-one-year-in-hell/ This guy's material is genuine and it goes into great depth, but its only one example. The are other stories of course from this conflict that you can dig up which back up his account. this video goes into some of his information about gang warfare. It backs up everything I was saying: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-pBbG3Q8uo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-pBbG3Q8uo

dalke 11y ago
Thank you for the followup. The siege was one of the alternatives I considered earlier, but it didn't fit your description. You wrote "cut off from supplies, power was lost, but yet there was no invasion or shelling". The total blockade of Sarajevo started on 2 May 1992, and included sending in armored columns to try to take the city (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sarajevo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sarajevo ) and shelling (see http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news_body.cfm?newsid=2687 http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news_body.cfm?newsid=2687 ). There appear to have been several types of gangs. The Selco link you gave talks about gangs in the size of 15-50. These appear to be different than the organized "drug gang" style of gangs you mentioned before. Selco writes that being alone, even armed, wasn't enough. He was part of a large family of 15, and that being in a group was the key to survival, not so much arms alone. Do note that he also wrote that there was a lot of grey, not white on black. I don't think there's a good lesson from this. Having more arms might change the balance of which group gets which resources, but there's no good or bad side in those winners, only "me" instead of "you." A better example of what you want is perhaps http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/22/world/gangs-in-sarajevo-spread-terror-unchecked-by-the-cowed-leaders.html http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/22/world/gangs-in-sarajevo-sp... , which says that "armed gangs have profited from the disorder of war to turn whole neighborhoods into personal fiefs." "The gangs control the thriving black market, which accounts for virtually all the trade in food, alcohol and vehicle fuel in the besieged city. Working with similar gangs operating on the Serbian side of the siege lines, the gangs run a nighttime smuggling operation that brings truckloads of contraband over the bridges across the Miljacka that separate the Serbian-held suburb of Grbavica from the center of Sarajevo. ..." "The gangs' power is so great that the leaders of the Bosnian Government and army said recently that they dared not challenge them directly for fear of setting off an internal war in Sarajevo that would weaken the city's defenses. Bosnian Army commanders have acknowledged that key sections of the front lines around the city are under the control of militias loyal to the gang leaders and that challenging the gangs could cause the militias to abandon their positions." From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismet_Bajramovi%C4%87 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismet_Bajramovi%C4%87 , "When the war began, criminal groups were among the first to offer resistance the Yugoslav National Army besieging Sarajevo." Other criminal/military defenders include Ismet Bajramović include Ramiz Delalić, Jusuf Prazina, and Mušan Topalović. That said, I'm still not clear how more pistols and rifles would have changed what happened in the city, in regards to how people lived. (Weapons were useful in defending the city, and the tunnel was able to supply more of those. That, however, is a quite different topic than what you suggested.) I can see how this is good example of "shit hits the fan". I don't see how it's at all a good example of your original scenario, which was: > a disaster happens, so police response times have lapsed, dropped to days. Not everyone is stranded on their roof, tons of people have food but the real problem is that now heavily armed and well organized drug gangs are able to operate with impunity, and brutality, seizing whatever they wish (including the food)... It's a power-grab situation for a few days, or for however long the power stays off, or it would be, if combat veterans and ordinary Americans weren't so well armed.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Pamar 11y ago
  Yes, this is more or less my point: Case A (Sarajevo): there is a massive unrest, basically what amounts to a Civil War, then yeah - having access to firearms and military training is probably a key factor in your survival (you also have to decide what side you are on, though, which in the long run will also become a key factor in your survival, no matter how well trained you are). Case B (Kathrina): there may be individuals or small groups that take a chance at looting deserted buildings. But they will have basically the same problems as everyone else (surviving the storm peak, being able to move around after the worst has passed). Situations where large, well-armed gangs siege you in your home which has remained intact and holds some kind of resource which is valuable outside of the disaster area (i.e. large amounts of cash, valuables) and you have to fend them off for days until the cavalry finally arrives seem to be extremely unlikely outside of a movie script. You seem to imply that all "disasters" will end up like Sarajevo, my idea is that your reasoning applies only in cases of a natural disaster hitting a region where a civil war is already going on.

dalke 11y ago

Thank you for the followup. The siege was one of the alternatives I considered earlier, but it didn't fit your description. You wrote "cut off from supplies, power was lost, but yet there was no invasion or shelling". The total blockade of Sarajevo started on 2 May 1992, and included sending in armored columns to try to take the city (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sarajevo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sarajevo ) and shelling (see http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news_body.cfm?newsid=2687 http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news_body.cfm?newsid=2687 ). There appear to have been several types of gangs. The Selco link you gave talks about gangs in the size of 15-50. These appear to be different than the organized "drug gang" style of gangs you mentioned before. Selco writes that being alone, even armed, wasn't enough. He was part of a large family of 15, and that being in a group was the key to survival, not so much arms alone. Do note that he also wrote that there was a lot of grey, not white on black. I don't think there's a good lesson from this. Having more arms might change the balance of which group gets which resources, but there's no good or bad side in those winners, only "me" instead of "you." A better example of what you want is perhaps http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/22/world/gangs-in-sarajevo-spread-terror-unchecked-by-the-cowed-leaders.html http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/22/world/gangs-in-sarajevo-sp... , which says that "armed gangs have profited from the disorder of war to turn whole neighborhoods into personal fiefs." "The gangs control the thriving black market, which accounts for virtually all the trade in food, alcohol and vehicle fuel in the besieged city. Working with similar gangs operating on the Serbian side of the siege lines, the gangs run a nighttime smuggling operation that brings truckloads of contraband over the bridges across the Miljacka that separate the Serbian-held suburb of Grbavica from the center of Sarajevo. ..." "The gangs' power is so great that the leaders of the Bosnian Government and army said recently that they dared not challenge them directly for fear of setting off an internal war in Sarajevo that would weaken the city's defenses. Bosnian Army commanders have acknowledged that key sections of the front lines around the city are under the control of militias loyal to the gang leaders and that challenging the gangs could cause the militias to abandon their positions." From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismet_Bajramovi%C4%87 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismet_Bajramovi%C4%87 , "When the war began, criminal groups were among the first to offer resistance the Yugoslav National Army besieging Sarajevo." Other criminal/military defenders include Ismet Bajramović include Ramiz Delalić, Jusuf Prazina, and Mušan Topalović. That said, I'm still not clear how more pistols and rifles would have changed what happened in the city, in regards to how people lived. (Weapons were useful in defending the city, and the tunnel was able to supply more of those. That, however, is a quite different topic than what you suggested.) I can see how this is good example of "shit hits the fan". I don't see how it's at all a good example of your original scenario, which was: > a disaster happens, so police response times have lapsed, dropped to days. Not everyone is stranded on their roof, tons of people have food but the real problem is that now heavily armed and well organized drug gangs are able to operate with impunity, and brutality, seizing whatever they wish (including the food)... It's a power-grab situation for a few days, or for however long the power stays off, or it would be, if combat veterans and ordinary Americans weren't so well armed.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Pamar 11y ago
Yes, this is more or less my point: Case A (Sarajevo): there is a massive unrest, basically what amounts to a Civil War, then yeah - having access to firearms and military training is probably a key factor in your survival (you also have to decide what side you are on, though, which in the long run will also become a key factor in your survival, no matter how well trained you are). Case B (Kathrina): there may be individuals or small groups that take a chance at looting deserted buildings. But they will have basically the same problems as everyone else (surviving the storm peak, being able to move around after the worst has passed). Situations where large, well-armed gangs siege you in your home which has remained intact and holds some kind of resource which is valuable outside of the disaster area (i.e. large amounts of cash, valuables) and you have to fend them off for days until the cavalry finally arrives seem to be extremely unlikely outside of a movie script. You seem to imply that all "disasters" will end up like Sarajevo, my idea is that your reasoning applies only in cases of a natural disaster hitting a region where a civil war is already going on.