3 ms·

Like security guards' families. Awful, but not without historical precedent.

by zbentley 1mo ago

philipallstar 1mo ago
I did almost write that! But if disaster really strikes, then just resources will be useful.
Tade0 1mo ago
Fear the security guard who has nothing to lose.
somenameforme 1mo ago
Which precedent? Grunts under coercion has a rich history that's still ongoing, but these sort of guards are those that would have both weapons and the guarded in their direct vicinity. I can't think of any historic example where this wasn't the loyalest of the loyal types.
- jcranmer 1mo ago
  There are plenty of people who have been killed by their own bodyguards, e.g., Indira Gandhi.
  - somenameforme 1mo ago
    Yes, but in those cases - the assassinated generally trusted those who were assassinating them. If you're holding somebody's family hostage or otherwise coercing them, there's no trust and you're gonna get killed. Grunts are regularly mistreated and coerced. You can kidnap people off the streets, throw them in a trench and make sure they don't run away by the presence of "motivational troops" in the rear (who kill their own side for fleeing) but you don't let those sort of troops anywhere remotely near the people responsible for their predicament for very obvious reasons, let alone when armed.
stymaar 1mo ago
And who guards the guards family? These billionaires who have always relied on the power of the state for their security and asserting their property are absolutely delusional if they think they can keep it without it. When states collapse, the one who emerge victorious aren't the well-mannered business people, it's the warlords (a.k.a. the heads of organized crime).
stronglikedan 1mo ago
I mean, if you were already a security guard before the apocalypse, it would kind of make sense to find a billionaire bunker for you and your family, and just continue being a security guard in order to stay there. Whatever that entails, the alternative is probably so much worse.

Like security guards' families. Awful, but not without historical precedent.

philipallstar 1mo ago

I did almost write that! But if disaster really strikes, then just resources will be useful.

Tade0 1mo ago

Fear the security guard who has nothing to lose.

somenameforme 1mo ago

Which precedent? Grunts under coercion has a rich history that's still ongoing, but these sort of guards are those that would have both weapons and the guarded in their direct vicinity. I can't think of any historic example where this wasn't the loyalest of the loyal types.

jcranmer 1mo ago
There are plenty of people who have been killed by their own bodyguards, e.g., Indira Gandhi.
- somenameforme 1mo ago
  Yes, but in those cases - the assassinated generally trusted those who were assassinating them. If you're holding somebody's family hostage or otherwise coercing them, there's no trust and you're gonna get killed. Grunts are regularly mistreated and coerced. You can kidnap people off the streets, throw them in a trench and make sure they don't run away by the presence of "motivational troops" in the rear (who kill their own side for fleeing) but you don't let those sort of troops anywhere remotely near the people responsible for their predicament for very obvious reasons, let alone when armed.

stymaar 1mo ago

And who guards the guards family? These billionaires who have always relied on the power of the state for their security and asserting their property are absolutely delusional if they think they can keep it without it. When states collapse, the one who emerge victorious aren't the well-mannered business people, it's the warlords (a.k.a. the heads of organized crime).

stronglikedan 1mo ago

I mean, if you were already a security guard before the apocalypse, it would kind of make sense to find a billionaire bunker for you and your family, and just continue being a security guard in order to stay there. Whatever that entails, the alternative is probably so much worse.