View Full Version : What is your idea/definition of SHTF?

09-30-2005, 9:44 AM
This term has been used a lot on here and probably as well on some other pro-gun forums. What is your definition? Instead of the literal meaning where defecation is thrown at a fan spinning at high speed, what is yours?

1. criminals and/or robbers breaking into your house
2. next American Revolution (ultra high taxes, loss of civil rights, or gun ownership rights)
3. government confiscation of all firearms (registered or not and think of Nazi Gun Control)
4. imprisonment of all gunowners (think of World War II)
5. invasion by a foreign power
6. terrorist attack (9/11/2001, Madrid and London train station bombings, etc.)
7. natural disaster (earthquake, tsunami, hurricane, flood, etc.)
8. suspension of the U.S. Constitution
9. martial law declared
10. jackbooted thugs breaking into your house (Waco, Ruby Ridge, Elian Gonzales incident, etc.)
11. harrassment from the government (Carl Drega, etc.)
12. Hollywood shootout

Of course, this is just a small list, but how about yours?

09-30-2005, 9:58 AM
While it could apply to all of those, there are only 2 I think very likely (one's not on your list), and only 1 that seems very high risk.

- Massive civil unrest, like the LA riots. This is usually relatively small scale, and generally only covers a few dozen blocks max. It's very unlikely it would spread to most suburban areas, or that it would last more than a few days.

- Natural disaster, like the Big One hitting the Bay Area or LA. A truly large quake would make the many of the roads impassable and would disable water, electricity, phones, etc. This is the one I prepare for, because the chances are good that it will happen in my lifetime. Once this happens, as we've seen, you can't count on the government to help you for at least several days, and maybe a week or more.

I plan to be able to stay in my house for 2 weeks without having to go anywhere.


09-30-2005, 11:52 AM
Until NOLA, I always thought that an SHTF situation could never come up. After NOLA, I now see that the police or military could not protect every one of us....
Before these recent disasters, I always thought an SHTF situation would be a Red Dawn scenario. Red Dawn in the US I think is pretty far fetched.

09-30-2005, 8:00 PM
breakdown of local and subsequently, the state gov. and their services.

NOLA was a definite SHTF...

10-01-2005, 1:26 AM
Originally posted by Joel1316:
Until NOLA, I always thought that an SHTF situation could never come up. After NOLA, I now see that the police or military could not protect every one of us....
Before these recent disasters, I always thought an SHTF situation would be a Red Dawn scenario. Red Dawn in the US I think is pretty far fetched.
Red Dawn might seem far fetched,
but so did WW2. That's why the CIA etc keep good track of the political ongoins in other countries.
A Red Dawn situation could develop,
but I highly doubt that the US would
ever be actually invaded.
Its much more likely that we'd bomb Mexico (and cuba) into the stoneage

Old Fud
10-01-2005, 3:04 AM
I'm with Maxicon -- limit your definition of SHTF to something you can do something about.

Here in East Bay we don't have to worry about hurricanes, tonados, blizzards, and the like.
There's NO POINT in worrying about nuclear war -- and quite a few other things that no amount of preparation will permit us to survive.
For example, you can say a 300-foot tsunami might be SHTF, but so what? Die and move on!!

We DO have
--- Civil Unrest.
--- Earthquake.
-- In some areas, FIRE!

In the first 2 cases, I personally see no point in jumping into a car and driving "out".
I plan to hunker down on my own property and "hold" for 3-14 days.
In my particular locale, #3 is not likely. I choose to "ignore".


10-01-2005, 3:45 PM
wife catches me with her sister.

10-01-2005, 10:02 PM
SHTF scenarios used to be the Rodney Dangerfield of discussions on the gun boards. NOLA ended that.

I would add a "terrorist nuke" to your list. In my mind, it is inevitable. They touch one off in Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York. The stock market crashes and our currency collapses. Panic and civil unrest everywhere. Los Angeles is in turmoil.

Water and food distribution is decimated in the bombed areas. Looting and house to house scavaging erupts... NOLA on steriods.

Got ammo?

Mssr. Eleganté
10-02-2005, 2:12 AM
All of the SHTF situations mentioned above have one thing in common and that is the sudden suspension of the Rule of Law over a geographic area large enough that getting away is impossible or impractical.

The most likely causes of a SHTF situation in the US would seem to be natural disasters, race riots or a terrorist nuke. The larger scale decline of the Rule of Law over the entire country is too gradual a process to really be considered SHTF. It's more of a SSIFOTACWCF (Somebody Standing In Front Of The Air Conditioner While Continuously Farting) situation. It smells just as bad as when the SHTF, but it takes a lot longer and nobody is really sure of where the smell is coming from, so they just get used to it.

50 Freak
10-02-2005, 2:52 AM
SHTF scenario for me.

Dirty or Biological bomb in the Bay Area, Quaranteen off the whole freaking "bay area". No water and food as half the population here is dead, and the other half is surviving by scrounging for food/water. Looters running around and no LE left.

Military won't come in because of the biological contagian. We're on our own basically.

This is pretty much a SHTF scenario.

Worse one, (and Delloro nailed it) wife catches me with her sister.

10-02-2005, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by Amendment II:
... The larger scale decline of the Rule of Law over the....

you may or may not care, but the term "Rule of Law" is a liberal constitutional lawyer/judicial buzzword. so don't be too careless when tossing it around, as others might get confused. not a criticism, just some insider info for your benefit.

10-02-2005, 9:29 PM
Originally posted by 50 Freak:
Dirty or Biological bomb in the Bay Area,

Sorry, but a radioactive dirty bomb does not kill half the population of the bay area or the LA basin. Remember that Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed "only" about 100,000 people each, and they put out much more radiation than a dirty bomb, and a lot of the fatalities were from heat, pressure wave, and other traditional effects. A typical dirty bomb would be a heck of a lot of normal explosives (for example a truckload of fuel-fertilizer mix), with radioactive waste mixed in. It would probably quickly kill hundreds, mostly from traditional effects. The number of people outright killed by radiation is up for debate, it ranges from none (the radiation might be so dispersed that you have low-level radiation everywhere), to hundreds.

I not knowledgeable about biological dirty bombs. I very much doubt that it would be possible to obtain enough biological agent. And even if one could, there are much more effective ways ot distributing them (drinking water, restaurant supplies and such all come to mind). Again, such an attack could quickly kill hundreds or thousands, not millions. On the other hand, a good epidemic could kill hundreds of thousands in either bay area or LA basin; but for that, we don't need a dirty bomb, just avian flu.

Where I do agree: One of the effects of a dirty bomb might be that it paralyzes the emergency response system, out of irrational fear. We might end up with millions of people who have been exposed to low-level radiation, which would have little short-term effects, but the real problem would be a SHTF situation, rioting, breakdown of infrastructure (including food distribution), which is quite ugly.

10-04-2005, 9:18 PM

10-05-2005, 8:34 PM
another is a "mild" nuclear explosion to knock out all electrical devices within XXXX miles.

EMP is my biggest worry know.

NOLA... at least you have electrical services.

loma prieta 1989: i was a student assistant as CSUH and came back to office to watch a's/giants and see channel 7 was off the air, but tuned to CNN to watch bay bridge.

EMP blast? from high in the atmostphere?

oh boy...