[Autumnleaf]

Machiavelli made a point in his writing that Robert Green followed up on in his Laws of Power book. It relates to whether it is safer to bunker down in a fortress or to be among society. The argument goes that a fortress will eventually be laid siege to and destroyed, while keeping company in society protects you from such an overwhelming attack.

Do you think this is true? Can you clarify how and why there is more protection by not hiding in a fortress? How does this argument apply to society?

I bring this up because some people are preppers preparing for the end of the world and are hiding out "off the grid". From what the other post mentioned governments are hassling them.

[Tocsin]

A fortress retreat would be a nice thing to have when society begins to crumble.

The problem is unless you're truly self sufficient, and capable of defending youself, the fortress will only save your bacon for so long.

[Dangime]

Each route has costs. So long as you blend in, in a society you can "hide in plain sight". However this is going to require you to put some effort into looking like a member of society. This costs resources.

I guess if we're envoking ancient writers, I'd pull a Sun Tzu out.

The best course would be to have a fortress, but have everyone not think it's a fortress and to seem a part of society, but actually think seperately of it and act independantly the best you can.

[Tocsin]

There seems to be an increasing public fascination for Zombies and the notion of "Zombie Apocalypse."

I'm beginning to think that the "zombie" is simply the metaphor for "other people" in a post societal collapse.

It dehumanizes other people into unthinking competitors, and hightlights a fear that these competitors might also dehumanize us and regard us as nothing more than a potential (food) resource.

It also reduces the notion of human competition to its ultimate state: kill or be killed.

The first wave of zombie cinema seemed to coincide with the "red scare."

The current wave might have something to do with fears of economic collapse, and increased competition for dwindling resources/jobs/wealth.

That, and who wouldn't have fun in Zombieland for a weekend.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Talahassee: I'm looking for a new home. Tomorrow maybe, skinny dip in the Yellowstone River. Swinging from the chandeliers in the Playboy mansion, but today, a Vortec 6 fucking litre V8, a box full of hollow points and a Lord willin' and GD Twinkie... Gotta enjoy the little things. Colombus: I hate to give credit to anyone who looks like Yosmite Sam, but I'm writing it down.

[Polymath20]

A fortress is worthless without sovereignty of the land around it or at least an army to hold it. For both you need society.

[davai]

One can blend into a society and become nothing. When you go unnoticed you're not vulnerable to threats like you would be in your own fortress, where everyone knows who you are and that you live there. So i'd rather be part of a society, like the Hittites whos society was it's fortress, until that society starting fighting itself and they collapsed. A fortress is only good if you have adequate protection and resources.

[Kisai]

	The argument goes that a fortress will eventually be laid siege to and destroyed, while keeping company in society protects you from such an overwhelming attack.

The metaphor doesn't make sense. It switches from the backdrop of a state of war to a state of peacetime and fellowship without noting that they are two very different scenarios.

[INTelliJent]

What about a society of fortresses? *minds explode*

[raimius]

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What about a society of fortresses? *minds explode*

Exhibit A: Afghanistan

[Vagrant]

	Originally Posted by Dangime To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The best course would be to have a fortress, but have everyone not think it's a fortress and to seem a part of society, but actually think seperately of it and act independantly the best you can.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[INTelliJent]

	Originally Posted by raimius To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Exhibit A: Afghanistan

I was thinking more of Latin/South America.

[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I was thinking more of Latin/South America.

I was thinking Feudal Europe.

Or Westeros.

[INTelliJent]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I was thinking Feudal Europe. Or Westeros.

I would argue Westeros or Feudal Europe was only nominally a "society" of fortresses, and more like a scattering of fortresses, since the the actual amount of them is rather low.

Contrast that with "A man's home is his castle", extending to wide-scale literal individual measures of protection, whether it be more or less obvious security measures, such as in more and even less urban areas in Latin and South America. This would more accurately be defined as a "society" of fortresses.

[alt lit]

A fortress strikes me as rather medieval and not particularly secure against modern technology. Physical assets (especially immobile) quickly become liabilities. Your fortress today is someone else's target tomorrow. Someone always has one more bullet, one more soldier, or (if you piss off the wrong enemy) a laser-guided bomb that an unmanned drone can drop down your chimney. To say nothing of a hacker’s ability to breach every system in your fortress. I’d say think less traditional army and more modern counterintelligence.

Mobility, monetary liquidity, anonymity (or pseudonymity), and encryption are key elements comprising contemporary security. Combine those resources with social charm and cunning, and while still not perfect, you'll likely be more secure than otherwise.

[thod]

There is no protection in society when there is no society. The idea is that the people will turn on each other in a competition for the remaining resources. Eventually a new stability will be reached at a much lower population level. The fortress dweller is hoping to ride out this cull in his fortress.

When you are fleeing from a lion it does not matter who is the fastest runner, it is who is the slowest that counts. Thus if the other guy has no food for a few days, whilst you do, he will be the one to weaken and die. Preppers generally do not build fortresses, they cache supplies.

The cities depend on inflows. If anything should disrupt those flows, the cities would starve. This would result in mass looting and people attempting to escape. They would preyed on by each other and by whatever gangs formed. The surrounding communities would be swamped by refugees. Seeking to preserve what they have, they would cut themselves off. They would blockade the roads and shoot on sight any city dweller attempting to enter. The communities further out would think the same way and seek to prevent the refugees reaching them. If the refugees come and eat your food, there will be not be enough for you. The further out you are, the better. Although any refugees still alive at that point will be highly skilled, they will weakened.

Fortress builders do not rely on walls for protection but rather on stealth. A person cannot attack what they do not know is there. The walls only come into play if found. Solitary preppers are not in a good position. This is why more prepared preppers seek a community. They have many eyes and many guns to fend off the zombie horde coming from the cities. They all know each other and are bonded so will cover each others backs.

[SirJac]

A fortress didn't do Gaddafi any good, I doubt they would serve anyone else much better when put to the test.

[Dangime]

	Originally Posted by SirJac To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A fortress didn't do Gaddafi any good, I doubt they would serve anyone else much better when put to the test.

Oh come on, every fortress won't neccessarily have the one world order as an opponent. A lesser fortress to deal with less evils, could have great value.

[SirJac]

	Originally Posted by Dangime To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Oh come on, every fortress won't neccessarily have the one world order as an opponent. A lesser fortress to deal with less evils, could have great value.

The US didn't storm the fortress, the rebels did. If civilization did fall apart, your fortress should expect to face a similiar force.

Come to think of it Gbagbo of the Ivory Coast didn't fair any better with his fortress either.

[Dangime]

	Originally Posted by SirJac To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The US didn't storm the fortress, the rebels did. If civilization did fall apart, your fortress should expect to face a similiar force.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


(Reuters) - Muammar Gaddafi made his final dash for freedom shortly before dawn prayers. Libya's leader, a few dozen loyal bodyguards and the head of his now non-existent army Abu Bakr Younis Jabr, broke out of the two-month siege of his hometown Sirte and, forming a convoy of six dozen vehicles, raced through the outskirts to the west.

Hm, some interesting tidbits. If you're a dictator, whole cities are fortresses. He held out for months. Perhaps he wasn't expecting as long of a siege. If he had, maybe he would have made it longer? He wasn't caught until he tried to make a break for it, and only then when a french fighter jet attacked his convoy. If anything hiding out kept him alive.

[INTelliJent]

	Originally Posted by SirJac To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The US didn't storm the fortress, the rebels did. If civilization did fall apart, your fortress should expect to face a similiar force. Come to think of it Gbagbo of the Ivory Coast didn't fair any better with his fortress either.

The rebels didn't get him in a fortress, but the rebels wouldn't have had even a remote chance without the more than 26,000 sorties flown by NATO forces.

Air Supremacy and destruction of armored resistance/C2 assets are an overwhelming asset.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Overall, Nato aircraft flew more than 26,000 sorties, including nearly 10,000 strike missions. More than 1,000 tanks, vehicles and guns were destroyed, along with Col Gaddafi's command and control network.