when do you say f*ck it?

[raptor]

i'm surprised by the number of people here that are convinced that'd i'm just going to walk away from here. they obviously missed my second post.

And i should clarify a few things, i'm one of those single airman, and i have absolutly no problem doing my job and and willing to go the whole nine yards. i'm not saying at the first sign of trouble, i'm loading a humvee with gear and hauling ass. i'm just wondering what you guys thought on the subject. on these forums we all talk about bugging out or bugging in when SHTF. I, and a lot of other military personnel, don't have that option.

Me? i know i'll be one of the first one's to report in, and one of the last one's to leave.

I do not think most of the poster think you will walk away. You asked when could/should you walk away and that is what most of the posters are discussing.

If you never intend to leave then the whole thread is moot.

[eugene]

So what kind of situations would you say warrant the Everyman for himself factor?

I can't see one. IF the .gov is gone and the command is destroyed you are still responsible for defending America, the constitution and remaining at your post. If your the absolute last man standing and have no way of communicating with the command structure you should still man your post. Bases have a lot of food and other assests so staying put would be the best idea. the Air Force is very touchy about losing a base and they would prolly want to find out what happened.

One of the things that I took away from my .mil days was a cool concept called the "commander's intent", and I think that's what Regular Guy is describing. Here's a good description of what that means, taken from this PDF http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/milreview/shattuck.pdf:

The commander's intent describes the desired endstate. It is a concise statement of the purpose of the operation and must be understood two levels
below the level of the issuing commander. It must clearly state the purpose of the mission. It is the single unifying focus for all subordinate elements.
It is not a summary of the concept of the operation. Its purpose is to focus subordinates on what has to be accomplished in order to achieve success, even
when the plan and concept no longer apply, and to discipline their efforts toward that end.

That's the definition, and in practice it works like this: You're a boot private, with no authority whatsoever. Your team leader/squad leader tells you "Hey Pvt. Schmuckatelli, we're supposed to keep the enemy from crossing this river. Here's your fighting hole, this is your sector to cover." Now, the farther you get up the chain of command, the more complicated that gets as far as units involved, where people are positioned, what support you'll have, logisitical considerations, all the way up to whether or not Congress has given the authority to take that action. On the ground level, though, that Private knows that, no matter what the hell else happens or how complicted things get, or how many people in his leadership chain get wacked, or how badly the plan falls apart, in the absence of a different order his job is to keep the enemy from crossing that river. Makes it simple, right?

SO, it doesn't really matter what else happens, in theory, you still have a job to do unless you're told to do otherwise. If you're put on post that morning, unless you're told something else to do by a member of your COC, your job is to follow your General Orders and walk that post. Everybody else in your unit dead, all your officers killed or gone, zombies have inherited the earth? Your orders are still to walk that post. Since nobody is likely to walk up to you and say "Hey, I just got a telegram and it looks like the United States Government and Constitution no longer exist, so you can take off now!", I agree with RG that, unless you are told otherwise, your mission would remain.

Now, in practice, I don't know if I would spend the rest of my days slowly walking post over the burnt out shell of a base, clothes in tatters and beard down to my knees, rifle slowly rusting completely away. But, if you choose to unass your post, and haven't been told by your COC that's okay, you would be WRONG to leave. It would be understandable, perhaps, but you would still be wrong.

I was thinking in the scenario being described you are the gate guard. The base your guarding gets a bomb dropped on it and is gone yet somehow you survive, your the only one left at your post and with the base being gone there are no long range communications. How long do you stay at your post until its safe to assume everyone else things you were destroyed with the rest? Are you then able to leave, i assume you make your way however you can to the next closest base and check in there?

[Regular Guy]

The mindset of some of the people in this makes me glad I never joined the military. I'm also impressed at the ability of the military to make a man so thoroughly drink the Kool-Aid.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

"Fanaticism in the defense of liberty is no vice." B. Franklin

And I'm good with that, you can live on your knees if you wish, me, I stand and will continue to stand for liberty. You can stand with me any time you'd like.

[Regular Guy]

So what kind of situations would you say warrant the Everyman for himself factor?

I can't see one. IF the .gov is gone and the command is destroyed you are still responsible for defending America, the constitution and remaining at your post. If your the absolute last man standing and have no way of communicating with the command structure you should still man your post. Bases have a lot of food and other assests so staying put would be the best idea. the Air Force is very touchy about losing a base and they would prolly want to find out what happened.

One of the things that I took away from my .mil days was a cool concept called the "commander's intent", and I think that's what Regular Guy is describing. Here's a good description of what that means, taken from this PDF http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/milreview/shattuck.pdf:

The commander's intent describes the desired endstate. It is a concise statement of the purpose of the operation and must be understood two levels
below the level of the issuing commander. It must clearly state the purpose of the mission. It is the single unifying focus for all subordinate elements.
It is not a summary of the concept of the operation. Its purpose is to focus subordinates on what has to be accomplished in order to achieve success, even
when the plan and concept no longer apply, and to discipline their efforts toward that end.

That's the definition, and in practice it works like this: You're a boot private, with no authority whatsoever. Your team leader/squad leader tells you "Hey Pvt. Schmuckatelli, we're supposed to keep the enemy from crossing this river. Here's your fighting hole, this is your sector to cover." Now, the farther you get up the chain of command, the more complicated that gets as far as units involved, where people are positioned, what support you'll have, logisitical considerations, all the way up to whether or not Congress has given the authority to take that action. On the ground level, though, that Private knows that, no matter what the hell else happens or how complicted things get, or how many people in his leadership chain get wacked, or how badly the plan falls apart, in the absence of a different order his job is to keep the enemy from crossing that river. Makes it simple, right?

SO, it doesn't really matter what else happens, in theory, you still have a job to do unless you're told to do otherwise. If you're put on post that morning, unless you're told something else to do by a member of your COC, your job is to follow your General Orders and walk that post. Everybody else in your unit dead, all your officers killed or gone, zombies have inherited the earth? Your orders are still to walk that post. Since nobody is likely to walk up to you and say "Hey, I just got a telegram and it looks like the United States Government and Constitution no longer exist, so you can take off now!", I agree with RG that, unless you are told otherwise, your mission would remain.

Now, in practice, I don't know if I would spend the rest of my days slowly walking post over the burnt out shell of a base, clothes in tatters and beard down to my knees, rifle slowly rusting completely away. But, if you choose to unass your post, and haven't been told by your COC that's okay, you would be WRONG to leave. It would be understandable, perhaps, but you would still be wrong.

I was thinking in the scenario being described you are the gate guard. The base your guarding gets a bomb dropped on it and is gone yet somehow you survive, your the only one left at your post and with the base being gone there are no long range communications. How long do you stay at your post until its safe to assume everyone else things you were destroyed with the rest? Are you then able to leave, i assume you make your way however you can to the next closest base and check in there?

If the standing orders are to leave if your post is destroyed sure, if not, stay put. You're an eyewitness with critical intel the COC will want to know. Even if that intel is only, they went that way. That's why we were always told to have 72 hrs worth of gear including food with us.

ETA: If you have critical intel say you know where the strike came from and you leave. 500 guys show up looking to see what happened and they get taken out because you abandoned your post. That would be shitty. There is a reason the .mil goes ballistics about folks leaving their posts.

[airmandan]

If you never intend to leave then the whole thread is moot.

It's the "what if" thread, i thought it might be an interesting discussion, get people to think

[Regular Guy]

Walking away is never a good idea, IMO. If your personally dead set on leaving, I'd find out what the last day on my contract was and leave then.

But, if you choose to unass your post, and haven't been told by your COC that's okay, you would be WRONG to leave. It would be understandable, perhaps, but you would still be wrong.

Interesting thread. These positions are similar but I would say RG's comment is my thought on the matter. Once the contract term was up, IMO you have no moral obligation to stay. You have fullfilled your obligation. Thus unless (due say to the SHTF event) all enlistment contracts become "for the duration" terms like in WW-2 IMO if you walked away after the expiration of your contract you would not be wrong morally. Now the UCMJ may likely think otherwise and obviously if people are counting on you to do your duty and stay then other considerations come into play.

Just my $.02.

Yes, if you walk away would better have a damn good reason and a copy of your contract. Furthermore, you can expect, as Raptor alludes, to be recalled. If there is a global event any .mil member will have their contracts indefinitely extended. I was half expecting to be recalled after 9/11 but that didn't happen. I knew a guy that was a 56 yo admin officer who'd been out for 15 years and he was recalled because of his specific skill set.

[TDW586]

I didn't read this entire thread, but has it been brought up that your best course of action, both from the perspective of duty and common sense, might be to attempt to make contact with another command, or higher headquarters of your command, and report to them?

Staying on your post unless ordered otherwise is one thing, but once the position has been lost, the mission has failed, the base has been destroyed, I don't think anyone is going to fault a surviving soldier or Marine for making his way to the closest surviving command structure which is still functioning. Your duty is to the military as a whole, not merely to the specific unit (and certainly not position) to which you are assigned. You can fulfill that responsibility better by making contact with a command authority, reporting the facts, and waiting for a new assignment than you could by staying in a position which has ceased to serve a purpose.

Example; forward observation post or scout for a unit which was flanked and routed or destroyed. Staying in that OP would not be loyalty or duty, it would be futility and stupidity.

[Regular Guy]

Op was talking bases, which I don't think it'dbe a good idea to abandon. Now, as an forward observer or a scout, yeah, there is no point in staying. Then as a scout you must get that Intel to the coc. But as base security, yeah, I'd stay. Air bases are massive and do contain underground assets that aren't allows know to all. What may appear to be destroyed may in fact still have a function.

[TDW586]

Op was talking bases, which I don't think it'dbe a good idea to abandon. Now, as an forward observer or a scout, yeah, there is no point in staying. Then as a scout you must get that Intel to the coc. But as base security, yeah, I'd stay. Air bases are massive and do contain underground assets that aren't allows know to all. What may appear to be destroyed may in fact still have a function.

Kind of find it far-fetched to believe that any base would end up utterly destroyed, with only one survivor, so this kind of seems like a non-issue to me. If it was destroyed with only a few survivors, I'd still say leave and make contact with the nearest functioning unit, make the report, and await further. One or two men on a destroyed base, underground assets or not, realistically aren't doing much good for anyone.

They could be of more use reporting the extent of the damage and being assigned to a functioning unit elsewhere.

[Regular Guy]

True, taking out a US airbase would be extremely unlikely but this was a extremelyunlikey question.

But if one was taken out I seriously doubt much would be alive for miles.

[Ableto]

Here is my take on this from a slightly different angle. I work at a community center that has many classes and activities for kids, adults, seniors, and mentally and physically impaired customers. If the SHTF, would i just leave them to save my own bacon? I dont think i would leave till kids and special rep customers where picked up from parents or caregivers and the seniors where picked up from shuttle or loved ones. I didnt sign an oath. I was not told i absolutely had to stay to protect the customers with my life. Its more of ethics.

So if you where in my position, would you leave kids or special rec customers or seniors behind to save your own bacon?

Granted most parents will be at the center wile the kids are taking classes, and most adults and seniors will have their own cars, But most of the special rec customers take the shuttle.

Also how about thinking of other places, would you want teachers leaving students behind when the SHTF, or do you want firefighters to jump ship when the city is on fire.

Its not just the military. There are many other places where you hope ppl dont just abandon kids or seniors or other loved ones in a position of questionable danger during an emergency.

[Herkemer]

I agree with you 100% herkemer. I hate buddy fuckers, and unfortunately we have a lot it them at this base.

So what kind of situations would you say warrant the Everyman for himself factor?

The only way I can think of answering that would be to tell you where I was when I was in,

I was on Fast Attack submarines in the Navy. If anything happened , I would be on the Boat, or I would go back to the Boat, (I was rarely more than a couple miles away from it) and go. I was in the yards a couple of times, in that event, I would follow the orders of my superior officers, barring that, I would have went back to New London or Sub Base Pearl, and got on a Boat headed out. At the time, 1980's, all of them, we were doing a hellashious amout of sea time, and if we weren't deployed, we were working up for it. I was rarely farther than walking distance from the boat. We were always in three section duty in port (24 hours on the boat every third day), and were working 8-18 hours a day when we didn't have duty. The only time I was far away from a working boat was when I was in the shipyards (8 mo's)in Kittery ME. Believe me, me an my bud's actually talked about this a couple three times, there was an officer there too, shooting the shit with us, (duty section, same dudes every three days), the consensus was, barring any coherent command, we would get our shit, and try to head south to New London, and get on a boat. This included married dudes. I was not married then, but I would have got my family on base, and then got on the boat.

End of the world/Extinction Event, hang with my buds from the boat. Only one left, get my shit and head for New London or Pearl.
It's a moot point anyway in my case, we were always at sea, I wasn't going anywhere.

101st, early 90's. Either on Fort Campbell or would have been in Korea (never went). Pretty much the same thing, get the wife and kids on base, follow orders. Hang with my buds from the squad. Overrun, last man left, try to make my way to an operational unit. An honest try.

I come from the "Get up, we're going right fucking now" Military. I'm sure it's the same way in most places today. I don't think I could live with myself if I thought I was a deserter. I don't think I could live with myself if I was the only one left from my unit, and every motherfucker in front of us and around us wasn't dead.

[DannusMaximus]

Example; forward observation post or scout for a unit which was flanked and routed or destroyed. Staying in that OP would not be loyalty or duty, it would be futility and stupidity.

I disagree. A FO or scout unit has the mission of observing and reporting on enemy movement in support of a particular operation. If you have comm. with ANY higher unit, you're far more valuable where you're at (especially if you're suddenly deep behind enemy lines). If you're attached to a particular platoon or company and that unit gets destroyed, wouldn't you just look at your freqs list and begin transmitting to the Bn, Rgmnt, or or ther higher level? Your SMEAC should have given you information on what to do if you've lost comm. with higher units, at which point you wouldn't simply unass an area unless that's what the official game plan was. There should very rarely be a complete absence of orders or absence of a plan.

I think that's the crux of the argument. There is ALWAYS somebody higher up to report to, until every single person who outranks you in every single branch of the armed forces is gone, and every single civilian elected official is dead. So when can you take matters into your own hand?

As far as the dood who accused veterans of Kool-Aid drinking, I think all the .mil people on this site are just as happy you didn't join the military as you are...

[TDW586]

Example; forward observation post or scout for a unit which was flanked and routed or destroyed. Staying in that OP would not be loyalty or duty, it would be futility and stupidity.

I disagree. A FO or scout unit has the mission of observing and reporting on enemy movement in support of a particular operation. If you have comm. with ANY higher unit, you're far more valuable where you're at (especially if you're suddenly deep behind enemy lines). If you're attached to a particular platoon or company and that unit gets destroyed, wouldn't you just look at your freqs list and begin transmitting to the Bn, Rgmnt, or or ther higher level? Your SMEAC should have given you information on what to do if you've lost comm. with higher units, at which point you wouldn't simply unass an area unless that's what the official game plan was. There should very rarely be a complete absence of orders or absence of a plan.

I think that's the crux of the argument. There is ALWAYS somebody higher up to report to, until every single person who outranks you in every single branch of the armed forces is gone, and every single civilian elected official is dead. So when can you take matters into your own hand?

As far as the dood who accused veterans of Kool-Aid drinking, I think all the .mil people on this site are just as happy you didn't join the military as you are...

Obviously, if you've got comm with higher, you're still receiving orders and carrying out a mission. That seemed like a no-brainer to me, so I was just assuming for whatever reason, S has HTF bad enough comm is down.

[Brock Meatstone]

I think I can sort of see where the "Kool-Aide" comment comes from; I think he meant that its probably to ones detriment to not retain some shred of individuality when it comes to making uncommon choices in a military setting.
Like say, if you're a complete drone and choose not to leave an obliterated base as the sole survivor because "Article xxxx says so!",
and common sense would tell you you are totally fucked if you stay, that strikes me as foolish.

Anyway, that's what I got out of it. I also disagree with the sentiment that leaving your post in an apocalyptic/extinction event makes you a huge mega-pussy that will certainly die begging for his/her cowardly life while crying and/or peeing, while those who elect to stay will totally be kicking tyrant ass for freedom and babes while wrapped in an American flag with bacon stripes. It's not that black and white. Seriously, the same people that decry military leadership as being overly bureaucratic and out of touch when it comes to weapons issued to the troops are freaking the fuck out when somebody points out that those same top leaders might be just as incompetent when it comes to replacements for your base in a catastrophe.

[squinty]

Like Ableto asked, what about other types of 'service' like firefighters, cops, Paramedics, hospital workers, disaster relief folks? I worked in an ER for years. No oath, but "patient abandonment" was a serious violation of ethics.

I know I won't be the first to run, or the second. When one person turns, it has a demoralizing effect on everyone around that person so they start to bail, and that's how stampedes get started.

It would suck to be the last person on a sinking ship, just 'cause you wanted to make some vain point about duty. But, on the other hand, if by staying you could set a positive example for those around you, the ship might be kept afloat via teamwork. For sinking ship substitute base overrun, hospital abandoned, etc etc.

If it seemed pointless to stay, if staying got me killed but was of little benefit to anyone else, then self preservation would be the order of day - I might live to make a better contribution. But if I have a useful or critical role to fill, then it might be better to stay, even if it meant that I personally didn't survive.

[Kevin108]

I think I can sort of see where the "Kool-Aide" comment comes from; I think he meant that its probably to ones detriment to not retain some shred of individuality when it comes to making uncommon choices in a military setting.
Like say, if you're a complete drone and choose not to leave an obliterated base as the sole survivor because "Article xxxx says so!",
and common sense would tell you you are totally fucked if you stay, that strikes me as foolish.

You nailed it. Thanks for elaborating. You captured my sentiment while leaving out my attitude.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[velojym]

As I have a family, I'd be gone as soon as I knew I was needed at home. I'm not really a hive-mind type anyway, and I really doubt
that counting rivets on a C130 would hold a candle to taking care of my family.
Then again, I'm not under oath, either, so I wouldn't find myself in those circumstances anyway. Probably a good thing.

[Clover]

STAY @ YOUR POST! Unless of coarse you want to fight Zombies! Then... Ahhh....

[DarkAxel]

Here's the way I see it:

You are standing post on a military base when TSHTF. Nuclear war? Guess what? Air bases (especially air bases with Intercontinental bombers stationed there) are targets for nukes. At some point, that air base will get nuked in an all out nuclear exchange, so I don't see this as an issue. Chances are you'll be burned, blind, and dying before going AWOL even crosses your mind after a strike. The same goes for sub bases and big naval yards like Norfolk and San Diego.

Bio-war/outbreak/Zombies? Lots of unprepared folks in the general vicinity of the base will probably think heading toward a military post for protection is a good idea, and there's an almost certain chance that the Pentagon is going to put the whole military in FPCON Charlie or Delta. You may be ordered to fire upon your fellow citizens desperate to get away from zeds, the plague, or whatever is killing them. In such a case, I don't think I could follow those orders. During a balls-out SHTF like this, there's a good chance I'll get put against a wall and shot, or at least arrested. Either way, I won't be going anywhere.

As far as orders go, let's say my orders are those in another post: "This is your sector, no one crosses the river in your sector". Well, if someone does cross the river in my sector, and forces me from my position, it's my responsibility to find someone up the chain to 1)Let them know that my sector has been overrun and 2)Receive further orders. If I can't can't contact anyone in my chain of command, it's escape and evade until I get away from the enemy, and try to make it back to base or make contact with another unit. If there's no one left alive at the base or no other units nearby, then it's off to find an intact base or unit elsewhere. Although I wouldn't spend the rest of my life looking for a chain of command if it's gone. I don't know at what point I would give up the search and head home, because I've never been in such a situation (and FSM willing, I never will be), but I would imagine that it would be around the time I realize that there is no more chain of command.

[Kommander]

Doesn't this all just boil down to doing the best you can to continue to do you duty? Even if we get into a nuclear war with China and most everything gets wiped out you could still continue your duty by leading a group of soldiers and civilians to a remote military base and and making it your duty to preserve technology for future generations. Call it the Clan of Titanium or something.

[airmandan]

Call it the Clan of Titanium or something.

hell with that, we're going to be the Honey Badgers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ezs2QbuFTQ

[alphastar]

IF the .gov is gone and the command is destroyed you are still responsible for defending America, the constitution and remaining at your post. If your the absolute last man standing and have no way of communicating with the command structure you should still man your post.

I'll try and put this as tactfully as I can.

I'm taking it for granted that you don't have family. No family man, military or otherwise would stay put on duty when as you put it, "the command is destroyed" etc. Inclusively if there is no way of communicating with the command structure.

If you imagine, even for a second, that someone should still man their post just for the sake of it when the SHTF and they're last man second, then you're not being realistic.

As far as I know, joining the Foreign Legion is about the only way to see a last man standing scenario, they're big on that kind of thing.

No military man or otherwise should ever be told that in a hopeless situation they should forego family to defend an empty structure of any kind.

Regardless of how well you've prepared your family, when the SHTF you want to be with them. Period.

It's easy for people to talk about a hypothetical situation, about how brave they'll be, and how macho, etc.

Reality check: the military isn't just to go where the government says. The first and foremost duty of the military is to protect it's own civillians, and first on any human's mind should be their family. Would you really die to protect some structure just because some guy in a bunker says so, while your own family may die because you aren't with them?

And yes, I have been in the military, though not in the USA.

[alphastar]

Just re-read my post and realized I sound like a sanctimonius anti-military jerk. I'm really not, I loved my time in the military, just think people need to do a sanity check on some things.

Cheers.