With world war 3 coming, me and my dad were talking about going to the mountains in the least populated city of the state and build a solid bunker in a farm near underground freshwater source.
Hes an engineer and im a psychologist so he was going on about the technicall aspects of the bunker while I was thinking how to make people inside get along.
His plan is to make a bunker for 100 people, so thats a lot of people living toghether some social structure should be in order, and thats what been troubling me, what do you guys think the social structure should be ? a direct democracy ? an indirect democracy (with power people behind a group) or plain facism with my father on top since he built the bunker ?
Hes the nicest man in the world and pretty religious, so I dont think anyone could argue hes not qualifyed to be a just leader, but hes not carismatic at all, expressed himself pretty bad, idk, people would get angry over time, and to house 100 people, I think an indirect democracy would be best
With Rio going to the shitter and all this korea talk I think building a bunker might not be a bad idea.
Also how much do you think a bunker like that would cost ? a million dollars ?
I wouldn't jump the gun and spend 1,000,000 dollars to build a bunker that you might not have to use.
There is a society like this I saw in a documentary about survivalists build in the mountains somewhere in the midwest United States. Don't know how much it costs to run though, that was never mentioned.
On November 26 2010 12:56 DoctorHelvetica wrote: I wouldn't jump the gun and spend 1,000,000 dollars to build a bunker that you might not have to use.
There is a society like this I saw in a documentary about survivalists build in the mountains somewhere in the midwest United States. Don't know how much it costs to run though, that was never mentioned.
Can you link me to that documentary? It sounds interesting.
On November 26 2010 12:56 DoctorHelvetica wrote: I wouldn't jump the gun and spend 1,000,000 dollars to build a bunker that you might not have to use.
There is a society like this I saw in a documentary about survivalists build in the mountains somewhere in the midwest United States. Don't know how much it costs to run though, that was never mentioned.
Why not? Just salvage the bunker if you don't need it. It's actually cheaper if you salvage and rebuild it than repairing it.
On a more serious note, who are the 100 people? Do you and your father know all of them? Since that matters...
If you don't think this will blow over in the time it takes to build a bunker then... wouldn't you want to try to get out? Is that completely in-viable?
Well, our plan is to only enter such bunker if massive nuclear exchanges started, we have family in the interior of rio de janeiro and on the capital, ideally we wanted to evacuate everyone to the bunker, if its just family + close friends that could ammount to 100 people faster than you could count them
Governing 100 people would require a totalitarian regime with compete micromanagement and control. Democracy only works when you have a very large population, and there is no crisis going on. When there's a nuclear war happening and people are sheer survival is an issue, democracy will get everyone killed. In any crisis, most people will be rationally compromised. People will not know what is best for them, and their only means of survival is a leader to tell them what to do without question. You may even be forced to throw people out of the bunker and let them die of radiation poisoning if that is what it takes.
I don't know if this is a genuine question, but I believe based on history that it is legitimate to anticipate a "WWIII" in the near future. As long as there is a clear external threat people will follow a totalitarian regime that they believe is helping them. As the threat weakens through less direct contact the government will need to adjust. Planning for those changes is much easier at first. Since a vault is temporary by definition most plans would probably suffice through the crisis.
Someone needs to be a communicator even if they aren't in charge. Most US presidents are told how to say their plans and they deliver the speeches. Doesn't sound like your dad would would lead, though it does sound like he could moderate disputes that arose from increased tension, i.e. she pulled my hair, or spilled water but didn't get more of it, stepped on my toe....
You would need one leader with absolute power. Call it dictator, king, or president, does not matter. Democracy would not work, because of the time each decision would take. In such a vault, with nuclear war going on, many things could go wrong, and fast decisions might be needed. Better to survive under dictatorship, than die in democracy.
I think fascism would work best. You can even call the main guy "The Overseer" or something. Just make sure your water filtering equipment is up to par before sealing yourselves in.
Well right now i dont think theres really time to build a bunker so we will need a nuclear submarine, anyone got contacts on the russian black market ?
in small groups where survival is in question there needs to be a solid leader who knows what to do and can make good decisions...not a popular leader who people like and will vote for, and not a group of people who may take far to long to come to agreements about important issues.
Everything is going to have to be for communal use as well...meaning no private supplies. If you have something that is needed by the group for survival, it belongs to the group (ie: food gathered by a a person is food that belongs to the community, not just that one)
once group survival is no longer an issue, thats when you can start moving towards more democratic methods of government and people can hold onto their own supplies
Obviously it's anarchism, if you can agree to some ethical and moral standards. You can communicate with everyone about everything so you dont need some higher representative who does it for you like in democracies. Sounds like direct democracy, but there's no money in anarchism and everyone is working and living for the best of the community and since survival might not be guaranteed this will fit best.
On November 26 2010 16:49 Don_Julio wrote: Obviously it's anarchism, if you can agree to some ethical and moral standards. You can communicate with everyone about everything so you dont need some higher representative who does it for you like in democracies. Sounds like direct democracy, but there's no money in anarchism and everyone is working and living for the best of the community and since survival might not be guaranteed this will fit best.
Are you joking? Anarchism is probably the worst possible option. Yeah, it could work pretty well, if there wont be any problems. But in that case any government type would work pretty well. Lets say there would be a simple problem - for example broken water chip. What would the anarchist comunity do? There will be many groups proposing different idea - one group might say "We can send some people to find some spare parts, and maybe repair it", second group might be like "Nah, we can just survive with drinking our own piss, its true, we saw it on Discovery...", third will be like "No, No, No .. We found out we can use some parts from air filtration system to repair our water chip. We just need to kill 10% of people so we will still have enough air. We decided it will be guys from first and second group.". These groups will start arguing, fighting, there will be some destroyed phone boots and burning cars, and in the end it would be to late to do anything. In other scenario we have smart dictator with absolute power. He will think for a few minutes. He will make decision, choose one hero nerd, and send him to find water chip. We all know how it will end...
He provides the shelter - he's the leader. If it was me it would be a dictator regime and it would work great because I'm awesome and my opinions are usually preferable to others anyway!
What ww3 though, did I miss something?
On November 26 2010 14:00 DoctorHelvetica wrote: yeah here's the documentary
i'd watch all of theroux's stuff, his docs are awesome
2d that. He has a way of getting the strangest kinds of people to really open up and the documentaries portray them in such a nuanced light.
its just an idea, i was wondering the implications of long term confinement more than anything, but hey, if the korea situation escalates might not be a bad idea.
USA is spread thin as it is, a big war like that is bound to leave you vulnerable, and thats when all your enemies will hit at the same time, and when that happens i want to be in a bunker.
Seriously speaking though, a democracy is just asking for trouble. In the event of nuclear war, people are going to be freaking out, guaranteed. And the last thing you want in a crisis situation is to have panicking people making decisions.
A dictatorship is the best option, imo. Not only do decisions get made quickly, but if your father is decently smart, the choices he makes should generally be okay. Of course, if he loses his head, it's all over. There's also the issue of whether or not people will actually listen to his guidance. A security force might be needed in that event.
God, this really is starting to sound like Fallout.
Regardless of the system, everyone's probably screwed anyways. But that's just my opinion. =/
On November 26 2010 20:45 HwangjaeTerran wrote: It's easier to get along than build bunkers IMO. Also as learned from SC2 bunkers are essentially overpowered.
Anyway, a decent benevolent dictatorship is probably how it would need to be. Perhaps also have an elected council to "unbiasedly" settle minor disputes.
But an important thing I think is to make sure everyone is doing something. Make it a condition of entry that you will do what you can in your area of expertise and if it's not applicable (ie. an interior designer), you must retrain as something. Conflict always springs from people perceived as being "useless".
Also, for the love of god have triple redundancy and spare parts for everything.
EPT
