Does it really matter what ammo the police and military use?

[JAB]

Let me begin by saying that I am in no way a survival expert nor am I highly (or even not so highly) trained for survival. I am just a guy who thinks about preparedness and knows that he needs to do a whole lot more preparing, just in case. This is just something that has been bugging me for some time, now. I have seen the oft repeated statement that one criteria to consider when choosing handguns and/or rifles for possible SHTF scenarios is to look at what calibers LEO and the military are using. The theory is that, if ammo is no longer commercially available, the stockpiles of ammo amassed by such agencies will still be available. My concern with that thinking is:

To my mind, if I survive whatever 'event' brings society as we know it crashing down and society is either no more or takes many years to recover then it stands to reason that at least some of the folks who are already better trained and better equipped to weather such an event will survive, also. These folks, military for instance, will already have access to the aforementioned stockpiles. Therefore, they will be better equipped, better armed and will be (rather jealously, I imagine) defending those stockpiles out of a desire to keep those supplies for themselves. It is also likely that, once the reality that our society is gone settles in, at least some of them will fortify and hole up in the military structures where those stockpiles are held. Why, then, should I assume that they will just let me back a pickup truck up to one of their supply houses and load up on ammo? I really doubt that happening.

The same goes for LEO. Once there is no longer a society to 'protect and serve', I imagine they (like the rest of us) would either go the 'every man for himself' route or ally with each other against potential threats. Again, then, they would already hold the police store rooms and I doubt they are going to let me go 'shopping' there.

Now, if we are envisioning a 'battle in the streets' scenario where one might be liberating supplies from the bodies of dead combatants then I can see the possibility that one would be picking up a magazine or two, here and there, of the military or police's 'ammo du jour'. In that case, though, the same person could also simply pick up the rifle or handgun to fire that ammo from the corpse of that same individual.

Therefore, it would seem to me to make more sense to build a reasonably sized (that term can vary between individuals) stock of ammo in whatever caliber or calibers you like/can get/ can best afford. Better, to my mind, to choose a chambering based on your own projected needs and preferences. If the firearms you choose happen to be chambered for the ammo that the military or police use then maybe that could be considered a 'bonus' but I honestly don't see how it would be a major factor.

For instance, I like .357 Magnum and, given that one can be loaded with anything from shotshells to .38 Special to heavy-for-caliber rounds that will likely stop even the biggest critters we have in this area, I see it as a good, all around choice for TEOTWAWKI. I hope to begin reloading for .38 and .357 soon which should help me build a pretty good stock of ammo. I already have one .357 revolver along with a couple of .38 Special revolvers. I hope to get a lever action carbine so chambered in the near future and would like to have another revolver or two in .357 - maybe a Blackhawk for it's strength and ruggedness.

Likewise, I think that 9mm will do most of what I need doing. I already have a couple of pistols so chambered as well as a semiauto carbine (it is 'just' a Hi Point 995TS but it works great, is accurate and so on.) I like that ammo for 9mm is relatively inexpensive, meaning I can build a decent supply of factory ammo for those without breaking the bank. It is (currently) also a caliber that is widely used in the military but, as I said previously, to my thinking that is merely a 'bonus'.

Moving up the power band, my Mosin-Nagant is ugly, outdated, cumbersome and slow to employ. It has also already survived military use, is still just as functional nearly 70 years after it was built as the day it left the factory new and packs a pretty good whallop. The ruggedness and longevity of that rifle - along with the fact that I could pick up one or two more as backups or for spare parts for less than $200 each - appeal to me in a rifle for use in a theoretical SHTF world. Ammo for it is still pretty easy to come by and, compared to other rifle ammo in it's power class, relatively cheap for the surplus stuff.

I doubt I would last very long going 'mobile' on foot and trying to live off the land (alongside 1000 other people who plan to do the same) so losing access to my ammo supply is not high on my list of concerns. If I did lose access to my supplies, then I would probably also lose access to whatever firearms I had chosen, as well, so the choice of chamberings wouldn't really matter, anyhow. It would seem to me, then, that I would be better off deciding that I like these firearms/chamberings for reasons other than projected and possibly faulty supply criteria and simply building a supply that I know will be there if I need it. Being that I don't have military/battle training, I doubt that I would survive a scenario that would require me to fire thousands upon thousands of rounds, anyhow. I would think that 1k - 2k rounds of basic 'low dollar' loads along with a couple of hundred more 'premium' type rounds in each of these chamberings, supplemented with the proverbial boatload of .22LR (see below), along with the three or five boxes of ammo I keep onhand at all times for the other chamberings/calibers/gauges I own should cover any realistic shooting needs I would have in a post-apocalyptic world.

Finally, I have multiple handguns and long guns chambered in .22LR. It will handle the majority of skills maintenance needs, put small (or, in a pinch, maybe even larger) game in the pot and can even be pressed into a defensive role. Bought in bulk packs, it should be easy and financially feasable to stock many thousands of rounds of LR ammo. Of course, the potential problem with rimfire ammo is long term storage but I am not sure that it is as unstable as some believe. I know I have personally shot LR ammo that was pretty old - possibly older than me - and it worked just fine.

Edited February 2, 2012 by JAB

[hipower]

I agree with your take on it. I go a step further in the stockpiling of ammo though. The concesus these days seems to be that the latest high velocity, large diameter hp round is about the only thing to buy. I won't disagree that this type of ammo doesn't have its place, and I have a few rounds of the type myself. But I tend to go more for quantity on a good proven reliable ammo, with a mix of fmj and hp rounds.

Not dissing the high end ammo, but for me, when the cost factor becomes 20/25 rounds for the cost of 100 rounds of a good ammo. I got to go with it.

My example. I shoot a lot of 45 and like a good 200gr jhp or a 230, but will it do the job any less well than a 185gr hp round I bought suggested for target and range use? JMO

[UncleJak]

"Bonus" is probably right. I have .40 and 9mm, both of which seem to be pretty common. I have my own ammo, not to say I wouldn't take more if the opportunity arose, but I cannot count on that.

[JAB]

I agree with your take on it. I go a step further in the stockpiling of ammo though. The concesus these days seems to be that the latest high velocity, large diameter hp round is about the only thing to buy. I won't disagree that this type of ammo doesn't have its place, and I have a few rounds of the type myself. But I tend to go more for quantity on a good proven reliable ammo, with a mix of fmj and hp rounds.

Not dissing the high end ammo, but for me, when the cost factor becomes 20/25 rounds for the cost of 100 rounds of a good ammo. I got to go with it.

My example. I shoot a lot of 45 and like a good 200gr jhp or a 230, but will it do the job any less well than a 185gr hp round I bought suggested for target and range use? JMO

I agree. Once I get comfortable with reloading I hope to start casting my own bullets. After that, most of my onhand supply for .38/.357 will be lead round nose. Not exactly 'tactical' or even the most effective ammo available but it will still punch a hole. Until then, I'll be buying inexpensive bullets (LRN, wadcutters or SWC) and reloading those. I'll keep a few boxes of the 'better' stuff onhand but those would be my 'deep supply' rounds.

I also have no problem buying the inexpensive 9mm Federal or Tula ammo at Wally or Monarch ammo at Academy. All are FMJ and I have had no problems shooting either brand. Throw in a couple of boxes of Remington or Winchester's budget line JHPs and a box or two of 'premium' ammo and I'll feel pretty good about my stock.

[Jonnin]

I do not care what the police and military use. They choose the ammo using a variety of criteria, including the price tag (for small police departments), performance, and also safety concerns (some big city cops use frangables for example). The military is constrained by conventions that I am not: I have zero need to be using ONLY ball ammo.

I am sure I could use whatever the police use (in any department in this country) and be more than fine. I would not turn down a can of milsurp but it would become target practice or emergency stash, not daily carry ammo. I am sure that the stuff I have been buying, which has gone bang accurately and without feeding issues, will also work. I think just about anything that is not some sort of bottom of the barrel plinking ammo will work, to be honest, so long as it feeds in the gun in question without problems, does not have duds, and is not insanely inaccurate. I think some calibers matter more than others, and am a lot more picky about my 380 ammo than my 9mm.

[JAB]

...am a lot more picky about my 380 ammo than my 9mm.

Me, too.

[Guest ochretoe]

As a LEO I agree with what you say. My Office keeps about 1,000 rnds of shotgun and 2k-3k of .40 on hand. A good bit of the .40 is FMJ practice ammo. All of my Rangers keep a case at each of there homes. That way if there is a fire or break-in at the office we don't loose all the ammo as well as covering all our butts if TSHTF. Like you I am a .357 junky. I have way more .357 guns than any other. Personally I will stockpile a good bit of .357 and just a case or so of other cals. and a few thousand rounds of .22. I'm sure most LEO's will grab what is available at offices for personal use when the job is obsolete. I also have combo's of all my guns. Pistol and rifle or carbine in .357, .40,.22 and shotgun .410. Just to get the most use out of each round.

[Jonsaiga]

I seem to recall a member over at arfcom talk about his experiences right after hurricane katrina. Fortunately he wasn't in N.O. and wasn't subject to the gun grabs. His story was about how he donated a few K rounds of .223 and I forget the pistol caliber to his local leo. They had only stocked ammo around qualification time and kept the bare minimum on had. They had expended a most of their ammo dealing with problem animals, snakes and such IIRC.

I'm a firm believer that what you have when shtf is what you are going to have. Also a firm believer in reloading though I'm currently only set-up for pistol. Re-using brass I can reload 1k of speer goldots for pretty close to the same price as 1k of most factory fmj. reloading fmj is even cheaper still.

[nightrunner]

I dont believe in choosing your survival weapons in a caliber tha mil/leo uses but i do think its smart to use a common caliber or at the very least have backup weapons in the common calibers. For example, say your favorite pistol is chambered in something like 10mm or 9mmMakarov or some wildcat, i would suggest getting a pistol in one or more of the common calibers 9mmluger, .40sw, .45acp, .357sig , and. 357mag. Same goes for rifles and shotguns have something in 12ga 20ga .410ga 5.56 7.62nato 7.62x39 5.45x39, etc.

No problen with using a round that fits your purpose but either have a ton of ammo for it or weapons that ammo can easily be found for.

[Mike]

I think most of the people using this argument are trying to fool themselves into feeling better about not stocking their own supply of ammunition in the calibers they need.

Mike

[TMF]

To address the scenario of repurposing mil/leo ammo stockpiles, I don't think it's as much the idea of battlefield recovery. In that scenario those stockpiles will be controlled by someone, and will be bartering material just like anything else. If, for example, if an organized group were to seize the ammo supply point on Ft. Campbell they couldn't use all that stuff in 1,000 years of revolution. That is something that people will use for currency and such. In that event it will be the most available ammo on the market, and the cheapest.

[Jonnin]

Stockpile primers & powder. Then you can make whatever you want without a lot of trouble. One 10 pound keg of powder will make nearly 15k 9mm rounds and takes up the space of a gallon jug of water, maybe a little more but not much. Primers do not use much space either. Brass you can find and bullets you can make.

[Makiaveli]

Stockpile primers & powder. Then you can make whatever you want without a lot of trouble. One 10 pound keg of powder will make nearly 15k 9mm rounds and takes up the space of a gallon jug of water, maybe a little more but not much. Primers do not use much space either. Brass you can find and bullets you can make.

How long would such items last if stored unopened?

The thinking here is it will be a while before I can get into reloading, but if it lasts indefinitely then I can keep an eye out for sales etc and maybe grab a deal here and there etc.

[Jonnin]

How long would such items last if stored unopened?

The thinking here is it will be a while before I can get into reloading, but if it lasts indefinitely then I can keep an eye out for sales etc and maybe grab a deal here and there etc.

I have used 25 year old powder and primers that were unopened. I used up dad's stockpile last year, and have refreshed it with new. Stored properly, I suspect modern powder and primers would last your lifetime. But it is better to "rotate the stock", use the oldest up and buy more to replace it as you go.

If you store powder long term, keep load data with it, as sometimes the data changes due to powder formula changes, and it could be unsafe to mix old data and new powder or vice versa.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I primarily cache ammo so that hopefully I'll have recreational ammo to shoot in the next Great Ammo Famine. If Obama gets re-elected, we can probably count on another Ammo Famine when people buy out the supply chain again.

In a true Road Warrior collapse, I'll almost certainly be culled in the first elimination round. It is hardly likely that I'll have to worry about running out of factory defense ammo. Somebody who needs it will pick thru my remaining ammo after I don't need it any more.

I keep a couple hundred rounds of spensive factory defense ammo in .357 mag, 9mm, .380, and .223. But lately I only carry 9mm so that is all that gets depleted. I shoot out the carry mag once in awhile to make sure it still goes bang, so the 9mm gets gradually depleted.

In the extremely unlikely case of a Road Warrior total crash, added to the other extremely unlikely case of me surviving long enough to use up a few hundred rounds of factory defense ammo--

Common knowledge may not be correct, but common internet wisdom says to only carry commercial ammo in order to reduce legal risk if you get in a defense shooting,. In addition, some internet experts say that good-quality commecial ammo is more likely to go bang every time.

After the end of the world and after the first elimination round, most lawyers will be dead and gone too, so you won't have to worry about getting sued for carrying reloads. Maybe high quality commercial ammo is more reliable, but my reloads seem to always go bang just as good as commercial stuff.

Wonder if high quality commercial pistol ammo is more weatherproof than good reloads? Of course some military stuff has the sealing paint on the primer or sometimes the bullet, but haven't noticed any visibly-obvious extra waterproofing on commercial pistol defense ammo I've bought. Maybe it has some kind of weatherproofing, but if that is the case then either the weatherproofing is invisible to the naked eye, or I don't know what to look for.

I have about 1100 XTP HP 124gn 9mm reloads on the shelf. They are loaded to perform near-identical to Hornady XTP factory ammo. So in a world without lawyers, am guessing my reloads would shoot zombies jest as good as the spensive factory stuff.

The XTP bullets are among the most expensive 9mm or .357 bullets, but I can still make XTP reloads SLIGHTLY less expensive than wally world federal practice ammo. Lots cheaper than hornady factory XTP. They are theoretically affordable to shoot for target practice, being at least a little cheaper than wally world practice ammo, but for some reason I avoid shooting the XTP reloads very much. For one thing they are so purty, and they do cost a little more than cheaper bullet reloads. I think maybe I keep em around "for a rainy day".

Using cheaper bullets I can make reloads in the ballpark of half-price of wally world Federal.

For a long time I reloaded practice ammo very light, but got a couple of stiffer slide pistols and started loading all the ammo heavier, even to shoot in the loose-slide guns. I like it just as good heavy or light on 9mm, which doesn't have much recoil. Most of my loads nowadays are "close to max" but not up in the +P territory unless I made a mistake.

Just sayin, in an emergency am betting that the average Road Warrior opponent wouldn't even want to get shot with copper-plate soft lead round nose wimpy practice ammo. Though a near-max round nose might not work as good as a XTP or Golden Saber, I bet nobody would want to be shot with it. I bet the cheap round nose would work plenty "good enough to get the job done" compared to hollow points. Soldiers seem to get the job done good enough with near-max round nose.

Also got a couple of thousand Rem 124 gn hollow points to reload sometime. Got em on sale, lots cheaper than XTP. They look just like the more expensive Golden Saber bullets but the Golden Saber probably really is better in some way or t'other. Would bet that nobody would volunteer to be shot by the lowly Rem 124gn HP, even if it might not be "quite as good" as its fancier sibling Golden Saber. I just hope after they get loaded up that I don't decide they look too purty to shoot, like the XTP reloads. The sale price on the Rem HP's was so good they are nearly as cheap as copper-plated bullets, so it would be irrational to avoid using them for target practice just because they look too purty.

Have maybe ten thousand .22 LR. Even if the end of the world never happens, they will eventually be used-up plinking if I don't just suddenly keel over ahead of schedule. At one or two hundred per range trip, maybe I'll live long enough to use em up.

Got a few thousand .223/5.56. Various types. Majority just 55gn FMJ. Will shoot em up eventually even if the end of the world never happens.

Haven't been shooting .357 mag much lately. I have maybe 1000 semi-jacket HP 158gn loaded up. Some are older light target loads I haven't used up. On .357 one might not necessarily want to load all practice ammo near-max. Especially if you shoot some of it out of a snub-nose. If I ever get back to more .357 shooting, will see how annoying it is to target practice nothing but full-tilt-boogie reloads in the 4" 586 revolver. Might not be too bad.

When I got the Henry lever action .357 rifle, acquired a couple of thousand semi-jacket flat point 158gn bullets that seemed ideal for Henry target practice. Loaded a few hundred for testing, close to max. The near max .357's shoot real good in the Henry. I figger in a road warrior world, nobody would volunteer to get shot by a 158gn .357 regardless whether it has a hollow point or a flat nose. Flat nose might even be a little better than hollow point for medium size game, dunno nothin about hunting, or much of anything else.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[nightrunner]

Ive always heard that if a TEOTWAWKI event occured, if you spend more than 10% of your time shooting/killing, youll likely be dead before long. Most time by rational people will be spent making sure they have food water and other essentials.

[Clod Stomper]

This...

I'm a firm believer that what you have when shtf is what you are going to have. Also a firm believer in reloading though I'm currently only set-up for pistol. Re-using brass I can reload 1k of speer goldots for pretty close to the same price as 1k of most factory fmj. reloading fmj is even cheaper still.

And this...

I think most of the people using this argument are trying to fool themselves into feeling better about not stocking their own supply of ammunition in the calibers they need.

Mike

I have said the same thing to people that only want to have firearms that shoot military rounds or "something I can find at Walmart". First, guess what EVERYONE else is thinking. Second, if you're thinking about battlefield pickup of ammo, you can pick up the guns as well. Finally, one needs only to look back to November, 2008. Guess which rounds could NOT be found at Walmart or anywhere else. Yep, the "most common" rounds were nowhere to be found for MONTHS.

The one advantage to having a 5.56, 7.62x39, 7.62x51, 9mm, etc. is that you can buy it right now fairly cheaply. Of course if you handload, that advantage is reduced.

Were I concerned about "stocking up", I would pick a round or rounds that had characteristics that I wanted and start buying it or handloading it now. If that happened to be a military round, awesome.

Will

[DaveTN]

Does it really matter what ammo the police and military use?

Nope, I select my ammunition on its ability to stop the threat and my carry application.

I don’t base it on who is carrying what, or what it costs to shoot. I have had to fire my weapon to save my life; if it had failed I would be dead. I think about that when I select a handgun or its ammunition.

[Wheelgunner]

I think it is absurd to believe that the segments of our population (military and police) that consist of our most highly trained gunfighters will be a meaningful source for ammunition based on: A. those highly trained gunfighters abandoning their most valuable commodities, or B. those highly trained gunfighters being magically killed off in astronomical numbers.

Mechanics maintain accountability of their tools and know how to use them well. Why would the same not be true of soldiers?

Personally, I'm betting on that particular demographic doing exceptionally well when civilization falls apart, and taking care of my future ammo needs myself.

[DaveTN]

I think it is absurd to believe that the segments of our population (military and police) that consist of our most highly trained gunfighters will be a meaningful source for ammunition based on: A. those highly trained gunfighters abandoning their most valuable commodities, or B. those highly trained gunfighters being magically killed off in astronomical numbers.

Mechanics maintain accountability of their tools and know how to use them well. Why would the same not be true of soldiers?

Personally, I'm betting on that particular demographic doing exceptionally well when civilization falls apart, and taking care of my future ammo needs myself.

Yep.

Police and Military aren’t using the ammunition they have because they are highly trained. They use what are told to use. What they are told to use is often chosen based on politics or picked by people that are clueless. I am both former Military and Police. I own an AR in .223 but I wouldn’t choose it for a battle rifle, it is a long range paper puncher and I haven’t owned a 9mm handgun in over 20 years.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Maybe fellas here who have worked overseas in failed states, could make educated guesses based on that experience-- About what a crashed USA failed state might look like? I haven't sufficient experience or imagination to hazard a guess.

Have any "fairly well developed" modern nations crashed fully enough to give much clue what the situation might look like? A country like USA, armed to the teeth with most citizens accustomed to plentiful cheap goods-- Maybe a USA crash would look very different compared to a third world nation that had been riddled with poverty even before a crash made it worse?

Some of the modern failed states, from reading and watching the news-- There may be starving people and episodic firefights? Lots of people die but many people manage to "hang on by their fingertips"? Have there been any profound die-offs and population crash from anarchy alone? We have many examples of die-offs and purges in strong totalitarian states, but that is a different kind of dystopia than the crashed failed state dystopia?

From watching the news and reading, for instance Afghanistan before we got there-- They had the various warlords and such. Maybe there was fairly frequent shooting some places. TV news video clips might show a guy hiding behind a rock and occasionally shoot a round over the rock without even poking his head up to aim.

If that was the typical warlord version of warfare, then one might imagine them blowing thru a lot of ammo without it being unusually lethal for either side of the conflict? The native mercenaries might make a career of shooting their AK over rocks without aiming, then after many years possibly retire with pension and a gold watch? That is unless the fellow happened to get unlucky and stop one of those random wild shots?

On the other hand if there were numerous nasty close-range skirmishes among small groups of starving people-- Maybe that would be on average much more lethal? I don't have experience to judge, but it is difficult to imagine the average joe living thru more than a couple of close-range shootouts before getting killed? Lacking medical services, about any flesh wound could do the trick after infection and gangrene sets in? In a situation of relatively frequent up close and personal conflicts, seems difficult to imagine the average joe living long enough to need a whole bunch of ammo?

You guys who have seen it are in a better situation to guess.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[DaveTN]

Maybe fellas here who have worked overseas in failed states, could make educated guesses based on that experience-- About what a crashed USA failed state might look like? I haven't sufficient experience or imagination to hazard a guess.

Have any "fairly well developed" modern nations crashed fully enough to give much clue what the situation might look like? A country like USA, armed to the teeth with most citizens accustomed to plentiful cheap goods-- Maybe a USA crash would look very different compared to a third world nation that had been riddled with poverty even before a crash made it worse?

Some of the modern failed states, from reading and watching the news-- There may be starving people and episodic firefights? Lots of people die but many people manage to "hang on by their fingertips"? Have there been any profound die-offs and population crash from anarchy alone? We have many examples of die-offs and purges in strong totalitarian states, but that is a different kind of dystopia than the crashed failed state dystopia?

From watching the news and reading, for instance Afghanistan before we got there-- They had the various warlords and such. Maybe there was fairly frequent shooting some places. TV news video clips might show a guy hiding behind a rock and occasionally shoot a round over the rock without even poking his head up to aim.

If that was the typical warlord version of warfare, then one might imagine them blowing thru a lot of ammo without it being unusually lethal for either side of the conflict? The native mercenaries might make a career of shooting their AK over rocks without aiming, then after many years possibly retire with pension and a gold watch? That is unless the fellow happened to get unlucky and stop one of those random wild shots?

On the other hand if there were numerous nasty close-range skirmishes among small groups of starving people-- Maybe that would be on average much more lethal? I don't have experience to judge, but it is difficult to imagine the average joe living thru more than a couple of close-range shootouts before getting killed? Lacking medical services, about any flesh wound could do the trick after infection and gangrene sets in? In a situation of relatively frequent up close and personal conflicts, seems difficult to imagine the average joe living long enough to need a whole bunch of ammo?

You guys who have seen it are in a better situation to guess.

No one can comment on it because nothing close to it has ever happened.

A country where a large percent of the population is armed, the government collapses… a government that has Ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads scattered all over the world on submarines, Aircraft Carries all over the world with nuclear weapons, Bombers sitting on runways ready to be deployed, and missile silos that that are targeting all major cities that could take action. That has never happened.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

No one can comment on it because nothing close to it has ever happened.

A country where a large percent of the population is armed, the government collapses… a government that has Ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads scattered all over the world on submarines, Aircraft Carries all over the world with nuclear weapons, Bombers sitting on runways ready to be deployed, and missile silos that that are targeting all major cities that could take action. That has never happened.

Thanks DaveTN

Your comments help define the magnitude of the problem (guessing what it might look like on the ground). I had been thinking more in terms of local conditions if the grocery shelves go bare, but you make good point that there would be pockets where the "grocery shelves" wouldn't likely go bare any time soon, and perhaps enough discipline would remain to prevent local anarchy in those pockets.

Much speculative fiction has been written on this topic, but the actions of relatively intact military units in an otherwise crashed nation seem to offer a wide range of plot possibilities that I don't recall reading about.

There are so many possibilities, but for instance haven't there been cases of local disasters where a nuke sub will dock and supply emergency electricity? Most likely nuke carriers could do the same trick. Maybe military forces could maintain order in small regions? Hook up ship power and enforce martial law. Perhaps safest to try that on less-populated ports? Maybe Brunswick GA would be a whole lot easier to pacify than for instance Los Angeles? If the natives had got unruly enough in a high-population area, maybe it would be too difficult to establish effective martial law? Military would have resources in such a situation, but their resources wouldn't be infinite.

[Oh Shoot]

....Have any "fairly well developed" modern nations crashed fully enough ...

Yes, certainly, the collapse of the USSR and further economic ruin within Mother Russia herself, late 80s-90's

...to give much clue what the situation might look like? ....

As far as here, that would be no.

But the reason would be found in the totally different support structures of the two countries, and the fact that Russian basically went from gray to very dark gray. Unlike the US, the communist system already provided, however poorly, housing, food, and transportation. The meltdown there affected the relatively few rich much more than the mainstream. There really wasn't a middle class in the American sense.

A pretty fascinating read, at least to me, is Dmitry Orlov's Post-Soviet Lessons for a Post-American Century. It's the short essay (about 20 pages) later expanded into full length book, which I've been meaning to read. Can't be found all over the place, here's one link to it in single PDF:

http://www.camse.org/andy/oil/Soviet_Advice.pdf

Note that this version has a short preface regarding "peak oil", main part begins with "The Collapse of the Soviet Union - an Overview" on page 3.

I think the main point is that should the same basic internal crumble have happened here, we'd likely have gotten at least a pretty good taste of the apocalypse thing, just due to the marked differences between our two infrastructures. So yes, it has happened, but is still only instructive as to what would happen here in a speculative sense, but he suggests, and I agree, it would have affected our populace MUCH more. Maybe even the "kill off" I predict must eventually happen.

I periodically use a quote from that essay:

"The Soviet Union had a single, entrenched, systemically corrupt political party, which held a monopoly on power. The U.S. has two entrenched, systemically corrupt political parties, whose positions are often indistinguishable, and which together hold a monopoly on power. In either case, there is, or was, a single governing elite, but in the United States it organized itself into opposing teams to make its stranglehold on power seem more sportsmanlike."

- OS

Edited February 6, 2012 by OhShoot

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Thanks OS. Good ideas.

the fact that Russian basically went from gray to very dark gray

Well according to David's alarming announcement about a long extended software update downtime, possibly lasting longer than 24 hours, commencing very soon-- TGO is about to go from dark to black for awhile!