Drudge is running this article today and I was surprised to see that it was written by Realtor.com. Prepping is a business but I never thought I would see Realtor.com have the headline: Prepping for Doomsday: Bunkers, Panic Rooms, and Going Off the Grid The article states that election years are a boom time basically and "sales at American Redoubt Realty, a real estate firm nestled in the heart of prepper country in northern Idaho, are up 50% over the same time last year." I thought it was interesting that people in the cities are also focusing on their purchases having specific safety aspects. Here is the article, I only clipped some but follow the link for the whole thing- Prepping for Doomsday: Bunkers and Panic Rooms Interesting chart they had at the end of the article
There are some good ideas listed, but the safe room in the basement had me laughing. First, how about a SEPARATE land line in with underground cable so it can't be cut (as easily)? If the house burns down while you are in it, you are SOL. With a little time anyone outside can break the walls and get in. What if they simply weld the steel door to the steel frame? You are SOL. It is a little more involved then stated, but at least they would be better off then if they did nothing. I guess.
For every cunning plan, generally, there'll always be someone a little more cunning than the planner.
That is true. The weak spot in your post is there is no useful info or redeeming value in it. Of course having LEARNED what the weak spots are, through having lived through quite a few of them (you can not survive a fire by getting into a freezer or walk in cooler for example), I feel it is a public duty to point the weak spots out so others don't get stuck with an easily fixed weak spot.
True Chell, but it also depends on whether or not the cunning individual figures it's worth the effort. If it's too much work, or too risky to them, they'll find an easier target.
That is probably generally true, but that notion can't be relied upon necessarily. Sometimes there are advantages to crushing the toughest nut first, rather than leaving it until last. Much depends upon the OPFOR leader's intentions, capabilities, and the broader environment within which both defenders and aggressors operate. Furthermore, a decision to leave a target that is too much work, or is too risky, assumes rational decision making on the part of the OPFOR command structure. Not all OPFOR decisions may be rational, particularly if the OPFOR has sustained some investment losses in trying to take out the defenders initially. Sunk-Cost Fallacy Some of the ideas in the following .pdf article might be worth a read, and adapting to a micro level of application. http://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=asi
They do, and you can, if the fire isn't too long or too intense. You will run out of air before you burn.