Does 72hrs cut it? White House advice

[swisscheesetony]

Article today in everyone's favourite newspaper suggesting emp from solar flare likely to take out grid for "months" - and advises population to prep for 72hrs.

What is supposed to happen after 72hrs? Mannah from heaven? Or is that just long enough for the vip's to bunker down?

Right now I've got about 72hrs of fuel - although could have unlimited in a year...

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

I'm a cynic but I'd guess it is that it gives important people time to make themselves secure before the commoners start rioting.

Although I'm sure there are backup generators etc, if everything electric was taken out it would be pretty catastrophic in an apocalyptic sort of way.

If by everyone's favourite paper you mean the DM, I am reassured that is is exceedingly unlikely to happen though

[Stratter5]

I'm kind of getting the idea that the EMP EOTWAWKI scenario is the media's current favourite.

[winchester1]

Don't real life events show us already that 72 hrs isn't enough? I guess how long depends where you are and what happens I suppose. I think two weeks min as if your in a big city there are more to help, if remote it could take longer to get to you.

[swisscheesetony]

I'm just watching Blackout (Uk version) and it's showing it all going to shit in 24hrs in London "I ain't got no food and I carn' even blog abah' it".

Meanwhile elsewhere in the UK I know someone who has now been without mains electric (+ no gas) for 10 months. (They are using private generators).

Perspective innit.

[cozietoesie]

But even those people you mentioned still have access to fuel for generators, cars and and services, swiss. And, presumably, they're not also having to defend the homestead every night against invaders.

No - 72 hours doesn't cut it. You only have to to some quick research on 'grid dependence on transformers' to realize just how fragile the power system is. (What do people reckon - a few years to start replacing bust ones and that's assuming that the manufacturing plants have the power to make them in the first place?)

[atticusclaw2]

I think the reality is that 72 hours is achievable for everyone (most people already have enough in their house to enable them to remain housebound for 72 hours).

I also think 2 weeks is a more realistic target for everyone. Not so long that people adopt the "id rather top myself" approach and do nothing at all, but long enough that short term issues can be dealt with with limited mass panic.

Personally I prefer knowing that we could stay at home for a couple of months and cope.

[cozietoesie]

That's probably why that figure was chosen, atticus. They wouldn't want to frighten the horses after all.

(Remind me when the House votes on Appropriations?)

[lighteningirl]

I always wonder what the politicians hiding in bunkers think will happen when they emerge well fed and healthy to a country they hid from (and hid resources from). I would be tempted to shoot them on first sight.

[Stratter5]

Provably we will eat them. :)

That's a JOKE for the lurking fools.

[ISpidersmanYouMeanPirate]

EMP actually really scares me, ever since I read The Second After.

Any country taken out by EMP will basically lose 80-90% of the population. It's shit scary stuff and, living in a city, I have NO idea how we'd survive. It's not as simple as bugging out to the country (unless you have your own house) because no-one there will want the millions of people pouring out of the cities.

I suppose I should be supporting DH who wants to buy a weekend home outside the city....hmm food for thought! He'd be thrilled if I said yes and we could afford it

[ISpidersmanYouMeanPirate]

I meant he'd be thrilled if we could afford it...

[BreakingDad77]

EMP is a known risk and I am sure i read in an article in New scientist prob 7+ years ago people were looking at mitigation.

[ISpidersmanYouMeanPirate]

I think what scares me is that that it would mean a slow death of starvation for most people, with lots of people fighting over scraps.