No Man is an Island
Rural Safety in Troubling Times
"It was not by taking care of the fields, but of ourselves, that we acquired those fields."
-Anaxandridas
The government's handling of COVID-19 coupled with the summer of Floyd was a wake-up call for many Americans. People across the country responded by arming themselves in record numbers and seeking refuge in rural areas. This was not a knee-jerk reaction, it was a significant shift in behavior, that reflected the growing fears and uncertainties among American citizens.
In 2020 alone, Americans set a new record for gun purchases, with the FBI reporting a staggering 21 million background checks—a 26% increase over the previous record of 15.7 million set in 2016.1 Alongside this surge in firearm purchases, there was a noticeable migration from urban centers to rural communities, with rural migration increasing to 0.45 percent in 2021–22, compared to just 0.01 percent in the years preceding the pandemic and Floyd riots. 2
This increase in firearm sales and rural migration was largely driven by the desire to escape the dangers of an increasingly hostile urban environment and growing economic uncertainty. However, while these actions may offer people a sense of security, they are not as protected as they seem. Far too many Americans believe that retreating to the countryside and accumulating a personal arsenal will protect them from civil unrest or other threats. In reality, it takes more than a small weapons cache and a few acres of land to safeguard against hordes of angry urbanites, especially if they are organized and determined.
The most recent historical parallel can be seen in the Rhodesian Bush War, which raged from 1964 to 1979. During this conflict, Rhodesian farmers and their laborers, well-armed and prepared to defend their properties, found themselves besieged by communist forces from the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA) and the Zimbabwe African People's Union (ZAPU). Despite their preparedness and firepower, many of these families were slaughtered. In most cases, they were forced to take shelter in pre-constructed bunkers, waiting for the attacks to dispate or to be rescued by the Rhodesian military. The reason for this is simple: in war, numbers matter.
It is a well-known strategic military principle that an attacking force should outnumber the defending force by a ratio of at least 3:1 to have a reasonable chance of success. This 3:1 ratio is not a simple calculation of manpower, rather, it presupposes many factors, including terrain, the strength of the defensive position, the availability of munitions, the response time of reinforcements, and the duration of the attack.
“It is the rule in war, if our forces are ten to the enemy's one, to surround him; if five to one, to attack him; if twice as numerous, to divide our army into two. If equally matched, we can offer battle; if slightly inferior in numbers, we can avoid the enemy; if quite unequal in every way, we can flee from him.”
-Sun-Tzu, The Art of War
The renowned military theorist, Carl von Clausewitz, suggested that a 5:1 ratio virtually guarantees victory, noting that even Napoleon, with all his tactical genius, never won a battle when faced with such overwhelming odds. The Führungsakademie der Bundeswehr (German War College) in the lead-up to WW1 did many scientific studies on force ratios based on the relative fire volumes of attacker and defender (bearing in mind that the attacker fires less since he also has to move) and suggested that at ratios between 1.14 and 1.21, was ideal.3
Regardless of the exact ratio, the point stands, that for an isolated family, lacking both the numbers and a fortified position, the chances of withstanding an assault by a larger, organized group are slim. A family, no matter how well-armed, would struggle to fend off 20-30 attackers in ideal conditions.
The lesson here is clear: survival in a time of civil unrest is not just about individual preparedness or firepower. It requires a cohesive community, one that is tight-knit and capable of mutual defense. While the Second Amendment and regular time at the range may strengthen individual skills, they cannot replace the need for collective security. In the end, isolation is a weakness, not a strength. The key to true security lies in building and defending communities, not in stockpiling weapons and retreating to remote locations.
To enhance the chances of survival in such scenarios, it is essential to think beyond personal preparedness and consider the more comprehensive strategies that can strengthen your position should an attack occur.
First and foremost, rural communities should prioritize forming strong, interdependent networks. These communities should be made up of individuals who share common values and are committed to mutual aid and a common goal. By banding together, small groups can pool resources, share skills, and create a concentrated defense network far more effective than any single family could hope ever hope to achieve.
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whold people except for a few public officals.”
-George Mason
The first practical step is to form a local defense force or militia. The militia is an American tradition and should be composed of members trained in various facets of security, from basic firearms handling to advanced tactics. Regular training exercises should be conducted to guarantee that all members are prepared to respond swiftly and effectively in case of a threat. This not only increases individual competence but also promotes trust and coordination within the group, which are critical in high-pressure situations.
Another vital concern is the strategic layout of the community itself. Homes and critical infrastructure should be designed or modified with defense in mind, including reinforced structures, secure perimeters, and early warning systems. Terrian is your friend, natural features like hills, rivers, and dense forests can be used to a communities advantage by creating choke points and obstacles that can slow down or funnel potential attackers.
In addition, communication is vital—both within the community and with neighboring areas. Establishing reliable lines of communication, through radios, signal flares, or other methods, ensures that help can be summoned quickly if needed. It is important to note that cell phone jammers are a common tool used in farm attacks in South Africa and efforts should be made to establish alternative communication networks to combat this threat.
“Amateurs talk strategy; professionals talk logistics.”
-Omar Bradley
It's also wise for a community to consider the logistics of long-term sustainability. In any protracted emergency, supply lines will be disrupted, making self-sufficiency critical. This includes stockpiling food, water, and medical supplies while simultaneously developing the capacity to produce these necessities locally. Community gardens, livestock, and water collection systems are all valuable assets that can sustain a rural community during extended periods of unrest.
Establishing local businesses and trades that can operate independently of the broader economic system is essential. Anything required for a community to operate; farming, crafts, repair services, etc, should be locally sourced if possible. This extends to currency as well. If the national currency becomes unstable or inaccessible, it will be necessary to establish a local currency or barter system to facilitate trade within the community.
“I say unto you: one must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star. I say unto you: you still have chaos in yourselves.”
-Friedrich Nietzsche
Mental preparedness is just as important as physical readiness. The mental and emotional toll of a combat situation is enormous, and communities should prioritize building resilience among their members. This can be achieved through regular drills, community-building activities, and ensuring that all members understand and are confident in their roles. A strong, united community is far more likely to withstand external pressures than one that is fractured or demoralized. Unit cohesion is the cornerstone of any effective military force and this principle should be applied to the broader community.
While the instinct to retreat to rural areas and arm oneself is understandable, it is not enough to ensure survival, you are not John Wick, you are not a one-man army. True security is found in building strong united communities, where individuals work together to create a healthy, resilient, and well-prepared society. By forming a tight-knit rural community, establishing local defense forces, and ensuring long-term sustainability, you can build something that can withstand any potential threat. When the bullets start to fly, strength and preparation will always trump isolation and fear.
-TJS
Below is a supplemental reading list that can provide insight into what future civil conflicts may look like.
Murray, Kara, and Donna Lawson. "Gun Sales Spiked in 2020 amid Pandemic, Social Justice Protests." Northwestern Now, February 16, 2021.
Cromartie, John. "Net Migration Spurs Renewed Growth in Rural Areas of the United States." Amber Waves. U.S. Department of Agriculture, February 2024.
Antulio J. Echevarria II, "Moltke and the German Military Tradition: His Theories and Legacies," Parameters 26, no. 1 (1996), doi:10.55540/0031-1723.1766
I don't think the Rhodesia/South Africa comparisons are fitting: in both cases, the Europeans were a small minority demographic on someone else's continent, whereas in America we are still the majority in our own homeland. We're not the easy target that Rhodesians were and Boers are.
Moreover, threat level is proportional to projected wealth. The nicer your car, the bigger your house, the bigger of a target you are. Those big targets need big numbers to defend against the bigger attacks their bigger lifestyle has attracted the interest of.
The hillbilly in a cabin or single-wide? Nobody is banding together with 30 other dudes to take his shit. It's about as likely as Al Qaeda deciding to blow up his 39 year old Ford Ranger.
This isn't to say communities and networks aren't great to have, just that the South Africa scenario is much less likely than folks think.
True.
Try getting three people to agree on where to eat lunch, even when all three are hungry. There's the rub. Until the threat is real to the participants, all preparation is pie in the sky, abstractions, unreal.