So the background to this topic is that I just finished playing Arma 3 DLC campaign "Laws of War" which if you don't know Arma is a franchise of video games known for being a "military sim." And the campaign "Laws of War" is a story going through a red cross like NGO through a Greek civil war with consultations from the Red Cross about their operations in these kinds of environments. I left the game afterwards feeling there was a lot of considerations missing whenever people are talking about "bug out" kits, or war gaming scenarios of disaster and calamity. And I would like to hear peoples takes on these points.

NGO and government disaster refuge areas exist
It seems like every prepper article or bug out kit build video I see has this idea that the kit is designed to live in isolation out in the woods while disaster is ongoing. But the fact is that over recent history in events of natural disasters or wars, there is a FEMA, Red Cross, or Government relief area attempting to bring aid to people. It's not a surprise that the "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" is a hard sell to everyone in this community, but does it make much sense to be hunting for squirrels, filtering water, and dealing with your own limited medical knowledge and resources if there is a relief center that is likely to have way more of the things you need than you can possibly carry, know, or find in the woods? Obviously I am not advocating on purely relying on these resources, but I think the 72 hour kits or bug out kits should be aimed at attempting to reach these centers or dealing with delays of these centers in getting food, water and medicine. I'm not sure planning these scenarios with the expectations that you will never interact with these centers is realistic.

Relief areas may ban weapons
One of the aspects I learned was how a center like the Red Cross in order to remain neutral during a conflict will allow people into their centers to receive medical attention but in order to enter into these areas you must be unarmed. This is to prevent accusations that these organizations are harboring combatants. This might dissuade you from ever using these centers because you have to surrender your guns, but you have to imagine there are a lot of cases where you, someone you know or a loved one is in need of immediate medical attention that is not solvable by yourself or by the equipment around you, such as surgery or blood transfusions. I think this is an aspect you should plan or be ready to deal with.

Appearing unarmed has its benefits
The past 2 decades has done a lot into the legal matters of rules of engagement, and the legal status of combatants. You should know that if you are carrying around a "military grade" weapon during a time of conflict, you may be labeled as a "combatant" of war which can be legally engaged and treated as such, vs a "non-combantant/Civilian." You have to understand this is not the time to be arguing what is "military grade" and whether you or not are aligned with the current sides of the armed conflict. the US military drone strike, snipe, and legally engage people in Afghanistan for being an able bodied male holding a gun. You have to know that even you plan to stay "unaligned" during this conflict that sides and assumptions are made about you without asking questions. When people holding a gun are killed in Afghanistan or Syria, no one is asking them beforehand if they are part of the Taliban, Al Nusra, the FSA, ISIS, or if they were just a kid who found an AK47 on the ground and started running with it. You legally lose that privilege of a "non-combatant" as soon as you pick up a weapon and can assume that you are on a "side" in conflict.

Now after discussing this with a German army officer the definition of "combatant" and "non-combatant" can get hazy as legal definitions. Questions about small arms being "military grade" are probably used in an assessment whether you are a combatant, and that soldiers aren't going to be terribly interested in your semantics of a civilian AR15 vs a M16/M4 military rifle before shooting you or launching a missile. This is unfortunate, but militaries do these kind of assessments and I don't think it's an assumption that you would be in any different place (remember this applies to domestic and foreign militaries.)

Where it can get hazy is that all things are taken into consideration, from you age, sex, and physical ability. For instance, if a woman is with her kid and is carrying a handgun, she is less likely to be labeled as a "combatant" than an able bodied man carrying a chest rig decked out with a fully kitted out AR15. One is likely to be confronted, maybe arrested and asked questions, where the other is more likely to be shot on sight. This also relies on the context of the conflict and the overall landscape of the warzone.

I am not giving any hard and fast suggestions about what to do with this, but I believe this an aspect that the rules of war and how they pertain to an armed citizen is rarely ever discussed.

I dunno, these are just a few points that came into my head, and I've never heard these aspects discussed in the community. I'd be interested about anyone's take on these points, and if I am wrong on anything.

It may or may not pertain to doomsday or natural disaster scenarios, but I never liked the idea of a "bug out" bag or kit. In the event that I need to "bug out" of my house, we've got a problem that I will likely not be able to solve in any amount of time that the "bug out" bag affords me, and I'll have to seek assistance from others to make sure I live to see the next year. A "get home" bag makes more sense, if we're making and labeling bags for jobs. I've got lots of shit at home that'll keep me fed, watered, and safe from creeps for a considerable amount of time. This kind of goes hand-in-hand with your point about taking shelter in some cave or bunker in the woods and thinking that makes you good to go forever.

I agree. Before she passed, I got my wife’s grandmother to talk about WWII. She walked from Belgium to Spain carrying her kids (then walked back). Most of this was through an area that was as friendly and supportive as it gets in that situation. After listening to her, it’s not something I’d want to attempt through what is essentially going to be a hostile environment.

My plan is to attempt to blend, and when time is out, make it as costly as possible for those who want to take what is mine.

Have you ever seen FEMA or the Red Cross in action? I have. Do not count on receiving any aid or supplies from these organizations. If you do get help from them, great, but don't build anything into your plan that involves them.

They will, however, haul their gear out when photo-op time comes. Watching the caravan go out to meet the press and then retreat once the cameras left was pathetic.

I don't think anyone has any delusions that these organizations are either going to be competent or not overloaded when the time comes. But more arguing that the idea of being a distance a few days away in a remote place is not necessarily a good one.

No matter how much stuff you pack or how much you learn, if you are need of higher end medical care like surgeries, antibiotics, drugs, or blood transfusions and are in a remote forest somewhere 25+ miles from the nearest relief center you are kind of SOL unless you got some kind of medical facility and surgeons out there I don't. There's just a reality that if it came down to it, most people life line for those sort of things will be a disaster relief area, and there isn't much you can do about it.

I don't think you want to be camping out right outside those areas either, since it probably will be rife with violence, looting, or muggings as people are all wanting something in those areas, so a thought is that you should be somewhere that is 3-6 hours away that is far enough from the dangers of other people, but accessible enough in a day that you can get to it if you needed it.