Governments Want You Stocking Food. The Powerful Are Preparing for Much More.
Households are told to keep emergency supplies. Military planners are preparing for months of disruption, while the powerful buy protection and position for what comes next. Who is protected, who benefits, and who pays?
A few tins of food, bottled water and a battery-powered radio. That is the sort of preparation governments are recommending for ordinary households.
For others, preparedness involves underground facilities, private shelters and military installations designed to function for months without outside support.
The difference deserves a closer look.
Britain launched its latest household preparedness campaign on October 22, encouraging people to manage three days without essential services. Japan’s disaster-management minister, Goshi Hosono, says he will issue a nationwide appeal on November 2 for at least three days of supplies, preferably a week. His stated concerns include major earthquakes and a Mount Fuji eruption. [1] [2]
Keeping supplies is sensible. But people can take that advice seriously and still ask what their governments are preparing for beyond the public information campaign.
Britain is updating its wartime planning documents and preparing a major homeland-defence exercise for 2027. Military personnel, NHS specialists and international partners have also rehearsed receiving battlefield casualties while keeping civilian healthcare operating. [3] [4]
Across the Atlantic, the Pentagon’s FORTRESS initiative reportedly aims to make major American military bases capable of operating independently for at least 90 days. The plans involve resilient power, stockpiles and supply arrangements that can withstand disruption. That is a target being developed, not a capability already installed everywhere. [5]
Three days of supplies for the household. A target of three months for the military base. You could fit an awful lot of “remain calm” announcements into that gap. The town outside the gates still needs water and electricity, even if its emergency plan doesn’t come with a Pentagon budget.
That is where the conversation about preparedness becomes a conversation about power.
At the White House, Trump described plans in May for a six-storey underground complex beneath his new ballroom, including a military hospital and research facilities. During a tour with reporters, he pointed to two levels already under construction. The purpose of the research facilities was left unexplained. [6]
Among the billionaire elite, security takes a more private form.
WIRED’s December 2023 investigation into Mark Zuckerberg’s Hawaii compound described plans for a roughly 5,000-square-foot underground shelter, an escape hatch and a heavy concrete-filled door. Zuckerberg subsequently described it as a basement and hurricane refuge, rejecting the doomsday characterisation. [7] [8]
“Basement” is doing some heroic public-relations work there. Five thousand square feet, an escape hatch and a concrete-filled door. Most people’s basements contain a washing machine and a box of Christmas decorations.
Other technology figures have been more explicit about the risks on their minds. In 2016, Sam Altman discussed survival preparations and a fallback plan to travel with Peter Thiel to Thiel’s New Zealand home if a pandemic struck. That was an escape plan described years ago, not confirmation of a completed bunker. [9]
Reddit co-founder Steve Huffman linked his laser eye surgery to disaster preparedness in 2017. He told The New Yorker that “if we have trouble—getting contacts or glasses is going to be a huge pain in the ass”. He added: “Without them, I’m fucked.” [10]
Most people prepare for a blackout. Huffman got his eyes fixed like he was preparing for hand-to-hand combat in the fallout. Apparently, losing your glasses is a bigger problem when you’re expecting the collapse of civilization.
These preparations span years and different threats. They do not reveal a shared countdown. What they reveal is an enormous difference in options.
My concern is whether people with exceptional influence become more comfortable taking risks when they can purchase protection from the consequences. Private infrastructure changes their exposure. It does very little for everyone beyond the property line.
And protection is only one side of the story. Disruption can also create opportunity for those positioned to sell the response.
Israel’s Elbit Systems reported a $32 billion order backlog in August, alongside quarterly revenue of approximately $2.29 billion. Rearmament is a commercial reality with substantial beneficiaries. Those figures describe orders and sales, not who causes a conflict, but they belong in any honest discussion of the incentives surrounding military spending. [11]
Political influence helps determine which spending survives scrutiny.
AIPAC openly works to strengthen American support for Israel. On October 21, it announced it would stop endorsements and direct PAC contributions while continuing organized individual giving and its United Democracy Project super PAC. NPR’s review of filings reported $53.5 million in UDP independent expenditures through September 30. The organisation was changing tactics, not abandoning electoral influence. [12]
American industry has a stake as well. AIPAC’s own explanation of the military-aid agreement says 92% of Israel’s U.S. foreign military financing must be spent in the United States in 2026. Money described as assistance abroad also generates business at home. [13]
Here is an alignment worth examining: political fundraising, an allied government seeking military backing and manufacturers benefiting from the purchases. American officials remain responsible for their decisions. Neither the word “alliance” nor a campaign slogan should shield those decisions from scrutiny.
The question of who benefits becomes even more consequential when attention turns from fighting to rebuilding.
On October 23, Ukraine’s Finance Ministry announced agreements with Rothschild & Co to advise on selling Ukrgasbank and Sense Bank. Its role includes valuation, investor materials and international marketing. Rothschild is the adviser, not the announced buyer. [14]
That leaves plenty to investigate. How are public assets valued during a war? Who gets to bid? What fees are paid? What remains in public hands afterward?
Ukraine’s published explanation of its reconstruction investment arrangement with the United States also describes contributions of 50% of specified royalties and licence payments associated with new and certain dormant resource permits. Reconstruction finance and future resource revenue are being negotiated together. [15]
Ukraine needs investment. That makes the terms more important, especially when its negotiating position is shaped by destruction and urgent financial need.
Then there is Jared Kushner.
In 2024, Kushner discussed the potential value of Gaza’s waterfront and moving people out while the area was cleared. Separately, Senate Finance Committee chair Ron Wyden reported that Kushner’s investment firm had collected approximately $157 million in management fees from foreign clients, including $87 million from Saudi Arabia. Those were investment-management fees, not demonstrated profits from Gaza. The relationship between political access, regional wealth and redevelopment ambitions nevertheless deserves sustained examination. [16] [17]
A devastated coastline, displaced families, and someone is already talking about the waterfront value. That is quite a talent for spotting the sea view through the rubble. Trump’s outsider branding gets no free pass here.
This week brought another controversy: Matthew Cole’s October 22 Vanity Fair excerpt alleges that Dutch access to Kushner’s hacked phone exposed Gulf-funded accounts linked to him. The allegation remains unconfirmed; Dutch journalists who investigated the episode say they found no corroboration. Vanity Fair NOS
Netanyahu understands the value of an image too. In January 2021, he displayed the syringe used for his first COVID vaccination in a glass case in his office, presenting it alongside military and historical objects as another national achievement. A medical procedure became a political exhibit. [18]
The episode captures something worth remembering whenever leaders present themselves as indispensable during a crisis: they have a personal interest in how that crisis is understood.
My suspicion is that we spend too much time debating their personalities and too little examining the arrangements around them. Who finances their supporters? Who advises on the asset sales? Who supplies the equipment? Who receives protection, and who is expected to absorb the disruption?
Those questions do not require everyone involved to share one plan. Interests can converge without a single command centre. Political authority, commercial opportunity and private security can reinforce one another while the public struggles to keep up.
There is something profoundly elitist about a future in which influential people can buy independence from failing public systems while ordinary households are told to become more resilient.
They’re planning for disruption. Some are positioned to profit from it. You’re being told to pack a torch.
That contrast is the story. At The Record, we follow the money, examine the preparations and leave the PR to the people paid to deliver it.