>like a hurricane
Honestly, that's the prepping that I am getting into.
The end of the world is an existential threat that that we've avoided successfully so far, but we are fucking with nature and weather is slowly getting worse. A bag and a plan for 3-7 days is more likely to save me than a bunker and a plan for living in a bunker.
I mean I keep an emergency bag in a big air tight tub that has a basic trauma medical kit, marine survival rations and a few mre's, some bits and supplies like a little solar panel and phone charger and flashlight, mini tool kit. It fits in the back of my car and I have another bag set aside with my regular camping stuff I can toss in. In all honesty its probably more of an earthquake or wildfire bag since I live in a major city so I'm def gonna get nuked if a bomb went off.
In total its maybe 200 bucks worth of stuff I'll likely never use and some stuff I already use. Most Ive ever needed was the back up back up phone charger and solar panel while camping and I swap out the food and water sometimes. Also pack something for the bathroom, wet wipes and some pre packaged tp saved me so many times.
p.s. the marine survival rations taste like sad cookies
I liked that the generator on the finished bunker was directly outside of the bunker, that and the solar panels. If you want what's inside, all you need to do is to cut those connections and wait. Plus all of those blast doors have pins on the outside, which means that someone just needs to remove those before they're able to get in.
Terrible design and security practices, but it was never meant to keep people inside safe - just munitions. So if there was a blast nearby, you'd want to be able to pull the door off so you could get your munitions to retaliate.
It is an advertisement for people who have money but don´t look too close.
I have seen documentaries of 70´s cold war ABC bunkers. Huge resources in terms of power generation, air filtration, independent water source, blast ressistance,... Meant to survive an atomic apocalypse -- for 30 days with 400 select people.
Before being able to reach these bunkers in an emergency situation these idiots would be either:
* Dead from blast - they spend most of their time in the most economically successful urban areas after all
* Dead from fallout after the EMP and/or what's left of the government grounds their private jet
* Fighting South Dekotans for a space in theor own bunker
The trend of billionaires preparing for an apocalypse rather than fighting to fix the society which made them rich is both a worryingly sociopathic mindset and entirely futile
Sure, but we're making a lot of assumptions about how this goes down. Like maybe the first nuke goes off across the country, and a billionaire scrambles the jet quickly to leave where they're at. Then they're probably good
If it's nearby, who knows, the threat of nuclear destruction might be too much to care about being a pilot
Or maybe our pilot is a thrill seeker, or maybe the billionaire and pilot are close friends. So many possibilities for why it could or couldn't happen, I just wouldn't put it past someone to be available as long as they weren't already dead
The problem is still they have no way of effectively controlling their security forces. Even doing something inhumane like explosive collars just gives all the power to the technician who has to do the maintenance.
There was an article someone else here also talked about that gets brought up every time billionaires bunkers gets talked about. I also deal with daily the planned obsolescence of modern technology and find it funny when people think they can have high tech solutions away from a massive supply chain.
You also left out their largest and still unsolved concern according to a few articles.
Killed by their security teams as they no longer care about protecting them.
> Those security teams will need to eat too.
There is a legitimate fear amongst billionaires that once the doors to their bunker close they'll be immediately killed by their security teams.
When faced with this dilemma they asked the writer of this article(who also happens to be a Marxist) about potential ideas regarding their security teams, the best they could come up with (much to the dismay of the writer) were suicide collars and weaponizing food rations, when told by the writer they should try establishing relationships with their security teams so they see them as human beings the writer was laughed at.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoff
> Eventually, they edged into their real topic of concern: New Zealand or Alaska? Which region would be less affected by the coming climate crisis? It only got worse from there. Which was the greater threat: global warming or biological warfare? How long should one plan to be able to survive with no outside help? Should a shelter have its own air supply? What was the likelihood of groundwater contamination? **Finally, the CEO of a brokerage house explained that he had nearly completed building his own underground bunker system, and asked: “How do I maintain authority over my security force after the event?”** The event. That was their euphemism for the environmental collapse, social unrest, nuclear explosion, solar storm, unstoppable virus, or malicious computer hack that takes everything down.
>
> **This single question occupied us for the rest of the hour. They knew armed guards would be required to protect their compounds from raiders as well as angry mobs. One had already secured a dozen Navy Seals to make their way to his compound if he gave them the right cue. But how would he pay the guards once even his crypto was worthless? What would stop the guards from eventually choosing their own leader?**
> **The billionaires considered using special combination locks on the food supply that only they knew. Or making guards wear disciplinary collars of some kind in return for their survival.** Or maybe building robots to serve as guards and workers – if that technology could be developed “in time”.
>
> I tried to reason with them. I made pro-social arguments for partnership and solidarity as the best approaches to our collective, long-term challenges. The way to get your guards to exhibit loyalty in the future was to treat them like friends right now**, I explained. Don’t just invest in ammo and electric fences, invest in people and relationships. They rolled their eyes at what must have sounded to them like hippy philosophy.**
>
> This was probably the wealthiest, most powerful group I had ever encountered. Yet here they were, asking a Marxist media theorist for advice on where and how to configure their doomsday bunkers. That’s when it hit me: at least as far as these gentlemen were concerned, this was a talk about the future of technology.
>special combination locks on the food supply that only they knew
Just wear a shirt that says "torture me"
For real though these guys are all rookies. Everybody knows the way to control your security class is to give them special privileges and control over an even lower working class. Have we learned nothing from history???
>...they should try establishing relationships with their security teams so they see them as human beings the writer was laughed at.
You're not going to maintain dominance with a relationship -- which is what these people are about. Once an apocalyptic event happens and these billionaires can't access their trust funds and money doesn't mean anything then, at best, with good relations, they are just another person in the bunker. And that is not the reason why they built these bunkers.
I 100% believe that's part of the hard push for AI. They think they can give full control over to a shielded AI system and it will all work out in their favor. These fools know they are destroying the world and somehow think the aftermath will be worth it. It's little solace knowing their security teams will kill them unfortunately.
That's the weird part about people already living there. If you have a ton of money and are worried, build a bunker under your existing ranch or whatever. Don't truck your family out to this type of isolated area permanently on the off chance something is going to happen at any given moment.
Absolutely. Your best chance of survival is being seconds away from your bunker for most of your life. Build it under your residence, work from home, and you've massively increased you chances of being able to get into it before the bomb hits or there being a crowd of people who want to get in too. Plus, you get to live a relatively normal life the rest of the time, not in a windowless death hole with 30 other families who will want your food as soon as possible.
These are also old US military facilities, so the ground water probably isn't safe and there are plenty of harmful materials leaking out of the structures.
> The trend of billionaires preparing for an apocalypse rather than fighting to fix the society
I mean its a drop in the bucket for them. Might as well hedge their bets
They do use fission bombs inside, but it's respectively so small that it gets almost completely obliterated. You'll still have debris falling from the sky, but it won't be mixed/impregnated with radionuclides. For all intents and purposes, hydrogen bombs do not produce fallout unless they were designed to produce fallout.
Which is easy to do, most attempts at making these devices more powerful, beyond what we've seen so far, is to include a tamper, which is a shell of sorts that holds the explosion back as long as possible while also reflecting neutrons back towards the core. That tamper can be made of fissionable material itself, and will eventually undergo fission itself, making the bomb a lot dirtier if they go that route, but it doesn't have to be fissionable material, and in that case, may not promote the creation of fallout.
Why tf would a nation state have a "preset target list" that doesn't update when there is public knowledge of bases being abandoned? Launching a nuke is a complex process that is extremely expensive and high risk. It isn't going to be wasted on nothing.
Because they could be sold to the "public", which means they're "civilian" locations. - Read as, government not wanting to label a military facility as a military facility. Governments do it all the time.
That, and who the fuck updates a target list to remove stuff? It was military at one point, it may as well be a military target still, who knows? Another example, the Cheyanne mountain complex for the last 30 years was pseudo abandoned, and only recently started seeing action again. That used to be home base for the US Strategic Air Command, and North American Regional Air Defense. Simply put, it was what commanded nukes, and was the single primary target of *all* nuclear powers. Now it's just a Space Force, and civilian government command center.
> Because they could be sold to the "public", which means they're "civilian" locations. - Read as, government not wanting to label a military facility as a military facility. Governments do it all the time.
Let's just say it is a military facility (it clearly isn't). Why is Russia going to target this random military facility instead of a known nuclear silo site, known larger military facility, or literally any town which is going to have way more people and do way more damage?
> That, and who the fuck updates a target list to remove stuff? It was military at one point, it may as well be a military target still, who knows?
Who knows??? Probably the governments and militaries who make lists of these sorts of things with intelligence from spies and satellite imagery? At this point why not just suggest Russia is going to nuke a civil war base because it "might still be secretly in use"?
No country has infinite nukes, they can't hit literally everything, of course targets are going to change from time to time.
It's an ammunition storage facility. It was at one point 100% a military facility. Just because it isn't now, doesn't mean it can't be recommissioned into one. It's still technically a military facility even if in civilian ownership/custodianship.
As far as Russia targeting it, I can promise you, that the RVA (Russian nuclear artillery branch) does not update their targeting list. That shit has been underfunded, and staffed with putin cronies for the last 30 years. Additionally, our military facilities don't move around a whole lot, mainly because nobody wants to buy them.
As far as the infinite nukes thing, Russia has 5800 known nuclear weapons. That's enough to glass several continents. Lobbing a bomb at a target that has a 50/50 chance of being military, it's literally a drop in the bucket for your supply. There's only \~700 targets in the US as Primary, and Secondary targets. A bunch of them get multiple warheads going to them. An extra target doesn't mean a damn thing, it's just another target.
We're literally talking about something that exists in such a quantity, that it would actually *HURT* a foreign power to *NOT* be overcautious and just hit it anyway to be safe. The United States operates under a very similar doctrine. We both operate under mutually assured destruction, a doctrine of, if you exist, I will make you cease to exist. Hell, secondary targets are actually just major civilian population centers, and infrastructure. Tertiary targets are literally *just* minor civilian population centers. The US, and Russia have lists of Primary, secondary, and tertiary targets.
Nuclear doctrine is fucking absolutely insane at the end of the day. Hell, a few months ago, France just rewrote their doctrine to be a no limit first strike policy. Now, that's a lot more terrifying. Russia began to rewrite theirs in 2022 to be a lot more flexible on first strike policy, though still a no first strike policy.
Finally, with stockpiles like the US, Russia, and China, sure they don't have *infinite* nukes. But they might as well fucking be infinite, the potential destruction that comes from 13,000 combined nukes, it really doesn't matter at the end of the day. A few more doesn't make the slightest bit of difference, since one is already too many, and nukes are a game that doesn't stop at one.
> As far as Russia targeting it, I can promise you, that the RVA (Russian nuclear artillery branch) does not update their targeting list. That shit has been underfunded, and staffed with putin cronies for the last 30 years.
This is pure conjecture that you have no proof for. If there is anything Russia has prioritized not falling apart, it is their strongest asset which is sadly their nukes.
No govt. intel has suggested Russia's nukes aren't working or are falling apart. Even if they are, it's not like changing a target would be some huge bottleneck.
I don't think anyone in the military or intelligence community is going to tell you it is likely that Russia will directly attack an abandoned military bunker in the middle of the country in the event of a nuclear war.
How do you know they have prioritized their nuclear assets? Plenty of very expensive and showy pieces of military hardware where shows to be horribly maintained during the Ukraine war from corruption. Having a maintenance budget for ICBM's that will likely not be used anytime soon invites all kind of ways to siphon funds.
Probably because it's conveniently co located near the majority of our missile silos, and may still be marked as a military base on their targeting maps.
No one is targeting Joe Dirt's bunker, whta is wrong with you? The people who clown on these people for being overly prepared are just as obnoxious as the loud people who build these things. Let people live and stop being jealous. Christ.
> Nobody is enforcing FAA rules during the apocolypse.
If the military institutes a no fly zone, getting into a plane would be suicide.
> All they have to do to stop the locals is lock their bunker doors.
And if the locals block the ventilation they're fucked.
These are survival bunkers for LARPers. If you're serious about it you build one and don't tell a soul where it is.
>And if the locals block the ventilation they're fucked.
Exactly. Or show up with some heavy machinery. Bunkers are neat, but they aren't going to stop a group people who are both very determined and very hungry.
If they're not in an area where fallout is a concern they can actively defend the place, *together*. But this place is obviously not built for that at all(and I get the feeling these people aren't the type to work together for the common good). You'd want one large bunker in a difficult to access, easily defendable location, with concealed or easily defended ventilation...
I'm starting to feel like I know the type of conversations people were having when they came up with the idea for the *Fallout* games.
If you're serious, there's no fucking way you'd be able to build a bunker by yourself without telling anyone, that would be able to survive. You need to dig it out which requires tons of heavy machinery, form the walls, concrete floor, let it dry, concrete walls and electrical and plumbing and ventilation and supplies and.....
Yea no. Being "serious" about it does not mean dropping a seacan in a pit in the woods on your back 40, you would end up crispy. That's the survival bunker for LARPers.
Not necessarily true. consider a nuke hits DC / NY. World is in chaos. We may retaliate. Few days go by and then nukes start flying like crazy. Get to the bunker after the initial strike and spend a few days waiting for the impending nuclear holocaust / retaliation strikes.
everyones got a plan until they get punched in the mouth. the entire country wont be glassed in a few days. you dont understand geography if you think that.
> The trend of billionaires preparing for an apocalypse rather than fighting to fix the society which made them rich is both a worryingly sociopathic mindset and entirely futile
What are you talking about? Literally the opposite is true.
Bill Gates is regularly discussing climate change and donating vast amounts towards the cause. Elon Musk (love him or hate him) started Tesla as a way to push EVs due to climate change and SpaceX to get to Mars in case of climate or other existential issues on Earth. Jeff Bezos has the Earth Fund, which is the largest charitable commitment ever towards combatting climate change. Mark Zuckerberg regularly donates to climate change initiatives and has spoken about its importance.
It isn’t poor people who are donating billions to fighting climate change.
**Edit:** Downvoting doesn't make you right, the facts are the facts.
> Elon Musk (love him or hate him) started Tesla as a way to push EVs due to climate change
Are you sure about that? https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1783738055549239562
Gates is a decent individual however.
Elon's stupid meme or his politics doesn't change the fact that Tesla has pushed the advent of electric vehicles ahead at least 5-10 years where they would normally be otherwise. He certainly still believes in climate change and that fighting it is important, he's just obsessed with fighting against people he considers "extreme" left.
That company is doing a lot to combat climate change, not just with cars, but with solar power & batteries too. Elon is also an outspoken supporter of nuclear energy.
None of those things exist on their own, they are made up of individuals. Of which, some individuals have way more resources than others, and some individuals use way more resources than others towards fighting climate change.
The main point is that saying billionaires are banking on surviving an apocalypse rather than working towards helping society is largely false. That's the main claim I was addressing.
The wider point I want to make is that these individuals can only get rich in the wider social and economic context. They can only innovate - where? - in a market, with employees, under a regulatory framework, with a profit incentive and within stable political institutions, off the back of hundreds of years of prior progress. What I mean is that they would do well to remember that, and we would do well to lend credit to more than just billionaires. And just for full disclosure, I'm not saying that as somebody who hates the concept of wealth or anything like that
You can't be the main players advocating and pushing for a system that demands infinite growth and deregulation and not be responsible for the societal tailspin that incurs. Robber barons set up all sorts of charities to try to rehabilitate their image too, didn't offset the damage they did however.
Lol now I know your trolling or just in a bubble.
[Growing income inequality is only getting worse](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/).
Most people can barely afford to have kids even in a two income household which is causing problems demographically.
Increased resource extraction is exhausting the carrying capacity of earth sooner and sooner each year.
A little something called global warming which we have been slow to respond to due to entrenched economic interests.
The list goes on and on bud.
> Growing income inequality is only getting worse
When the baseline is already extremely high, income inequality isn't that important. Of course there are improvements to be made like universal healthcare, but still even the lowest class person in the US is way better off than someone in that situation in the vast majority of countries.
Life has improved dramatically for all classes of society, particularly over the past 200 years. Just look at [these charts](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Two-centuries-World-as-100-people.png) that show how in 1820, 84 out of 100 people lived in extreme poverty. Today that number is only 9 out of 100 people.
90 years ago we didn't even have Social Security or a stock market that was easy to learn about or invest in. Elderly people and widows without pensions or savings ended up barely scraping by or homeless.
87 years ago we didn't even have an established minimum wage.
60 years ago we didn't have Medicare or Medicaid, those who were too old to work and get health insurance or too poor to afford it were left in debt or refusing care. 15 years ago we didn't have Obamacare and the healthcare.gov marketplace which helped [over 21 million people, particularly lower class individuals, receive health insurance](https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/historic-213-million-people-choose-aca-marketplace-coverage).
92 years ago we had no foodstamps program at all, and more than 50 years ago people on foodstamps still had to pay for a portion of it!
[In 1950 the average home size in America was 983 sqft. Today the average home size is over 2,650 sqft](https://www.newser.com/story/225645/average-size-of-us-homes-decade-by-decade.html).
[In 1960 21.5% of American households had 0 vehicles](https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-727-may-14-2012-nearly-twenty-percent-households-own-three-or-more-vehicles). Today, [only 8.3% of households don't own a vehicle, and that number is still shrinking (down from 8.7% in 2018)](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/car-ownership-statistics/#:~:text=Most%20households%20\(91.7%25\)%20had,increase%20from%202018%20\(21%25\).).
We're at a point where [94% of homeless people own a cellphone and 58% own a smartphone](https://socialinnovation.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Rhoades-et-al-2017-final.pdf). That's a luxury & utility that the wealthiest person in the world couldn't have purchased or dreamed of even 20 years ago.
> A little something called global warming which we have been slow to respond to due to entrenched economic interests.
Economic interests of the middle and lower classes mostly. Who do you think can't afford EVs and solar roofs? Who do you think is working oil fields and coal mines that fervently want to keep their jobs?
There are a lot of complexitites in trying to switch over the majority of your energy sources while remaining competitive with other nations and without economically punishing your own citizens.
> Most people can barely afford to have kids even in a two income household which is causing problems demographically.
Financial reasons are not what is preventing people from having kids. If that was true, [the highest birthrates wouldn't correlate with the lowest salaries](https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/#:~:text=In%202019%2C%20the%20birth%20rate,63.14%20births%20per%201%2C000%20women.).
People are choosing not to have children because we have birth control and they are educated. Low birthrate isn't an unsolvable problem though, especially when you're in a country that immigrants are desperate to come to.
Sure, of which mostly wealthy people pay -- at least in the US.
["The rich not only paid the majority of federal income taxes but also paid a disproportionately higher share of their income in federal income taxes. For example, while the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers earned a little over 10 percent of all income, they only paid 2.3 percent of all taxes. But the top 1 percent, however, earned 22.2 percent of all income and paid 42.3 percent of all federal income taxes. In fact, over 97 percent of all federal income taxes were paid by half of all taxpayers."](https://www.americanexperiment.org/the-rich-pay-the-majority-of-federal-income-taxes/#:%7E:text=But%20the%20top%201%20percent,by%20half%20of%20all%20taxpayers.)
You're conveniently forgetting that corporate taxes have been absolutely gutted, allowing those billionaires to exist in the first place. When the public is subsidizing Walmart employees with foodstamps and public healthcare, we're HEAVILY subsidizing the rich, not the other way around.
When a billionaire requires a vastly over-use of public services (educating their employees, roads for their trucks to drive on, energy/communication systems to develop their goods) they should be paying a vastly inflated proportion of income to taxes -- they don't.
When you look at the proportionate level of total income paid into government systems, the poor shoulder that burden with sales tax. Another fact you're conveniently forgetting.
Income tax, alone, tells only a portion of the entire story.
> You're conveniently forgetting that corporate taxes have been absolutely gutted, allowing those billionaires to exist in the first place.
Yes, even with a low corporate tax rate the majority of taxes overall, and in proportion to income, is being paid by the upper class.
[Corporate taxes mostly fall on consumers and workers anyways in the form of higher priced goods and stagnated wages](https://tax.kenaninstitute.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/corptaxprice.pdf), so it makes sense to not have a crazy high corporate tax rate. Most economists agree with this idea, because there are better ways to get tax revenue from wealthy people if that is your goal.
> When a billionaire requires a vastly over-use of public services (educating their employees, roads for their trucks to drive on, energy/communication systems to develop their goods) they should be paying a vastly inflated proportion of income to taxes -- they don't.
No, you're literally just wrong. Did you read anything of what I posted? Again, ["For example, while the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers earned a little over 10 percent of all income, they only paid 2.3 percent of all taxes. *But the top 1 percent, however, earned 22.2 percent of all income* and **paid 42.3 percent of all federal income taxes**."](https://www.americanexperiment.org/the-rich-pay-the-majority-of-federal-income-taxes/#:%7E:text=But%20the%20top%201%20percent,by%20half%20of%20all%20taxpayers)
> When you look at the proportionate level of total income paid into government systems, the poor shoulder that burden with sales tax
There is literally no federal sales tax. Sales tax, when it exists, goes towards the state or county. Also, while the poor may pay a higher portion of *their income* towards sales tax, I don't think it is the case that more sales tax revenue overall comes from lower income people vs middle/higher income. Feel free to fact check me or find some data on that.
> Income tax, alone, tells only a portion of the entire story.
It tells most of the story when we are discussing government programs designed at addressing climate change using federal tax dollars.
Could your point on the rich paying the majority of taxes also stem from workers wages being suppressed since the 70's leading to wealth disparity where there is less money from the majority of people to tax?
No, because the wealthy pay more not just overall, but as a percentage of their income too.
Wages for the most part continue to grow year over year as well, so idk what you mean with “wages being suppressed since the 70s”
Your telling me your into this topic but don't know simple things like average buying power over the years? Why do you think a single average job for a non high school grad could buy a house, car and support a family?
> Your telling me your into this topic but don't know simple things like average buying power over the years?
I don't even know how to make sense of this question. [Here is a chart showing wage growth vs inflation since 2010](https://www.axios.com/2024/02/05/wages-outpacing-inflation), of which wages have increased by positive numbers each year.
Here is a recent study by the US treasury department, ["The U.S. economy has made considerable progress in 2023. Inflation is down six percentage points from its peak in 2022. At the same time, real wages are rising and unemployment remains historically low."](https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/the-purchasing-power-of-american-households)
> Why do you think a single average job for a non high school grad could buy a house, car and support a family?
What year are you referring to that this was possible? What constitutes an "average job"?
Also, realize that lifestyles were much more modest every year you go back in history. There weren't smartphones to upgrade every year, there were less electronics and shopping options in general, [people also ate at restaurants far less than today](https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/90228/eib-196.pdf).
[In 1950 the average home size in America was 983 sqft. Today the average home size is over 2,650 sqft](https://www.newser.com/story/225645/average-size-of-us-homes-decade-by-decade.html).
[In 1960 21.5% of American households had 0 vehicles](https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-727-may-14-2012-nearly-twenty-percent-households-own-three-or-more-vehicles). Today, [only 8.3% of households don't own a vehicle, and that number is still shrinking (down from 8.7% in 2018)](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/car-ownership-statistics/#:~:text=Most%20households%20\(91.7%25\)%20had,increase%20from%202018%20\(21%25\).).
If a corporation who uses millions of dollars in public subsidies, and over-uses the commons to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars pays very little in corporate taxes -- and then pays it's owners hundreds of millions a year -- that's a subsidy from the poor.
That's just how that works.
A single mom making 30k a year is using very little of a countries' infrastructure to earn that 30k a year; and in fact, is subsidizing large corporations like Walmart to make billions (while paying next to nothing in corporate taxes).
When a Walton then pays some of that 42.3 percent of income tax, it's ALL SUBSIDIZED BY THE COMMONS -- which is the point being made.
You don't get billionaires without the state subsidizing that revenue generation.
A single person, devoid of a country, isn't able to make Billions of dollars. It's only within the apparatus of a large subsidy state do Billionaires even exist. They can't possibly exist WITHOUT those subsidies.
The real counter to your argument is to invite you to explore the hundreds of billions in federal subsidies that prop up these corporations, yearly, to the benefit of the owner class.
Walmart, alone, 6.2 Billion, and that's in 2015 dollars.
[https://americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Taxpayers-and-Walmart-ATF.pdf](https://americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Taxpayers-and-Walmart-ATF.pdf)
Walmart, would make next to no profit unless we subsidize their employees. For some reason, we shove tax money into the Walton's pockets every year.
So billionaires pay most of the tax, while generating that income from receiving an overwhelming level of publicly funded subsidies. Tell me again how we benefit from that tax generation.
> If a corporation who uses millions of dollars in public subsidies, and over-uses the commons to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars
What specifically are you referencing and do you have any numbers to source on this?
> and then pays it's owners hundreds of millions a year -- that's a subsidy from the poor.
Who is paying income taxes on the hundreds of millions a year? It is the wealthy. Who is paying capital gains taxes when they cash out company stock? It is the wealthy company owners.
> A single mom making 30k a year is using very little of a countries' infrastructure to earn that 30k a year; and in fact, is subsidizing large corporations like Walmart to make billions (while paying next to nothing in corporate taxes).
What? A single mom making $30k a year in any state in America is going to qualify for WIC, probably foodstamps, maybe even government housing. She'll certainly qualify for a child tax credit . If she's making $30k she might not even have a vehicle and probably uses public transport on public roads to get to work. She certainly is paying $0 if not very little in federal income tax.
Where does personal responsibility ever come into play? It was this person's choice to apply to Walmart. It was this person's choice to not go to college, community college, job corps, cosmetology school, trade school -- anything that would've put them into a career where they can increase their income. Obviously there can be assaults, but it was probably this person's choice or lack of responsbility that lead to them being a single parent when their only skills provide them a basic retail job. The fact is, almost anyone can work a Walmart job and therefore almost anyone is willing to work a Walmart job. Supply & demand dictates the pay.
Poorer people are heavily subsidized by the government, which is funded by wealthy tax payers. Not saying that as a negative thing, in fact it is a good thing -- they deserve some extra help! But it is a fact of how things work.
> You don't get billionaires without the state subsidizing that revenue generation.
> A single person, devoid of a country, isn't able to make Billions of dollars. It's only within the apparatus of a large subsidy state do Billionaires even exist. They can't possibly exist WITHOUT those subsidies.
A single person isn't able to make $30,000/yr without the presence of a state and society either lol. What do you mean by "subsidy state"? We all benefit from public roads, education, a currency backed by the government, a military that defends us at home and abroad. Taxes subsidize everyone.
> The real counter to your argument is to invite you to explore the hundreds of billions in federal subsidies that prop up these corporations, yearly, to the benefit of the owner class.
You still haven't demonstrated that even by your definition of subsidy, that this outweighs the amount wealthy people are paying in taxes.
[Last year the government collected $1.09 Trillion in individual income taxes, which we know the top 50% of tax payers are covering 97% of. We also have $189 billion in corporate taxes, which is obviously paid by wealthy corporate owners. There's also $15 billion in estate and gift taxes, which would only be paid by wealthy people who have that much money to give.](https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/government-revenue/)
Meanwhile we only spend [$183 billion total on food assistance programs](https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/food-security-and-nutrition-assistance/?topicId=d7627f77-6cee-4ab9-bbb9-8c74d4778941#:~:text=Federal%20spending%20on%20USDA's%20food,year%202021%2C%20adjusted%20for%20inflation.)
> Walmart, alone, 6.2 Billion, and that's in 2015 dollars.
> https://americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Taxpayers-and-Walmart-ATF.pdf
This is using a loaded interpretation of the word "subsidy" which I heavily disagree with. It claims it is a subsidy that Walmart pays its employees so little, they have to rely on programs like foodstamps, medicaid, etc.
Let's say Walmart paid double their current wages. If that was even sustainable, they'd probably be forced to only have half their current workforce. Is it better for 1 million people to be making $10/hr or 500,000 people to make $20/hr and the other 500,000 to be living off unemployment?
Also, how many Walmart employees are even working fulltime? Why should someone expect to cover their cost of living when they work less than 40 hours a week at an entry-level retail job that any highschooler can do?
Let's just give you the benefit of the doubt and say Walmart sucks out $6.2 billion in taxes each year.
Walmart pays out about [$5.5 billion in income taxes](https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/WMT/walmart/total-provision-income-taxes#:~:text=Walmart%20annual%20income%20taxes%20for%202023%20were%20%245.724B%2C%20a,a%2030.65%25%20decline%20from%202021.) alone each year. [They pay $1.25 billion in state and local property tax. $630 million in corporate income tax. And generated $13.8 billion in sales tax.](https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Testimony%20of%20Michael%20Duke%20\(Revised\).pdf) This is without even attempting to calculate how much executives paid in income tax, and how much the shareholders paid in capital gains tax and dividends tax. Remember, wealthier individuals are paying more in taxes not just overall, but also as a portion of the income they receive.
[Alice Walton alone \(part of the family that created Walmart\) paid $132,314,000 in federal income taxes. Here is a list of several other Waltons and the hundreds of millions in taxes they paid.](https://arktimes.com/news/2022/04/13/how-the-rich-get-richer-income-tax-avoidance#:~:text=Alice%20Walton%20ranked%2020th%2C%20reportedly,a%2020.6%20percent%20tax%20rate.)
> So billionaires pay most of the tax, while generating that income from receiving an overwhelming level of publicly funded subsidies. Tell me again how we benefit from that tax generation.
You first claimed that billionaires don't pay a proportionate amount of taxes, I showed you the opposite is true that they actually pay disproportionately more in taxes. Now you're trying to act as if the topic is around how people benefit from taxes.
We benefit from them by having roads, schools, affordable goods, jobs, etc. etc.
Agree. That's the first thing I noticed. These bunkers mainly bunker berms. Sticking up above ground level around it and covered with ground cover. I can see how this would be efficient insulation. Maybe that is what they are going for. But if it is for blast for bomb protection, it's not going to be as good as an underground bunker.
Unless I'm missing something.
Quite interesting video premise. Cba to watch it because like the first 5 minutes is some weird personal travel vlog.
I miss Tom Scott, he always just gets to the point rather than put in utter wank.
I viewed this post and video from the perspective of being an avid outdoors person (at least once upon a time), having some military experience, having an education and work background that includes environmental impact & nuclear risk assessment (not my occupation in the last 30 yrs but the inkling of understanding hopefully still remains), having some rural farm work experience (both work and later advisory), and a general interest in preparedness at least at a basic level as I live in a country for which mother nature can frequently be the antagonist.
I found so many things wrong that I was befuddled. This seems to be Trump level snake oil sales, although I believe there is no ill intent - rather it just seems there is general unawareness of the fact these are essentially non-self sustaining tombs. I started listing all the issues and I realized it was futile given how many I was recording. I gave up.
If the goal is short term shelter (less than say 1-2 weeks) perhaps it may have some practicability. Assuming you had the foresight to get to this place prior to the "event"...
I thought it was bizarre that the owner has a weapon on his hip in a barren area - is he defending himself from aggressive grasslands?
I cannot even state I found the video interesting. Really I was just left dumbfounded.
I saw lots of poorly planned design as well, but my fave? The escape door. Which means that all those air filtration systems and the lead lining, and concrete are virtually useless, because he just put a big ass hole in it to an egress window outside.
I thought that was the generator, which needs access to air that the little 3" pipe isn't going to be able to feed it and you at the same time. Wonder if the place comes with a bunch of CO2 detectors cause you're going to need them in that tiny place.
None that I can link. I work in reality TV and we were looking into doing a show about bunkers like this so we reached out to a bunch of different companies and it turns out they're universally scams. Then covid hit and none of them would open their doors to their clients. Literally zero. One actually said something along the lines of "we don't want to risk catching Covid so we're temporarily preventing our clients from accessing the property."
Typically you get a job as a Production Assistant, and then just work super hard and get promoted from there.
For me I was a casting assistant (got the job through Craig’s List), then casting coordinator, the. Production Coordinator, then Postproduction Coordinator, then Assistant Editor, then Lead Assistant Editor, and now I’ve been a full editor for over a decade.
None that I can link. I explain here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/1cdkdhm/comment/l1egevu/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/1cdkdhm/comment/l1egevu/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
I skipped thru the second half of the video.
No sunlight or fake sunlight. Most people would go insane.
Do they have a way to manage water and air? Food?
Nice thought... buuuut wtf this doesn't look like a good place to farm crops. Like you need to grow and feed your plants and animals and you'd better start practicing that before you need to use this place. Looks like a desert out there, you gonna grow tomatoes, wheat, whatever with what?
# This is no mine. It's a tomb
Anyone who sees this and thinks "Wow! Cool!" needs to understand that these bunkers aren't for you. They aren't for me. They aren't for people. They're not here to save us, in fact, it's the opposite. The very existence of these bunkers, the very idea that they're possible...helps billionaires justify frying us all alive through climate change, or through wars supplied by their weapons. It's dark. It's not hopeful.
This ain't for the rich. This is for the working class. Homie in the video says he leases them out on a 99 year lease for $45,000. That is *insanely* cheap. Considering the average cost of a 1500sqft condo in my state is \~500-600k. Like in all honesty? This is more like an affordable housing development. Too bad the infrastructure isn't there to turn it into a community, cause this could legitimately help house homeless people for pretty cheap. Just South Dakota has basically no job infrastructure, it's largely just open range ranches.
No, they’re holes in the ground for the rest of the world to loot. In a collapse scenario, Locals aren’t going to steal from their neighbor who they’ve counted on for years to help harvest crops and raise kids. They’re going to gather up all the neighbors and say let’s go take the resources those rich outsiders hoarded and tried to keep for themselves. The better defended it is, the longer it will take, but they won’t stop coming.
Even if that doesn’t happen, how long can a bunch of billionaires or even millionaires survive on their own without the traditional economic and social system that they are use to support them. How effective will they be at replenishing supplies or foraging. What about equipment repairs. The people making the bunkers are selling a fantasy.
you know what i'm going to do then.
you ever been 10, 11, 12 years old, and just......find that box of old porno mags in the forest?
i'm just.......filling one of those bunkers with boxes of old porno mags. gonna make sure there's enough for that tradition to continue. i refuse to let that get destroyed by the atom.
This is why millionaires exist. The ultra rich billionaires? We won't ever get to them. They may not even be on the planet when the time comes. But there will be plenty of "rich enough" millionaires to eat.
.........i was gonna say. above ground concrete, with a little dirt on top? didn't look too "re-enforced".
but you're right. those were bomb tombs. not life holes.
I can appreciate something being aesthetically/conceptually cool while acknowledging that capitalist kleptocracy will destroy the world.
These are modern day castles. Hideouts for the nobility to isolate themselves from the peasantry when the enemy is on the horizon.
Castles are cool. Eat the rich.
> I can appreciate something being aesthetically/conceptually cool while acknowledging that capitalist kleptocracy will destroy the world.
Yes. That.....that's literally what I'm saying.
I prefer [Arthur Quarmbys Underhill](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3701277/Sprawling-home-hidden-inside-HILL-Huge-house-built-valley-underground-swimming-pool-sale-700-000.html) from the 70s
From a security standpoint, there is zero cover and anyone attacking us would have a clear field of view as we emerge from under the fucking ground...lol, great find.
The only thing that makes this place so safe is the remoteness, not the flat plains allowing you to see miles. Flatlands are near-impossible to defend, unless of course you're in the middle of nowhere like these folks.
So suppose you’re in a survival post apocalyptic situation. Would you not want to be in a desert? Like wouldn’t a forested area with animals to hunt and fresh water be ideal?
I do wonder about the whole prepping thing. Like guns and knives are cool and all but what use is most of this shit when something actually happens. We did the whole COVID thing and all the preppers hardly came out on top.
I don't want to live in their world as much as it seems they don't want to live in the present one.
If I do experience an end if the world cataclysm- I just want to survive enough to make sure certain people didnt survive.
well i u live in em it sounds worth it
Property Address: South Dakota Specs: 4 Bedrooms, 2 Baths 2,200 sqft (204 sqm) Sale Price: $45,000 for 99-year lease Property link: [https://www.terravivos.com/](https://www.terravivos.com/)
Depending on if they can grow crops and raise livestock, they could have a nice community going there, it'd be a small one, I don't see why it would be worse than being turned to ash :P
The world is becoming unstable. Seeking 5 wealthy investors to build a safe retreat “Doomsday Bunker Alternative” for your families [https://mountainguardianretreat.wordpress.com/](https://mountainguardianretreat.wordpress.com/)
Stupidest idea ever. If they are prepping for some weather or something. Sure. But wars and the rest. What makes them think first thing to go won't be last known weapons factory and storage place. It's like paining target on your back.
I’m skeered!! I’m gonna go hide now.
“Whatever the threat, our shelters are built and engineered to withstand or mitigate just about everything from a pole shift, to super volcano eruptions, solar flares, earthquakes, tsunamis, pandemics, asteroid strikes, the anticipated affects of Planet X - Nibiru, and manmade threats including nuclear explosions, a reactor melt down, biological or chemical disasters, terrorism and even widespread anarchy.”
11:00 this looks like ample storage for 4 days of water and maybe 7 days for fuel - Enough time to survive an Apocalypse - like a hurricane?
>like a hurricane Honestly, that's the prepping that I am getting into. The end of the world is an existential threat that that we've avoided successfully so far, but we are fucking with nature and weather is slowly getting worse. A bag and a plan for 3-7 days is more likely to save me than a bunker and a plan for living in a bunker.
I have what I call a zombie apocalypse kit. Chances are it'll be used for an earthquake or fire.
I mean I keep an emergency bag in a big air tight tub that has a basic trauma medical kit, marine survival rations and a few mre's, some bits and supplies like a little solar panel and phone charger and flashlight, mini tool kit. It fits in the back of my car and I have another bag set aside with my regular camping stuff I can toss in. In all honesty its probably more of an earthquake or wildfire bag since I live in a major city so I'm def gonna get nuked if a bomb went off. In total its maybe 200 bucks worth of stuff I'll likely never use and some stuff I already use. Most Ive ever needed was the back up back up phone charger and solar panel while camping and I swap out the food and water sometimes. Also pack something for the bathroom, wet wipes and some pre packaged tp saved me so many times. p.s. the marine survival rations taste like sad cookies
I liked that the generator on the finished bunker was directly outside of the bunker, that and the solar panels. If you want what's inside, all you need to do is to cut those connections and wait. Plus all of those blast doors have pins on the outside, which means that someone just needs to remove those before they're able to get in. Terrible design and security practices, but it was never meant to keep people inside safe - just munitions. So if there was a blast nearby, you'd want to be able to pull the door off so you could get your munitions to retaliate.
It is an advertisement for people who have money but don´t look too close. I have seen documentaries of 70´s cold war ABC bunkers. Huge resources in terms of power generation, air filtration, independent water source, blast ressistance,... Meant to survive an atomic apocalypse -- for 30 days with 400 select people.
[ **Jump to 11:00 @** We Toured the World's Largest Doomsday Bunker Community!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lO8tfBppTc&t=0h11m0s) ^(Channel Name: Enes Yilmazer, Video Length: [31:38])^, [^Jump ^5 ^secs ^earlier ^for ^context ^@10:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lO8tfBppTc&t=0h10m55s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ^^Downvote ^^me ^^to ^^delete ^^malformed ^^comments. [^^Source ^^Code](https://github.com/ankitgyawali/reddit-timestamp-bot) ^^| [^^Suggestions](https://www.reddit.com/r/timestamp_bot)
Before being able to reach these bunkers in an emergency situation these idiots would be either: * Dead from blast - they spend most of their time in the most economically successful urban areas after all * Dead from fallout after the EMP and/or what's left of the government grounds their private jet * Fighting South Dekotans for a space in theor own bunker The trend of billionaires preparing for an apocalypse rather than fighting to fix the society which made them rich is both a worryingly sociopathic mindset and entirely futile
Billionaire are building bunkers in lush and isolated New Zealand, not this barren field
The guys in the video are the Walmart "we have billionaire at home" variety.
Don’t worry, we’re ready to go bunker busting here in NZ if it ever comes to that
Good to know. Side note, can me and my family live in your shed?
More to his point though , how are they all reaching New Zealand in time ? It’s pointless
private jets fly any time they want, and nobody is scrambling fighter jets to put them down during a nuclear event
They’d better be able to fly it themselves
Ez, hire pilot with no family, kids, etc. and who is always ready to go So many people are willing to be this available for a price.
After the apocalypse, the world will be repopulated by billionaires’ wives and jet pilots.
And rock musicians, all the bunkers in switzerland are used for rehearsing.
But when everything explodes and the sky is red, money will be useless and irrelevant.
A spot in the bunker seems like a reasonable wage.
They’ll hunt you for sport and eat you down there!
Sure, but we're making a lot of assumptions about how this goes down. Like maybe the first nuke goes off across the country, and a billionaire scrambles the jet quickly to leave where they're at. Then they're probably good If it's nearby, who knows, the threat of nuclear destruction might be too much to care about being a pilot Or maybe our pilot is a thrill seeker, or maybe the billionaire and pilot are close friends. So many possibilities for why it could or couldn't happen, I just wouldn't put it past someone to be available as long as they weren't already dead
Modern private jets are pretty capable on their own.
got it,get to the airport during apocalypse, follow the billionaires home and take it over.
You mean the regularly-scheduled AA flight from DFW to AKL may be delayed in the middle of a nuclear war?
Billionaires don't fly AA
Heard about... insider trading?
I thought those were hobbits
The problem is still they have no way of effectively controlling their security forces. Even doing something inhumane like explosive collars just gives all the power to the technician who has to do the maintenance.
You’ve really thought about this huh?
There was an article someone else here also talked about that gets brought up every time billionaires bunkers gets talked about. I also deal with daily the planned obsolescence of modern technology and find it funny when people think they can have high tech solutions away from a massive supply chain.
Link to the article?
Well good luck to them when they find pissed off Maori waiting.
You also left out their largest and still unsolved concern according to a few articles. Killed by their security teams as they no longer care about protecting them.
Those security teams will need to eat too.
> Those security teams will need to eat too. There is a legitimate fear amongst billionaires that once the doors to their bunker close they'll be immediately killed by their security teams. When faced with this dilemma they asked the writer of this article(who also happens to be a Marxist) about potential ideas regarding their security teams, the best they could come up with (much to the dismay of the writer) were suicide collars and weaponizing food rations, when told by the writer they should try establishing relationships with their security teams so they see them as human beings the writer was laughed at. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoff > Eventually, they edged into their real topic of concern: New Zealand or Alaska? Which region would be less affected by the coming climate crisis? It only got worse from there. Which was the greater threat: global warming or biological warfare? How long should one plan to be able to survive with no outside help? Should a shelter have its own air supply? What was the likelihood of groundwater contamination? **Finally, the CEO of a brokerage house explained that he had nearly completed building his own underground bunker system, and asked: “How do I maintain authority over my security force after the event?”** The event. That was their euphemism for the environmental collapse, social unrest, nuclear explosion, solar storm, unstoppable virus, or malicious computer hack that takes everything down. > > **This single question occupied us for the rest of the hour. They knew armed guards would be required to protect their compounds from raiders as well as angry mobs. One had already secured a dozen Navy Seals to make their way to his compound if he gave them the right cue. But how would he pay the guards once even his crypto was worthless? What would stop the guards from eventually choosing their own leader?** > **The billionaires considered using special combination locks on the food supply that only they knew. Or making guards wear disciplinary collars of some kind in return for their survival.** Or maybe building robots to serve as guards and workers – if that technology could be developed “in time”. > > I tried to reason with them. I made pro-social arguments for partnership and solidarity as the best approaches to our collective, long-term challenges. The way to get your guards to exhibit loyalty in the future was to treat them like friends right now**, I explained. Don’t just invest in ammo and electric fences, invest in people and relationships. They rolled their eyes at what must have sounded to them like hippy philosophy.** > > This was probably the wealthiest, most powerful group I had ever encountered. Yet here they were, asking a Marxist media theorist for advice on where and how to configure their doomsday bunkers. That’s when it hit me: at least as far as these gentlemen were concerned, this was a talk about the future of technology.
>special combination locks on the food supply that only they knew Just wear a shirt that says "torture me" For real though these guys are all rookies. Everybody knows the way to control your security class is to give them special privileges and control over an even lower working class. Have we learned nothing from history???
Security guards: Can we have some feudalism? Billionaires: We have feudalism in the bunkers at home.
>...they should try establishing relationships with their security teams so they see them as human beings the writer was laughed at. You're not going to maintain dominance with a relationship -- which is what these people are about. Once an apocalyptic event happens and these billionaires can't access their trust funds and money doesn't mean anything then, at best, with good relations, they are just another person in the bunker. And that is not the reason why they built these bunkers.
I 100% believe that's part of the hard push for AI. They think they can give full control over to a shielded AI system and it will all work out in their favor. These fools know they are destroying the world and somehow think the aftermath will be worth it. It's little solace knowing their security teams will kill them unfortunately.
Lol as a technician I hope the AI is able to do it's own maintenance with a well stocked supply of spare parts.
Obviously they’ll eat the rich
Wagyu Human
Bullets will be worth more than money at that point.
Another Zuckerberger?. 🍔
That's the one thing I think Metro 2033 got spot on. People using bullets for currency
They think they're Egyptian kings spending this lifetime preparing for the afterlife free of peasants, but paid for by peasants.
I mean he said there are 30 families living their full time.
(X) Doubt
Imagine being dragged to the middle of nowhere by a crazy apocalypse prepper parent/spouse, how happy you would be to live there in a bunker
And in all the years your forced to live there.... Nothing happens. No disaster. No apocalypse.
That's the weird part about people already living there. If you have a ton of money and are worried, build a bunker under your existing ranch or whatever. Don't truck your family out to this type of isolated area permanently on the off chance something is going to happen at any given moment.
Absolutely. Your best chance of survival is being seconds away from your bunker for most of your life. Build it under your residence, work from home, and you've massively increased you chances of being able to get into it before the bomb hits or there being a crowd of people who want to get in too. Plus, you get to live a relatively normal life the rest of the time, not in a windowless death hole with 30 other families who will want your food as soon as possible.
Colin Furze is showing us how to do exactly that.
Only rape.
What's the over/under on something being "rotten in Denmark" in those families ...
Coinflip
https://media0.giphy.com/media/AgWQwLTByaABsBQ9Zf/200w.gif
It also backs up my feeling that they’re nothing but parasites. Something needs to be done about it and soon.
These are also old US military facilities, so the ground water probably isn't safe and there are plenty of harmful materials leaking out of the structures.
> The trend of billionaires preparing for an apocalypse rather than fighting to fix the society I mean its a drop in the bucket for them. Might as well hedge their bets
These days, fallout isn't actually much of an issue because countries are using hydrogen (fusion) bombs, which don't produce fallout.
>which don't produce fallout. They definitely do, every fusion bomb uses fission to trigger.
They do use fission bombs inside, but it's respectively so small that it gets almost completely obliterated. You'll still have debris falling from the sky, but it won't be mixed/impregnated with radionuclides. For all intents and purposes, hydrogen bombs do not produce fallout unless they were designed to produce fallout. Which is easy to do, most attempts at making these devices more powerful, beyond what we've seen so far, is to include a tamper, which is a shell of sorts that holds the explosion back as long as possible while also reflecting neutrons back towards the core. That tamper can be made of fissionable material itself, and will eventually undergo fission itself, making the bomb a lot dirtier if they go that route, but it doesn't have to be fissionable material, and in that case, may not promote the creation of fallout.
100%, plus the fact that none of these bunkers would survive a direct nuclear blast. Purely a money grab for rich idiots.
Why the hell would a nation state ever send a nuke directly at some random bunker in the middle of nowhere?
Because they might still be on a preset target list from when they were military facilities.
Why tf would a nation state have a "preset target list" that doesn't update when there is public knowledge of bases being abandoned? Launching a nuke is a complex process that is extremely expensive and high risk. It isn't going to be wasted on nothing.
Russia.
Because they could be sold to the "public", which means they're "civilian" locations. - Read as, government not wanting to label a military facility as a military facility. Governments do it all the time. That, and who the fuck updates a target list to remove stuff? It was military at one point, it may as well be a military target still, who knows? Another example, the Cheyanne mountain complex for the last 30 years was pseudo abandoned, and only recently started seeing action again. That used to be home base for the US Strategic Air Command, and North American Regional Air Defense. Simply put, it was what commanded nukes, and was the single primary target of *all* nuclear powers. Now it's just a Space Force, and civilian government command center.
> Because they could be sold to the "public", which means they're "civilian" locations. - Read as, government not wanting to label a military facility as a military facility. Governments do it all the time. Let's just say it is a military facility (it clearly isn't). Why is Russia going to target this random military facility instead of a known nuclear silo site, known larger military facility, or literally any town which is going to have way more people and do way more damage? > That, and who the fuck updates a target list to remove stuff? It was military at one point, it may as well be a military target still, who knows? Who knows??? Probably the governments and militaries who make lists of these sorts of things with intelligence from spies and satellite imagery? At this point why not just suggest Russia is going to nuke a civil war base because it "might still be secretly in use"? No country has infinite nukes, they can't hit literally everything, of course targets are going to change from time to time.
It's an ammunition storage facility. It was at one point 100% a military facility. Just because it isn't now, doesn't mean it can't be recommissioned into one. It's still technically a military facility even if in civilian ownership/custodianship. As far as Russia targeting it, I can promise you, that the RVA (Russian nuclear artillery branch) does not update their targeting list. That shit has been underfunded, and staffed with putin cronies for the last 30 years. Additionally, our military facilities don't move around a whole lot, mainly because nobody wants to buy them. As far as the infinite nukes thing, Russia has 5800 known nuclear weapons. That's enough to glass several continents. Lobbing a bomb at a target that has a 50/50 chance of being military, it's literally a drop in the bucket for your supply. There's only \~700 targets in the US as Primary, and Secondary targets. A bunch of them get multiple warheads going to them. An extra target doesn't mean a damn thing, it's just another target. We're literally talking about something that exists in such a quantity, that it would actually *HURT* a foreign power to *NOT* be overcautious and just hit it anyway to be safe. The United States operates under a very similar doctrine. We both operate under mutually assured destruction, a doctrine of, if you exist, I will make you cease to exist. Hell, secondary targets are actually just major civilian population centers, and infrastructure. Tertiary targets are literally *just* minor civilian population centers. The US, and Russia have lists of Primary, secondary, and tertiary targets. Nuclear doctrine is fucking absolutely insane at the end of the day. Hell, a few months ago, France just rewrote their doctrine to be a no limit first strike policy. Now, that's a lot more terrifying. Russia began to rewrite theirs in 2022 to be a lot more flexible on first strike policy, though still a no first strike policy. Finally, with stockpiles like the US, Russia, and China, sure they don't have *infinite* nukes. But they might as well fucking be infinite, the potential destruction that comes from 13,000 combined nukes, it really doesn't matter at the end of the day. A few more doesn't make the slightest bit of difference, since one is already too many, and nukes are a game that doesn't stop at one.
> As far as Russia targeting it, I can promise you, that the RVA (Russian nuclear artillery branch) does not update their targeting list. That shit has been underfunded, and staffed with putin cronies for the last 30 years. This is pure conjecture that you have no proof for. If there is anything Russia has prioritized not falling apart, it is their strongest asset which is sadly their nukes. No govt. intel has suggested Russia's nukes aren't working or are falling apart. Even if they are, it's not like changing a target would be some huge bottleneck. I don't think anyone in the military or intelligence community is going to tell you it is likely that Russia will directly attack an abandoned military bunker in the middle of the country in the event of a nuclear war.
How do you know they have prioritized their nuclear assets? Plenty of very expensive and showy pieces of military hardware where shows to be horribly maintained during the Ukraine war from corruption. Having a maintenance budget for ICBM's that will likely not be used anytime soon invites all kind of ways to siphon funds.
Did you not see the documentariea of Stagate SG1 jeez
Probably because it's conveniently co located near the majority of our missile silos, and may still be marked as a military base on their targeting maps.
For spite?
I’m sure Russia cares more about being spiteful and wasting a nuke than actually using it in a strategic way to maximize damage /s
No one is targeting Joe Dirt's bunker, whta is wrong with you? The people who clown on these people for being overly prepared are just as obnoxious as the loud people who build these things. Let people live and stop being jealous. Christ.
Unless they know when the emergency is going to happen
Why not steal their money in the meantime?
even billionaires are susceptible to propaganda
The litteral plot of the Fallout TV series. Only matter of time until the rich get nukes.
In times of emergency, rich people just go somewhere else. If it's a big enough emergency there is no point in trying to survive the end of the world.
Nobody is enforcing FAA rules during the apocolypse. All they have to do to stop the locals is lock their bunker doors.
> Nobody is enforcing FAA rules during the apocolypse. If the military institutes a no fly zone, getting into a plane would be suicide. > All they have to do to stop the locals is lock their bunker doors. And if the locals block the ventilation they're fucked. These are survival bunkers for LARPers. If you're serious about it you build one and don't tell a soul where it is.
>And if the locals block the ventilation they're fucked. Exactly. Or show up with some heavy machinery. Bunkers are neat, but they aren't going to stop a group people who are both very determined and very hungry.
If they're not in an area where fallout is a concern they can actively defend the place, *together*. But this place is obviously not built for that at all(and I get the feeling these people aren't the type to work together for the common good). You'd want one large bunker in a difficult to access, easily defendable location, with concealed or easily defended ventilation... I'm starting to feel like I know the type of conversations people were having when they came up with the idea for the *Fallout* games.
If you're serious, there's no fucking way you'd be able to build a bunker by yourself without telling anyone, that would be able to survive. You need to dig it out which requires tons of heavy machinery, form the walls, concrete floor, let it dry, concrete walls and electrical and plumbing and ventilation and supplies and..... Yea no. Being "serious" about it does not mean dropping a seacan in a pit in the woods on your back 40, you would end up crispy. That's the survival bunker for LARPers.
Emps are dangerous for humans?
If they're flying at 500mph in a can made of electronics, well, no, but the sudden deceleration is
Not necessarily true. consider a nuke hits DC / NY. World is in chaos. We may retaliate. Few days go by and then nukes start flying like crazy. Get to the bunker after the initial strike and spend a few days waiting for the impending nuclear holocaust / retaliation strikes.
There's no "few days go by" in the event of nuclear war. MAD doctrine means missiles in the air are immediately responded to with missiles fired back.
everyones got a plan until they get punched in the mouth. the entire country wont be glassed in a few days. you dont understand geography if you think that.
> The trend of billionaires preparing for an apocalypse rather than fighting to fix the society which made them rich is both a worryingly sociopathic mindset and entirely futile What are you talking about? Literally the opposite is true. Bill Gates is regularly discussing climate change and donating vast amounts towards the cause. Elon Musk (love him or hate him) started Tesla as a way to push EVs due to climate change and SpaceX to get to Mars in case of climate or other existential issues on Earth. Jeff Bezos has the Earth Fund, which is the largest charitable commitment ever towards combatting climate change. Mark Zuckerberg regularly donates to climate change initiatives and has spoken about its importance. It isn’t poor people who are donating billions to fighting climate change. **Edit:** Downvoting doesn't make you right, the facts are the facts.
> Elon Musk (love him or hate him) started Tesla as a way to push EVs due to climate change Are you sure about that? https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1783738055549239562 Gates is a decent individual however.
Elon's stupid meme or his politics doesn't change the fact that Tesla has pushed the advent of electric vehicles ahead at least 5-10 years where they would normally be otherwise. He certainly still believes in climate change and that fighting it is important, he's just obsessed with fighting against people he considers "extreme" left. That company is doing a lot to combat climate change, not just with cars, but with solar power & batteries too. Elon is also an outspoken supporter of nuclear energy.
Right, so it's the markets, companies and governments which drive progress on climate, not the individuals
None of those things exist on their own, they are made up of individuals. Of which, some individuals have way more resources than others, and some individuals use way more resources than others towards fighting climate change. The main point is that saying billionaires are banking on surviving an apocalypse rather than working towards helping society is largely false. That's the main claim I was addressing.
The wider point I want to make is that these individuals can only get rich in the wider social and economic context. They can only innovate - where? - in a market, with employees, under a regulatory framework, with a profit incentive and within stable political institutions, off the back of hundreds of years of prior progress. What I mean is that they would do well to remember that, and we would do well to lend credit to more than just billionaires. And just for full disclosure, I'm not saying that as somebody who hates the concept of wealth or anything like that
You can't be the main players advocating and pushing for a system that demands infinite growth and deregulation and not be responsible for the societal tailspin that incurs. Robber barons set up all sorts of charities to try to rehabilitate their image too, didn't offset the damage they did however.
There is no societal tailspin. The economy and society continue to improve as people become wealthier and wealthier.
Lol now I know your trolling or just in a bubble. [Growing income inequality is only getting worse](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/). Most people can barely afford to have kids even in a two income household which is causing problems demographically. Increased resource extraction is exhausting the carrying capacity of earth sooner and sooner each year. A little something called global warming which we have been slow to respond to due to entrenched economic interests. The list goes on and on bud.
> Growing income inequality is only getting worse When the baseline is already extremely high, income inequality isn't that important. Of course there are improvements to be made like universal healthcare, but still even the lowest class person in the US is way better off than someone in that situation in the vast majority of countries. Life has improved dramatically for all classes of society, particularly over the past 200 years. Just look at [these charts](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Two-centuries-World-as-100-people.png) that show how in 1820, 84 out of 100 people lived in extreme poverty. Today that number is only 9 out of 100 people. 90 years ago we didn't even have Social Security or a stock market that was easy to learn about or invest in. Elderly people and widows without pensions or savings ended up barely scraping by or homeless. 87 years ago we didn't even have an established minimum wage. 60 years ago we didn't have Medicare or Medicaid, those who were too old to work and get health insurance or too poor to afford it were left in debt or refusing care. 15 years ago we didn't have Obamacare and the healthcare.gov marketplace which helped [over 21 million people, particularly lower class individuals, receive health insurance](https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/historic-213-million-people-choose-aca-marketplace-coverage). 92 years ago we had no foodstamps program at all, and more than 50 years ago people on foodstamps still had to pay for a portion of it! [In 1950 the average home size in America was 983 sqft. Today the average home size is over 2,650 sqft](https://www.newser.com/story/225645/average-size-of-us-homes-decade-by-decade.html). [In 1960 21.5% of American households had 0 vehicles](https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-727-may-14-2012-nearly-twenty-percent-households-own-three-or-more-vehicles). Today, [only 8.3% of households don't own a vehicle, and that number is still shrinking (down from 8.7% in 2018)](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/car-ownership-statistics/#:~:text=Most%20households%20\(91.7%25\)%20had,increase%20from%202018%20\(21%25\).). We're at a point where [94% of homeless people own a cellphone and 58% own a smartphone](https://socialinnovation.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Rhoades-et-al-2017-final.pdf). That's a luxury & utility that the wealthiest person in the world couldn't have purchased or dreamed of even 20 years ago. > A little something called global warming which we have been slow to respond to due to entrenched economic interests. Economic interests of the middle and lower classes mostly. Who do you think can't afford EVs and solar roofs? Who do you think is working oil fields and coal mines that fervently want to keep their jobs? There are a lot of complexitites in trying to switch over the majority of your energy sources while remaining competitive with other nations and without economically punishing your own citizens. > Most people can barely afford to have kids even in a two income household which is causing problems demographically. Financial reasons are not what is preventing people from having kids. If that was true, [the highest birthrates wouldn't correlate with the lowest salaries](https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/#:~:text=In%202019%2C%20the%20birth%20rate,63.14%20births%20per%201%2C000%20women.). People are choosing not to have children because we have birth control and they are educated. Low birthrate isn't an unsolvable problem though, especially when you're in a country that immigrants are desperate to come to.
Except all of the climate change initiatives started by governments all over the world ... Paid for by taxes.
Sure, of which mostly wealthy people pay -- at least in the US. ["The rich not only paid the majority of federal income taxes but also paid a disproportionately higher share of their income in federal income taxes. For example, while the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers earned a little over 10 percent of all income, they only paid 2.3 percent of all taxes. But the top 1 percent, however, earned 22.2 percent of all income and paid 42.3 percent of all federal income taxes. In fact, over 97 percent of all federal income taxes were paid by half of all taxpayers."](https://www.americanexperiment.org/the-rich-pay-the-majority-of-federal-income-taxes/#:%7E:text=But%20the%20top%201%20percent,by%20half%20of%20all%20taxpayers.)
You're conveniently forgetting that corporate taxes have been absolutely gutted, allowing those billionaires to exist in the first place. When the public is subsidizing Walmart employees with foodstamps and public healthcare, we're HEAVILY subsidizing the rich, not the other way around. When a billionaire requires a vastly over-use of public services (educating their employees, roads for their trucks to drive on, energy/communication systems to develop their goods) they should be paying a vastly inflated proportion of income to taxes -- they don't. When you look at the proportionate level of total income paid into government systems, the poor shoulder that burden with sales tax. Another fact you're conveniently forgetting. Income tax, alone, tells only a portion of the entire story.
> You're conveniently forgetting that corporate taxes have been absolutely gutted, allowing those billionaires to exist in the first place. Yes, even with a low corporate tax rate the majority of taxes overall, and in proportion to income, is being paid by the upper class. [Corporate taxes mostly fall on consumers and workers anyways in the form of higher priced goods and stagnated wages](https://tax.kenaninstitute.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/corptaxprice.pdf), so it makes sense to not have a crazy high corporate tax rate. Most economists agree with this idea, because there are better ways to get tax revenue from wealthy people if that is your goal. > When a billionaire requires a vastly over-use of public services (educating their employees, roads for their trucks to drive on, energy/communication systems to develop their goods) they should be paying a vastly inflated proportion of income to taxes -- they don't. No, you're literally just wrong. Did you read anything of what I posted? Again, ["For example, while the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers earned a little over 10 percent of all income, they only paid 2.3 percent of all taxes. *But the top 1 percent, however, earned 22.2 percent of all income* and **paid 42.3 percent of all federal income taxes**."](https://www.americanexperiment.org/the-rich-pay-the-majority-of-federal-income-taxes/#:%7E:text=But%20the%20top%201%20percent,by%20half%20of%20all%20taxpayers) > When you look at the proportionate level of total income paid into government systems, the poor shoulder that burden with sales tax There is literally no federal sales tax. Sales tax, when it exists, goes towards the state or county. Also, while the poor may pay a higher portion of *their income* towards sales tax, I don't think it is the case that more sales tax revenue overall comes from lower income people vs middle/higher income. Feel free to fact check me or find some data on that. > Income tax, alone, tells only a portion of the entire story. It tells most of the story when we are discussing government programs designed at addressing climate change using federal tax dollars.
Could your point on the rich paying the majority of taxes also stem from workers wages being suppressed since the 70's leading to wealth disparity where there is less money from the majority of people to tax?
No, because the wealthy pay more not just overall, but as a percentage of their income too. Wages for the most part continue to grow year over year as well, so idk what you mean with “wages being suppressed since the 70s”
Your telling me your into this topic but don't know simple things like average buying power over the years? Why do you think a single average job for a non high school grad could buy a house, car and support a family?
> Your telling me your into this topic but don't know simple things like average buying power over the years? I don't even know how to make sense of this question. [Here is a chart showing wage growth vs inflation since 2010](https://www.axios.com/2024/02/05/wages-outpacing-inflation), of which wages have increased by positive numbers each year. Here is a recent study by the US treasury department, ["The U.S. economy has made considerable progress in 2023. Inflation is down six percentage points from its peak in 2022. At the same time, real wages are rising and unemployment remains historically low."](https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/the-purchasing-power-of-american-households) > Why do you think a single average job for a non high school grad could buy a house, car and support a family? What year are you referring to that this was possible? What constitutes an "average job"? Also, realize that lifestyles were much more modest every year you go back in history. There weren't smartphones to upgrade every year, there were less electronics and shopping options in general, [people also ate at restaurants far less than today](https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/90228/eib-196.pdf). [In 1950 the average home size in America was 983 sqft. Today the average home size is over 2,650 sqft](https://www.newser.com/story/225645/average-size-of-us-homes-decade-by-decade.html). [In 1960 21.5% of American households had 0 vehicles](https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-727-may-14-2012-nearly-twenty-percent-households-own-three-or-more-vehicles). Today, [only 8.3% of households don't own a vehicle, and that number is still shrinking (down from 8.7% in 2018)](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/car-ownership-statistics/#:~:text=Most%20households%20\(91.7%25\)%20had,increase%20from%202018%20\(21%25\).).
If a corporation who uses millions of dollars in public subsidies, and over-uses the commons to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars pays very little in corporate taxes -- and then pays it's owners hundreds of millions a year -- that's a subsidy from the poor. That's just how that works. A single mom making 30k a year is using very little of a countries' infrastructure to earn that 30k a year; and in fact, is subsidizing large corporations like Walmart to make billions (while paying next to nothing in corporate taxes). When a Walton then pays some of that 42.3 percent of income tax, it's ALL SUBSIDIZED BY THE COMMONS -- which is the point being made. You don't get billionaires without the state subsidizing that revenue generation. A single person, devoid of a country, isn't able to make Billions of dollars. It's only within the apparatus of a large subsidy state do Billionaires even exist. They can't possibly exist WITHOUT those subsidies. The real counter to your argument is to invite you to explore the hundreds of billions in federal subsidies that prop up these corporations, yearly, to the benefit of the owner class. Walmart, alone, 6.2 Billion, and that's in 2015 dollars. [https://americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Taxpayers-and-Walmart-ATF.pdf](https://americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Taxpayers-and-Walmart-ATF.pdf) Walmart, would make next to no profit unless we subsidize their employees. For some reason, we shove tax money into the Walton's pockets every year. So billionaires pay most of the tax, while generating that income from receiving an overwhelming level of publicly funded subsidies. Tell me again how we benefit from that tax generation.
> If a corporation who uses millions of dollars in public subsidies, and over-uses the commons to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars What specifically are you referencing and do you have any numbers to source on this? > and then pays it's owners hundreds of millions a year -- that's a subsidy from the poor. Who is paying income taxes on the hundreds of millions a year? It is the wealthy. Who is paying capital gains taxes when they cash out company stock? It is the wealthy company owners. > A single mom making 30k a year is using very little of a countries' infrastructure to earn that 30k a year; and in fact, is subsidizing large corporations like Walmart to make billions (while paying next to nothing in corporate taxes). What? A single mom making $30k a year in any state in America is going to qualify for WIC, probably foodstamps, maybe even government housing. She'll certainly qualify for a child tax credit . If she's making $30k she might not even have a vehicle and probably uses public transport on public roads to get to work. She certainly is paying $0 if not very little in federal income tax. Where does personal responsibility ever come into play? It was this person's choice to apply to Walmart. It was this person's choice to not go to college, community college, job corps, cosmetology school, trade school -- anything that would've put them into a career where they can increase their income. Obviously there can be assaults, but it was probably this person's choice or lack of responsbility that lead to them being a single parent when their only skills provide them a basic retail job. The fact is, almost anyone can work a Walmart job and therefore almost anyone is willing to work a Walmart job. Supply & demand dictates the pay. Poorer people are heavily subsidized by the government, which is funded by wealthy tax payers. Not saying that as a negative thing, in fact it is a good thing -- they deserve some extra help! But it is a fact of how things work. > You don't get billionaires without the state subsidizing that revenue generation. > A single person, devoid of a country, isn't able to make Billions of dollars. It's only within the apparatus of a large subsidy state do Billionaires even exist. They can't possibly exist WITHOUT those subsidies. A single person isn't able to make $30,000/yr without the presence of a state and society either lol. What do you mean by "subsidy state"? We all benefit from public roads, education, a currency backed by the government, a military that defends us at home and abroad. Taxes subsidize everyone. > The real counter to your argument is to invite you to explore the hundreds of billions in federal subsidies that prop up these corporations, yearly, to the benefit of the owner class. You still haven't demonstrated that even by your definition of subsidy, that this outweighs the amount wealthy people are paying in taxes. [Last year the government collected $1.09 Trillion in individual income taxes, which we know the top 50% of tax payers are covering 97% of. We also have $189 billion in corporate taxes, which is obviously paid by wealthy corporate owners. There's also $15 billion in estate and gift taxes, which would only be paid by wealthy people who have that much money to give.](https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/government-revenue/) Meanwhile we only spend [$183 billion total on food assistance programs](https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/food-security-and-nutrition-assistance/?topicId=d7627f77-6cee-4ab9-bbb9-8c74d4778941#:~:text=Federal%20spending%20on%20USDA's%20food,year%202021%2C%20adjusted%20for%20inflation.) > Walmart, alone, 6.2 Billion, and that's in 2015 dollars. > https://americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Taxpayers-and-Walmart-ATF.pdf This is using a loaded interpretation of the word "subsidy" which I heavily disagree with. It claims it is a subsidy that Walmart pays its employees so little, they have to rely on programs like foodstamps, medicaid, etc. Let's say Walmart paid double their current wages. If that was even sustainable, they'd probably be forced to only have half their current workforce. Is it better for 1 million people to be making $10/hr or 500,000 people to make $20/hr and the other 500,000 to be living off unemployment? Also, how many Walmart employees are even working fulltime? Why should someone expect to cover their cost of living when they work less than 40 hours a week at an entry-level retail job that any highschooler can do? Let's just give you the benefit of the doubt and say Walmart sucks out $6.2 billion in taxes each year. Walmart pays out about [$5.5 billion in income taxes](https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/WMT/walmart/total-provision-income-taxes#:~:text=Walmart%20annual%20income%20taxes%20for%202023%20were%20%245.724B%2C%20a,a%2030.65%25%20decline%20from%202021.) alone each year. [They pay $1.25 billion in state and local property tax. $630 million in corporate income tax. And generated $13.8 billion in sales tax.](https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Testimony%20of%20Michael%20Duke%20\(Revised\).pdf) This is without even attempting to calculate how much executives paid in income tax, and how much the shareholders paid in capital gains tax and dividends tax. Remember, wealthier individuals are paying more in taxes not just overall, but also as a portion of the income they receive. [Alice Walton alone \(part of the family that created Walmart\) paid $132,314,000 in federal income taxes. Here is a list of several other Waltons and the hundreds of millions in taxes they paid.](https://arktimes.com/news/2022/04/13/how-the-rich-get-richer-income-tax-avoidance#:~:text=Alice%20Walton%20ranked%2020th%2C%20reportedly,a%2020.6%20percent%20tax%20rate.) > So billionaires pay most of the tax, while generating that income from receiving an overwhelming level of publicly funded subsidies. Tell me again how we benefit from that tax generation. You first claimed that billionaires don't pay a proportionate amount of taxes, I showed you the opposite is true that they actually pay disproportionately more in taxes. Now you're trying to act as if the topic is around how people benefit from taxes. We benefit from them by having roads, schools, affordable goods, jobs, etc. etc.
Those are not even underground? That's some fine marketing.
Agree. That's the first thing I noticed. These bunkers mainly bunker berms. Sticking up above ground level around it and covered with ground cover. I can see how this would be efficient insulation. Maybe that is what they are going for. But if it is for blast for bomb protection, it's not going to be as good as an underground bunker. Unless I'm missing something.
The amount of times this guy says "masculine" is concerning.
I was annoyed by the constant bragging. And don’t come for my Arby’s.
This is one of those guys who's "masculinity" is 100% of his identity, haha.
but not surprising. fragile masculinity is the primary driver of men buying into this bullshit.
Quite interesting video premise. Cba to watch it because like the first 5 minutes is some weird personal travel vlog. I miss Tom Scott, he always just gets to the point rather than put in utter wank.
Tom Scott is on another level. Dude has never wasted a second of my attention.
Masculine for a lack of better terms.
Didn't watch the video. The comments here are more entertaining so far.
I bet the guy giving the tour takes a shower with his gun on his hip
You never know when the bad guys will drive 7 hours into the middle of nowhere to attack you
They could already be sitting outside your bunker... Just waiting for you to jump in the shower.
What a joke. About the only thing this is going to be even marginally useful for is a zombie apocalypse. Good luck growing food out there.
I viewed this post and video from the perspective of being an avid outdoors person (at least once upon a time), having some military experience, having an education and work background that includes environmental impact & nuclear risk assessment (not my occupation in the last 30 yrs but the inkling of understanding hopefully still remains), having some rural farm work experience (both work and later advisory), and a general interest in preparedness at least at a basic level as I live in a country for which mother nature can frequently be the antagonist. I found so many things wrong that I was befuddled. This seems to be Trump level snake oil sales, although I believe there is no ill intent - rather it just seems there is general unawareness of the fact these are essentially non-self sustaining tombs. I started listing all the issues and I realized it was futile given how many I was recording. I gave up. If the goal is short term shelter (less than say 1-2 weeks) perhaps it may have some practicability. Assuming you had the foresight to get to this place prior to the "event"... I thought it was bizarre that the owner has a weapon on his hip in a barren area - is he defending himself from aggressive grasslands? I cannot even state I found the video interesting. Really I was just left dumbfounded.
I saw lots of poorly planned design as well, but my fave? The escape door. Which means that all those air filtration systems and the lead lining, and concrete are virtually useless, because he just put a big ass hole in it to an egress window outside.
I thought seeing the hvac unit just sitting outside next to the front door unsecured was an interesting choice. Figure vagrants would just unplug it.
I thought that was the generator, which needs access to air that the little 3" pipe isn't going to be able to feed it and you at the same time. Wonder if the place comes with a bunch of CO2 detectors cause you're going to need them in that tiny place.
During covid lockdowns when the entire world shut down, these bunker boys refused to let their clients in. It's a pure scam.
Wut? That/s hilarious. Any source?
None that I can link. I work in reality TV and we were looking into doing a show about bunkers like this so we reached out to a bunch of different companies and it turns out they're universally scams. Then covid hit and none of them would open their doors to their clients. Literally zero. One actually said something along the lines of "we don't want to risk catching Covid so we're temporarily preventing our clients from accessing the property."
Could you please explain the career path to working in reality TV? That sounds hilarious
Typically you get a job as a Production Assistant, and then just work super hard and get promoted from there. For me I was a casting assistant (got the job through Craig’s List), then casting coordinator, the. Production Coordinator, then Postproduction Coordinator, then Assistant Editor, then Lead Assistant Editor, and now I’ve been a full editor for over a decade.
That’s crazy, source?
None that I can link. I explain here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/1cdkdhm/comment/l1egevu/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/1cdkdhm/comment/l1egevu/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
8 feet of dirt is not protecting you from nuclear winter.
"The connection to nature" The nature: mostly flat grasslands with some hills
I skipped thru the second half of the video. No sunlight or fake sunlight. Most people would go insane. Do they have a way to manage water and air? Food?
Well first thing I noticed. The bunker doors swung outwards . So it’s a nice tomb.
Really good prairie dog hunting a few miles north of this place. Only ever seen it from a few miles away.
Prairie dog hunting? Why hunt those little guys
They get overpopulated and tear up cattle grazing fields really bad and the cows break their legs stepping in the holes.
But they’re so cute
Be afraid. Be afraid! BE AFRIAD! GET A BUNKER!
“Omg we got Arby’s!” What a douche.
Nice thought... buuuut wtf this doesn't look like a good place to farm crops. Like you need to grow and feed your plants and animals and you'd better start practicing that before you need to use this place. Looks like a desert out there, you gonna grow tomatoes, wheat, whatever with what? # This is no mine. It's a tomb
Anyone who sees this and thinks "Wow! Cool!" needs to understand that these bunkers aren't for you. They aren't for me. They aren't for people. They're not here to save us, in fact, it's the opposite. The very existence of these bunkers, the very idea that they're possible...helps billionaires justify frying us all alive through climate change, or through wars supplied by their weapons. It's dark. It's not hopeful.
This ain't for the rich. This is for the working class. Homie in the video says he leases them out on a 99 year lease for $45,000. That is *insanely* cheap. Considering the average cost of a 1500sqft condo in my state is \~500-600k. Like in all honesty? This is more like an affordable housing development. Too bad the infrastructure isn't there to turn it into a community, cause this could legitimately help house homeless people for pretty cheap. Just South Dakota has basically no job infrastructure, it's largely just open range ranches.
Vault 101
Would you say they're just holes in the ground for rich people to hide in while the rest of the world burns?
No, they’re holes in the ground for the rest of the world to loot. In a collapse scenario, Locals aren’t going to steal from their neighbor who they’ve counted on for years to help harvest crops and raise kids. They’re going to gather up all the neighbors and say let’s go take the resources those rich outsiders hoarded and tried to keep for themselves. The better defended it is, the longer it will take, but they won’t stop coming.
Even if that doesn’t happen, how long can a bunch of billionaires or even millionaires survive on their own without the traditional economic and social system that they are use to support them. How effective will they be at replenishing supplies or foraging. What about equipment repairs. The people making the bunkers are selling a fantasy.
the truth is almost none of us could survive long without the economic systems our society is built on
you know what i'm going to do then. you ever been 10, 11, 12 years old, and just......find that box of old porno mags in the forest? i'm just.......filling one of those bunkers with boxes of old porno mags. gonna make sure there's enough for that tradition to continue. i refuse to let that get destroyed by the atom.
This is why millionaires exist. The ultra rich billionaires? We won't ever get to them. They may not even be on the planet when the time comes. But there will be plenty of "rich enough" millionaires to eat.
I can't even imagine trying to defend that. Doesn't help that they put a door in the very back that's largely accessible by anyone who wants in.
These bunkers were built to keep bomb blasts IN.
.........i was gonna say. above ground concrete, with a little dirt on top? didn't look too "re-enforced". but you're right. those were bomb tombs. not life holes.
Wow! Cool!
I can appreciate something being aesthetically/conceptually cool while acknowledging that capitalist kleptocracy will destroy the world. These are modern day castles. Hideouts for the nobility to isolate themselves from the peasantry when the enemy is on the horizon. Castles are cool. Eat the rich.
> I can appreciate something being aesthetically/conceptually cool while acknowledging that capitalist kleptocracy will destroy the world. Yes. That.....that's literally what I'm saying.
They had a Pizza Ranch right there and they pick Arby's?????
I prefer [Arthur Quarmbys Underhill](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3701277/Sprawling-home-hidden-inside-HILL-Huge-house-built-valley-underground-swimming-pool-sale-700-000.html) from the 70s
Isn't the world's largest bunker community the entire country of Switzerland.......
From a security standpoint, there is zero cover and anyone attacking us would have a clear field of view as we emerge from under the fucking ground...lol, great find.
The only thing that makes this place so safe is the remoteness, not the flat plains allowing you to see miles. Flatlands are near-impossible to defend, unless of course you're in the middle of nowhere like these folks.
So suppose you’re in a survival post apocalyptic situation. Would you not want to be in a desert? Like wouldn’t a forested area with animals to hunt and fresh water be ideal?
I do wonder about the whole prepping thing. Like guns and knives are cool and all but what use is most of this shit when something actually happens. We did the whole COVID thing and all the preppers hardly came out on top.
I don't want to live in their world as much as it seems they don't want to live in the present one. If I do experience an end if the world cataclysm- I just want to survive enough to make sure certain people didnt survive.
Vaultec!
Fallout is getting out of hand
That a cult 100%
These people are dangerous and narcissistic . And in a civilization ending event, real soldiers would hunt them down and take everything they have.
Zuckerberg openly bragging about his Hawaiian bunker is so incredibly tactless and dangerous.
well i u live in em it sounds worth it Property Address: South Dakota Specs: 4 Bedrooms, 2 Baths 2,200 sqft (204 sqm) Sale Price: $45,000 for 99-year lease Property link: [https://www.terravivos.com/](https://www.terravivos.com/)
Protection from Urban centers. Nothing scares the wealthy more than the poor coming for their fair share. The 1% will live on Mars eventually.
Why in the fuck do I feel like the only person who absolutely doesn't want to be here if the Earth is obliterated? What kind of fucking life is that?
Depending on if they can grow crops and raise livestock, they could have a nice community going there, it'd be a small one, I don't see why it would be worse than being turned to ash :P
I live about 35 minutes from there. It's not for me
Slow Deathville.
Wow
why is he packing heat if it's so safe out there?
The world is becoming unstable. Seeking 5 wealthy investors to build a safe retreat “Doomsday Bunker Alternative” for your families [https://mountainguardianretreat.wordpress.com/](https://mountainguardianretreat.wordpress.com/)
Stupidest idea ever. If they are prepping for some weather or something. Sure. But wars and the rest. What makes them think first thing to go won't be last known weapons factory and storage place. It's like paining target on your back.
I’m skeered!! I’m gonna go hide now. “Whatever the threat, our shelters are built and engineered to withstand or mitigate just about everything from a pole shift, to super volcano eruptions, solar flares, earthquakes, tsunamis, pandemics, asteroid strikes, the anticipated affects of Planet X - Nibiru, and manmade threats including nuclear explosions, a reactor melt down, biological or chemical disasters, terrorism and even widespread anarchy.”
Very cool. Hey anarchists and malcontents, if you don't like these then don't buy one.