Something I’ve wondered, based on several fictional examples I’ve seen of billionaires building bunkers to not only survive, but thrive, during a worldwide apocalypse; as well as real-life examples of billionaires like Zuckerberg and Musk having built elaborate, well-stocked bunkers to ride out Armageddon.
But, no matter how well they prepare to live in underground comfort, once civilization collapses they are simply survivors who are better supplied than ordinary survivors. An apocalypse is a great equalizer. Most of the billionaires’ money was just ones and zeroes; it’s not as if they have a vault full of gold coins, like Scrooge McDuck. Paper money will, of course, be so much kindling. They’ll need a crew of workers and security to run and protect their bunker. What’s to keep the workers in line? How do the billionaires pay them to keep them loyal and subservient?
I can imagine a few answers: maybe they do keep a vault of gold, one of the few substances that have stayed valuable throughout human history, in their bunkers. And that way, somewhat preserve their wealth, in the manner of a 15th Century king. They are probably planning to automate their care-taking and security processes as much as possible, to avoid proletariat revolutions by human workers as much as they can.
But at some point they are going to have trouble, either from outside: the desperate survivors pounding on the reinforced bunker door, who eventually figure out how to break in; or from inside: a bunker crew mutiny. If I’m a low-level bunker engineer, what’s to stop me from either sabotaging the life-support equipment, or refusing to fix normal wear and tear, until I get what I want?
This article talks about the preparations being made by some super-wealthy preppers. One concern of these guys is described below.
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.
Well Dewey_Finn posted the same article as the OP, and I’ve just requested that book from my library, but it seems to make a compelling argument that the answer is “they don’t.” That is, we shouldn’t assume that the bunker plan makes any sense or will work.
They don’t.
They have convinced themselves that they are the ordained natural Masters of The Universe, but the reality is that they owe their privileged status to the current state of affairs.
Any radical change to the current ordering of society will probably end with their heads on pikes.
Previous dominant classes were aware of this fact, thus their eminent small “c” conservatism, they knew if things changed too much they were fucked.
But the current bunch seems to be to dim to understand the basic fact that society, civilization, in its current form is what keeps them on the top and if it crumbles or changes too much the factors that keep them there will not be operative anymore.
The thing is, while I think we’re racing headlong into an environmental and social catastrophe, I think the odds of that catastrophe rending the surface of the Earth uninhabitable are low. And maybe the ultra-billionaires also think it’s low. I think a garden-variety compound where your servant class exchanges their labor for acceptance into higher social tier is going to work fine for most of these people, akin to drug lords, cult leaders, aristocrats in apartheid societies, or 3rd world dictators.
But when you have a certain amount of money, you can just make a casual remark to some executive assistant like “you know, the odds may be low of a nuclear winter scenario, but if it does happen, it’d be better to have the bunker than not have the bunker, right?” And then you greenlight $270 million for a bunker in Hawaii because money means nothing to you.
In other words, it might not be plans A, B, or C, but maybe they just don’t care if it’s a silly idea.
It would depend on the nature and extent of the apocalypse. If it were a nuclear event, they would be fine in the short term, but all the factors described above would soon come into play. Never mind the psychological factors.
A less destructive, shorter-term event, like a plague, might be survivable. Mr Richboy might be able to retain his staff’s loyalty by looking forward to a reasonable time for release, although I’m not sure how.
I think the RichBoys are ultimately fucked in their survival communities. Power and leadership will flow towards those most capable and/or most willing to grasp it, at least in these kinds of communities where the RichBoys are hoping that their wealth and initial control give them an insurmountable advantage.
They’re fucked as soon as their paramilitary security force decides they’d rather be in charge than taking orders.
If I had that kind of money and wanted to build a survival bunker i’d build one way out of the way in the middle of nowhere, stock it with an insane amount of weapons, ammunition, food, and water, and medicines (maybe also gold), make sure it was built simple enough that I and my family could maintain it, and have a contingency plan to be able to get there when the event happens. Then SHUT THE FUCK UP and tell no one that I built it. Secrecy is the only thing protecting you - if people know it exists they’ll break in and kill you.
You can’t rely on anyone other than trusted family at that point.
Thinking about medieval kingship, force was, as proven by various rebellions,usurpations etc., a major factor in determining who got to be king.
But it wasnt the only one. These rebellions and contests for the throne were quite rare, and often put down becaise the challenger couldnt muster eniugh allies to win. This is because in reality being too open about violence as the route to power is destabilising. Kings who did win power through overthrowing the last guy often spent the rest of their reign looking over their shoulder for the next challenger.
So our putative billionaire could try taking his head of security aside an sayi n g, “Look, we both know you could take me out easily and make yourself boss. But your deputy has a lean and hungry look, and you’ll just end up where i am, having this same conversation with him. So why not keep me in place, not because you feel loyalty to me personally, but because you need to preserve some system of legitimising power, otherwise you’ll never have a good nights sleep again. All I need is the trappings of authority, not the lions share if the loot, you’ll be well rewarded and things will be stable, which is the whole point of being down here not up there, ok?”
Its not a foolproof plan, but its probably the best shot.
It’s sort of like Varys’s riddle in GoT about where the true power lies between a King, a Rich Man and a Priest each telling a Sellsword (mercenary) to kill the other two. It lies where people believe it lies.
The Billionaire would need some sort of mechanism to legitimize his rule. People generally like stability. Medieval societies created stability through laws of succession through right of birth and “will of God”. Democracies do it through vote by the people or their representatives. Corporations rule by whoever signs the paychecks. However the Billionaire does it, they would need to assemble a household of people who on some level agree with how the ruler of the household is selected along with the rules and how they are enforced.
The power structure would probably pretty standard.
The “King” is the Billionaire
A second in command who is like a “Hand”, XO, or Chief of Staff, overseeing all the administrata
A group of Advisors who represents the various functions of the community - Security, Intelligence & Comms, Food Production, Household, etc.
Some sort of security apparatus. A small Praetorian “Kings Guard” loyal to the Billionaire in exchange for perhaps better conditions (ideally without the inclination to rule. More personal bodyguards than law enforcement or defense.
A judicial or law/rule enforcement system of some kind.
You get the idea. I think to a large extent, whether the BIllionaire maintains power largely depends on how functional the society is.
Or maybe he’s just the one with the combination to the food vault
As I understand it, a lot of the “bunker building billionaire class” think that it’s inevitable and that their own actions are leading to it, but simply don’t care. They just fantasize about maintaining their position and luxury after they wreck the world.
Yeah, I’ve read articles where they try brainstorming ideas to keep security under control, like mandatory shock collars. Good luck getting them to put the collars on.
I think the difference is that most of our current billionaires are the children and grandchildren of wealthy people. They have lived in luxury since birth and just assume that’s a given of human existence. They don’t really understand what poverty and disaster are. They just assume that there will always be law enforcement to protect them; that their property rights will be respected; that their money will be worth something; and that there will be a functioning economy they can spend their money in. They’re also assuming that even if there’s an environmental collapse, there will still be places where humans beings can live.
Traditionally, throwing in an offer of marriage to your eldest daughter can be effective. That way you might have some assurance that your grandson has a shot at keeping power.