It kinda makes sense if you have that type of money. Let's say a bunker costs $10 million and offers a 10% incremental chance of surviving an apocalypse then it's pretty much a no-brainer if you are worth a billion or more. For one, you probably make more than that in one year from the interest on your assets alone so you're not going to miss it. And if the worst comes to the worst, the rest of your money is going to be worthless so you might as well invest in an asset that might still provide you some advantage in the ultimate catasrophe.<p>Obviously, the "offering a 10% incremental chance of survival" part of the above is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this calculation. There's just too many ways for shit to go wrong for you to feel that confident. Still, it might be worth the expense even if you just treat it as a (very expensive) entertainment exercise.
Apparently the bulk of my state (Western Australia) is filled with billionaire survivalist <i>equivilants</i>.<p><pre><code> Al Corbi, president and founder of Virginia-based SAFE (Strategically Armored & Fortified Environments), which caters to custom designs for the uber-rich, notes that many billionaires are particularly focused on how to survive power grid failures, including buying cars and planes that are less reliant on computer interfaces.
“A lot of these guys are buying up King Air or older planes that don’t have the electronic avionics, and keeping one or two older cars built before 1986 in their collection, so they’ll still function in an EMP [electromagnetic pulse].
</code></pre>
We've got access to old Shrikes [1] and other vintage tech, a bunch of old tractors, and a wealth of 1930s, 40s, and 50s tech that still works all within a 10km radius of where I'm at.<p>Power is certainly nice to have but most people outside the capital city have backup plans and are used to getting by when it drops out.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Commander_500_family" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Commander_500_family</a>