Something seems to be going on, and it’s getting harder to ignore.
On October 25, Fox News revealed that the Pentagon is preparing American military installations to operate for at least 90 days without outside support in the event of a major global war. The plan assumes that electrical grids could fail, supply chains could collapse, communications could be disrupted, and critical infrastructure inside the United States could become a target.
Three days earlier, Britain’s Defence Secretary was on national television telling families to prepare emergency supplies, including food, drinking water and cash, because the country faces growing threats from cyberattacks, terrorism and hostile foreign governments.
Meanwhile, the war in Ukraine continues to threaten European security, tensions involving Iran threaten the Middle East and global energy markets, and artificial intelligence is giving hackers increasingly powerful tools to attack the systems that keep modern society running.
And here at home, Americans are already struggling with housing costs, groceries, insurance, debt and the possibility that another major economic shock could push millions of families over the edge.
We’ve been covering these developments individually for months. But when you put them all together, a disturbing picture starts to emerge.
The world’s governments are preparing for disruptions that most ordinary people have been conditioned to believe could never happen here.
The Pentagon Is Preparing to Fight a War Even If America’s Infrastructure Collapses
According to sources inside the Pentagon is developing a sweeping military preparedness initiative called FORTRESS.
The objective is to make major American military installations capable of sustaining essential operations for at least 90 days without relying on the civilian infrastructure that surrounds them.
That means independent electricity, water, fuel, communications and the supplies necessary to continue military operations during a prolonged national emergency.
The plan reportedly includes portable nuclear reactors, independent electrical microgrids, battery storage systems, strategic fuel reserves, stockpiles of ammunition and medical supplies, and preparations to keep American factories producing military equipment even if normal supply chains break down.
The military is also preparing for disruptions to satellites, GPS navigation and other communications systems.
Think about what that means.
The Pentagon is planning for a situation in which the American military cannot depend on the same electrical grid, transportation networks, manufacturing facilities and supply systems that the rest of us use every single day.
Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell told Fox News that relying on ordinary civilian infrastructure for national defense represents an unacceptable risk.
And he’s right. But that raises a much bigger question.
If the Pentagon believes it needs to prepare for 90 days without the systems that keep America running, what exactly is the average American family supposed to do?
The military is planning independent power systems and stockpiles that can last three months. Most Americans would be in serious trouble if the grocery store, gas station and ATM stopped working for three days.
FORTRESS is a preparedness initiative, not evidence that the Pentagon has received intelligence about an imminent attack. But the scenarios it is being designed to withstand should concern anyone who has paid attention to how dependent our country has become on fragile, interconnected systems.
Britain Is Now Telling Its Citizens to Prepare for a National Emergency
The Pentagon’s announcement becomes even more concerning when you look at what is happening across the Atlantic.
As we reported earlier this week, Britain has launched a national preparedness campaign telling families to stockpile food, water and cash.
On October 22, British Defence Secretary Wes Streeting appeared on BBC Question Time and defended the government’s new Be Ready campaign, which urges households to maintain at least three days of emergency supplies.
The recommendations include bottled water, canned and other nonperishable food, flashlights, first-aid supplies, blankets, a battery-powered or wind-up radio, and cash in case electronic payment systems stop working.
Families also need to account for their own circumstances, including infant formula, diapers, prescription medications and supplies for household pets.
Streeting warned that Britain faces a greater threat than it has experienced during much of his lifetime. He specifically raised concerns about cyberattacks, sabotage, terrorism and disruptions to essential supply chains.
The government says it wants people to be prepared without becoming alarmed.
That’s understandable. Nobody wants a nationwide panic.
But when the person responsible for a country’s defense is warning that foreign adversaries could disrupt the systems people depend on to buy groceries, obtain fuel and access basic services, people should pay attention.
And the warnings go beyond a three-day emergency kit.
In comments reported on October 24, Streeting warned that Britain’s adversaries could have the military capability to attack by 2030. He argued that Britain and its allies have a little over 1,000 days to prepare to defend themselves.
We previously reported that Britain was rewriting its Cold War-era War Book and preparing for the possibility of a wider conflict.
At the time, much of that preparation was taking place behind the scenes.
Now the government is openly asking ordinary citizens to get ready.
Why Are Governments Suddenly Preparing for the Worst?
This is the question more people should be asking.
Why are governments investing in military survival infrastructure, preparing factories for wartime production, and telling civilians to stockpile emergency supplies?
There are several possible explanations, and none of them are particularly comforting.
First, the international security situation has deteriorated. Russia’s war in Ukraine has forced NATO countries to confront the possibility of a much larger European conflict. Instability involving Iran and the Middle East threatens energy supplies, shipping routes and the possibility of additional military confrontations.
Second, modern warfare no longer requires an enemy to physically invade a country to inflict serious damage.
An attack against a power grid, water treatment facility, communications network or major financial institution could cause widespread disruption without a single enemy soldier crossing the border.
Third, governments are realizing how vulnerable their own infrastructure has become after decades of outsourcing, globalized supply chains and dependence on computer systems that were never designed to withstand sustained attacks by hostile nation-states.
And finally, there is the uncomfortable reality that governments have been caught unprepared before.
The COVID pandemic exposed how quickly supply chains could fail, hospitals could become overwhelmed, and ordinary household products could disappear from store shelves.
The difference today is that the threats aren’t limited to a virus or natural disaster. Governments are openly preparing for hostile countries deliberately attacking the infrastructure that supports civilian life.
That doesn’t mean they know World War III is coming next month. It means the possibility of major disruptions is being taken seriously enough to justify spending enormous amounts of money preparing for them.
The public should be asking why its own preparedness isn’t receiving the same attention.
AI Is Making an Already Dangerous Cybersecurity Situation Even Worse
While governments prepare for conventional warfare, another threat is developing at a speed that few people seem to appreciate.
Artificial intelligence is changing cybersecurity, and not necessarily in our favor.
We’ve already covered the growing concerns that AI-powered attacks could target banks, electrical grids and water systems.
The danger isn’t simply that hackers have another tool. AI can help attackers identify weaknesses, automate portions of their operations, analyze stolen information and scale attacks far beyond what smaller groups could previously accomplish.
As we recently reported in our article on AI systems breaking into banks, hacking companies and operating with increasing autonomy, the line between traditional cybercrime and more automated attacks is becoming increasingly important.
This past week provided another warning.
Critical security vulnerabilities involving PHP, a programming language used by a substantial portion of the internet, triggered emergency responses and precautionary shutdowns of some government services.
During Britain’s October 22 preparedness announcement, Streeting specifically discussed the growing danger from cyber incidents and warned that such problems would become more frequent.
Think about the timing.
Britain is telling people to keep cash because electronic payment systems could fail, while government services are being taken offline over cybersecurity concerns.
The Pentagon is preparing military installations to function independently because civilian infrastructure could become unavailable.
And researchers are developing AI systems that can identify software weaknesses faster than traditional security teams can respond.
Those developments are not proof of one coordinated attack. But they expose the same underlying problem.
Our entire way of life depends on computer systems that can fail, be sabotaged or be deliberately attacked.
We’ve Already Seen What Happens When Hackers Target the Food Supply
One of the most disturbing examples we’ve covered involved hackers attacking refrigeration systems at hundreds of French supermarkets.
That incident illustrates a threat most people never consider.
You don’t have to attack a farm or blow up a food distribution warehouse to interfere with the food supply. Disrupting the systems responsible for refrigeration, transportation, inventory management or payment processing can create serious problems.
Imagine a coordinated cyberattack that disables refrigeration at major grocery distribution centers while simultaneously disrupting payment processing and fuel deliveries.
Food could be sitting in warehouses and on trucks, but stores might be unable to receive it, preserve it or sell it.
Now imagine that happening during a regional blackout, fuel shortage or major international conflict.
This is why the Pentagon’s preparations matter beyond the military.
The same civilian infrastructure that supplies military installations also keeps grocery stores stocked, hospitals functioning, water flowing and fuel moving across the country.
When those systems fail, ordinary Americans are the ones who suffer first.
Wars Overseas Can Become Economic Disasters at Home
Americans have a tendency to view foreign wars as something happening thousands of miles away.
But modern economies are so interconnected that a conflict in Europe or the Middle East can affect the price of gasoline, food, electricity and manufactured goods in the United States.
The war in Ukraine has already demonstrated how military conflict can disrupt agricultural exports, energy markets and international trade.
A wider conflict involving Iran could threaten oil production, shipping routes and energy infrastructure throughout the Middle East.
A major confrontation involving multiple world powers could create problems far beyond the battlefield, especially if international shipping routes, ports, financial networks or critical manufacturing facilities were disrupted.
And the consequences wouldn’t necessarily arrive as one dramatic event.
Gas prices could climb. Trucking and agricultural costs could increase. Grocery prices could rise again. Factories could experience shortages. Businesses could begin laying off workers.
Families already living paycheck to paycheck would have very little room to absorb another shock.
We’ve been warning about this in our coverage of American households being crushed by housing costs, car loans and utility bills.
A major war or infrastructure emergency wouldn’t be hitting a financially healthy population with plenty of savings and resources.
It would be hitting a country where many households are already struggling to keep up.
And if an emergency interrupts someone’s ability to work, access their bank account or purchase necessities, the financial consequences could become severe long before the government declares anything resembling a national disaster.
What Happens When the Emergency Becomes an Excuse for More Government Control?
There is another issue that deserves attention.
Whenever governments begin preparing for extraordinary emergencies, Americans should also be asking what powers those governments expect to exercise if those emergencies actually happen.
We’ve already examined the disturbing political discussions surrounding martial law and the growing willingness of politicians to embrace extraordinary government authority.
A national emergency involving widespread infrastructure failures, civil unrest or military conflict could lead officials to consider curfews, travel restrictions, emergency resource allocation, military support for civilian authorities and other extraordinary measures.
That doesn’t mean FORTRESS is a martial-law program. The reporting describes a military continuity and resilience initiative, not a plan to impose military government on American civilians.
But it would be foolish to ignore the political questions surrounding how the government might respond to a truly catastrophic national emergency.
What happens when fuel becomes scarce? Who gets priority access to electricity? What happens if banks cannot process payments or supply chains cannot deliver food to major cities?
And how much freedom will Americans be expected to surrender in the name of restoring order?
Those are legitimate questions, regardless of which political party controls Washington.
The Government Is Preparing for 90 Days. You Shouldn’t Be Satisfied With Three.
Here’s what bothers me most about all of this.
The Pentagon is developing plans to keep military installations operational for 90 days without normal outside support.
Britain is asking its citizens to maintain three days of emergency supplies.
Three days.
That’s better than nothing, but three days is an awfully short period if a major cyberattack, regional power failure, supply chain collapse or military conflict seriously disrupts essential services.
If you have the resources, I would strongly recommend building toward at least 30 days of household self-sufficiency, with 60 to 90 days as a longer-term goal.
You don’t need an underground bunker or a fortune in survival equipment. You need to start reducing your dependence on systems that may not be available when you need them.
That means having enough long-term emergency food and survival supplies to feed your family, a reliable supply of drinking water, backup ways to cook and maintain basic lighting, essential medications, and some cash in small denominations.
You should also think seriously about emergency communications. If cell towers are overloaded, internet services are unavailable or electrical outages last for days, having a battery-powered radio and a way to receive local emergency information could make an enormous difference.
But equipment is only part of the equation.
As we’ve said for years, situational intelligence and knowing what’s happening around you can be just as important as the supplies you store.
Pay attention to what is happening in your community. Know alternate routes out of your area. Understand where your water comes from, how your local electrical grid operates, and which supplies your family would have trouble replacing during an extended emergency.
Most importantly, don’t wait until everyone else decides it’s time to prepare.
By the time a serious crisis becomes the lead story on every television network, the opportunity to quietly purchase what you need may already be gone.
The World Isn’t Getting More Stable, and Governments Know It
Look at what has happened in just the past few days.
The British government launched a nationwide preparedness campaign warning civilians about the possibility of disrupted food supplies, cyberattacks and failures of essential services.
Its Defence Secretary warned that the country must prepare for growing threats from hostile nations.
The Pentagon disclosed plans to make American military installations capable of surviving 90 days without normal civilian infrastructure.
At the same time, serious cybersecurity vulnerabilities have forced emergency responses, AI is accelerating the ability to find and exploit weaknesses, and wars overseas continue to threaten global security and economic stability.
Any one of these developments would be worth paying attention to.
Together, they should make people seriously reconsider the assumption that tomorrow will always look like yesterday.
Maybe the Pentagon’s new plans will never be needed. Maybe Britain’s emergency supplies will sit untouched in people’s cupboards. Maybe the next major cyberattack will be contained before it causes widespread damage.
I hope that’s exactly what happens.
But I also remember a time when government officials and the media treated people who stored food, water, ammunition and emergency supplies like paranoid lunatics.
Now those same governments are building independent power systems, stockpiling strategic resources and telling the public to prepare for the possibility that modern society’s basic services could stop functioning.
For decades, we’ve been told that preparing for a major breakdown in society was an extreme position.
Apparently, it’s only extreme when ordinary citizens do it. When the Pentagon does it, they call it national security.
And that leaves us with one question that every American should be asking.
If the people running our governments are preparing for a world where the power goes out, the supply chains break down and the next major war reaches our own infrastructure, why the hell aren’t we?
