Hacker News Reader

Comment by bragr | Hacker News Reader

If you are looking for a place to wait out the end of the world, why pick a place so affected by climate change (22 square km and highest point is 71m)? Not to mention living off the land is not going to support that many people. This is the entire place: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aerial_view_of_Nauru...

The other billionaire end of the world bunkers tend to be in more practical areas.

View on HN

It all depends what you're safeguarding against, while Montana is great place to hide from climate change, it's an awful place to hide from nukes. Sounds like they're less concerned with survival against nature and more concerned with hiding from governments/people.

It probably wouldn't go underwater in his lifetime. I presume he favored that location because it's inaccessible without a plane or a large boat, neither of which is likely to be available to Mad Max-style post-apocalyptic raiders.

Yeah historically raiders have been unable to acquire large boats to carry out their raiding.

Pirate ships attack other ships. I'm not aware of any successfully storming land-based fortresses, which would require a whole fleet.

I think his choice is a bad idea because of things like resupply problems, but then again I don't know how elaborate of a bunker he was planning to built.

I was thinking of Vikings as well.

Again, fleets.

The history of the island is pretty much a condemnation of the modern the world - massive environment devastation, money laundering hub and finally a concentration camp for refugees.

Not just that, but while the world is ending you have to find a team of people willing to orchestrate transporting you to your island hideaway in the middle of an ocean.

Because it's not about building a Bunker, it's about owning an island nation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com