The last time this story made rounds on HN, quite a few readers were ripping into the people described in the article, and it sure feels good to do so, but... I

The last time this story made rounds on HN, quite a few readers were ripping into the people described in the article, and it sure feels good to do so, but... I don't know about you, but if I had more money than I conceivably ever needed, I sure would contemplate having a helicopter on standby and a luxury compound in some scenic part of the world. You know, just for fun, just in case. In fact, I suspect that once you're in that particular wealth bracket, it's no longer about people who have contingency plans versus the ones who don't. I'm pretty sure that almost every Fortune 100 CEO has private security parked in front of their house and a plan to get out quickly something bad were to happen. There are many security consulting companies that cater exclusively to this segment - and they are doing very well. It's just that most of the CEOs won't talk about it to The New Yorker - partly because of opsec concerns, but partly because such revelations would make it even easier for us to vilify them. And before we assume that their plans are lopsided and irrational, I think it's worth keeping in mind that the article is written to be entertaining. The author wants to tell us about the stuff that is out of ordinary and out of reach of mere mortals. That doesn't mean that the people featured in the article don't also have a fire extinguisher and some tarp and nails in their garage. Heck, perhaps 95% of their prepping goes toward more pedestrian risks? Perhaps they practice defensive driving and situational awareness? Perhaps they go camping or hiking every other week? Perhaps they take EMT courses and participate in community preparedness drills? Who knows... that stuff is boring. ICBM silos and helicopters are fun. We should also remember that unlike many many of the stars of "Doomsday Preppers" who seemed inexplicably frightened by the prospect of social unrest in the US, the ultra-rich may actually have something to worry about. When angry masses take it to the streets, it's not the cookie-cutter, mixed income, urban sprawl neighborhoods that are going to be set ablaze. We had quite a few big revolutions, and it's usually the heads of the variously defined aristocracy that roll. It's not ancient history, too. Lastly... one viewpoint presented in the article is that it's somehow immoral for the CEOs to worry about self-preservation instead of trying to give back to the community. I think that's a non-sequitur - is it also immoral for them to buy a fire extinguisher or install sprinklers before making the world a better place? - but more importantly, the two goals are not mutually exclusive. PS. Disclaimer - I'm the author of http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/prep/ http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/prep/, so I might be not entirely impartial.