Hacker News Reader

Comment by Magi604 | Hacker News Reader

Hawaii doesn't seem like an ideal place for this type of "survival bunker". The area still sees volcanic activity, and the islands are small and probably will get hit hard from things like tsunamis and rising sea levels.

On the other hand because it's on an island far away from the mainland continents it will probably be good for a zombie apocalypse scenario, provided none of the locals get infected.

View on HN

>Hawaii doesn't seem like an ideal place for this type of "survival bunker".

It's probably the best choice on US soil. Most physically isolated (significant) plot of land on earth. If the airspace shuts down, that's it. No one in or out. It's a 3 week boat ride to the nearest continental shelf. Also happens to be defended by over half the Navy's nuclear carrier and sub fleet, and multiple divisions of Army/Marines.

> Also happens to be defended by over half the Navy

That is a really big drawback.

> Also happens to be defended by over half the Navy's nuclear carrier and sub fleet, and multiple divisions of Army/Marines.

This translates to either "first place to be nuked" or "likely home of the most powerful post-apocalyptic warlord".

It's a fancy resort house on a fancy island. Hardly the first of its kind. I have no idea why journalists keep hyping the "doomsday bunker" angle so much. Heck having basic off-grid facilities is logical these days in any new construction if you can afford it.

From TFA: "The property, known as Koolau Ranch, will, according to planning documents, include a 5,000-square-foot underground shelter, have its own energy and food supplies, and, when coupled with land purchase prices, will cost in excess of $270 million."

It's not hard to see how journalists -- anyone, really -- could conclude that Zuckerberg is building a doomsday bunker.

I'm curious of the challenges in designing and constructing such a compound. For example, the limited access to resources needed to maintain the compound (air filtration, waste recycling, electrical components, etc.) would have to be baked into it's design somehow.

You are making the assumption it is for long term habitation, which might not be the case.

For long term habitation, you would solve it like any other engineering problem. How many people do you need to support, against what threats, for how long and what safety margins do you need.

Air is a solved problem, you either pull/push from the outside environment and filter on its way in (open circuit), or you treat the air (closed circuit). Waste goes into a leech field or is incinerated. Electrical is generated / stored onsite or powered externally.

I don't think that the reporters have ever dealt with high security requirements. Things like safe rooms, underground evacuation routes and multiple secure egresses are not that uncommon for high net worth individuals.

Some people have security teams they pay millions of dollars per year for, who ensure they aren't kidnapped, injured or otherwise harassed.

> Things like safe rooms, underground evacuation routes and multiple secure egresses

> Some people have security teams they pay millions of dollars per year for

I mean you're not even wrong? This seems to reinforce everything TFA said about Zuckerberg's $250 million island compound with 5,000 square foot underground living quarters being a "survival bunker."

There's a difference between "if we have intruders or there's a natural disaster we have a safe space to shelter in" and "omg Zuckerberg is preparing for the end of humanity!!".

Volcanos and Tsunami concerns are basically irrelevant. The last volcanic eruption on Kauai was 400,000 years ago. Major Tsunamis seem to hit Hawaii every few hundred years, but damage only affects a small part.

Maybe not ideal, in the perfect sense, but not bad at all.

I think they are probably focused more on a torches-and-guillotines type scenario.

This is on Kauai. The last volcanic activity there was ~400,000 years ago, so no risk.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com