When Bernard Jones Jr. and his wife, Doris, set out to build their ideal home, they included everything they could dream of: a grotto swimming pool complete with a waterfall for sweltering summer days, a cozy home theater for chilly winter nights, a fruit orchard for fall harvesting, and even a sprawling underground bunker for emergencies.
“The world’s not becoming a safer place,” Bernard said. “We wanted to be prepared.”
Hidden beneath an unassuming metal hatch near their private basketball court is a staircase leading to a series of rooms. This underground space is equipped to accommodate about 25 people, complete with beds, bathrooms, two kitchens, and its own independent energy source.
With supplies of water, electricity, clean air, and food, the Joneses felt ready to face any calamity, even a nuclear explosion, at their peaceful residence in California’s Inland Empire.
“If there was a nuclear strike, would you rather go into the living room or go into a bunker? If you had one, you’d go there too,” said Bernard, who has sold the property two years ago.
Global security experts warn that the threat of nuclear warfare is increasing, as evidenced by the $91.4 billion spent on weapons last year. Consequently, the demand for private bunkers is rising worldwide, ranging from simple metal shelters to luxurious underground mansions.
Critics argue that these bunkers create a misleading sense of security, implying that surviving a nuclear war is feasible. They stress the importance of addressing the immediate risks posed by nuclear weapons and the necessity of halting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Government disaster experts, however, claim that bunkers are unnecessary. A 100-page guide from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on responding to a nuclear detonation advises the public to get inside and stay inside, preferably in a basement and away from exterior walls for at least a day. Existing spaces, according to FEMA, can offer protection from radioactive fallout.
Nonetheless, many buyers believe that bunkers offer peace of mind. The market for bomb and fallout shelters in the U.S. is predicted to grow from $137 million last year to $175 million by 2030, as reported by BlueWeave Consulting. The report cites “the rising threat of nuclear or terrorist attacks or civil unrest” as major growth factors.
“People are uneasy and they want a safe place to put their family. And they have this attitude that it’s better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it,” said Ron Hubbard, CEO of Atlas Survival Shelters, amidst the bustling noise of welding at his factory in Sulphur Springs, Texas, which he claims is the world’s largest.
Hubbard mentioned that events like the COVID lockdowns, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the Israel-Hamas conflict have boosted sales.
On November 21, following Russia’s first-ever use of an experimental hypersonic ballistic missile against Ukraine, Hubbard’s phone was inundated with calls.
He reported that four callers purchased bunkers in a single day, while others ordered doors and components for shelters they were already building.
Hubbard’s bunkers are designed to withstand any disaster.
“They’re good for anything from a tornado to a hurricane to nuclear fallout, to a pandemic to even a volcano erupting,” he explained, gesturing towards a vast warehouse where over 50 bunkers were under construction.
With a loaded shotgun within reach and metal mesh window shields to deter Molotov cocktails nearby, Hubbard recounted that he founded his company after constructing his own bunker about a decade ago. Callers often inquire about prices—ranging from $20,000 to several million dollars, with an average cost of $500,000—and installation options, which can be virtually anywhere. Hubbard claims to sell at least one bunker daily.
In Hubbard’s view, global tensions could escalate into World War III, a scenario for which he is prepared.
“The good news about nuclear warfare,” he noted, “if there ever was any, is that it’s very survivable if you’re not killed in the initial blast.”
U.S. government disaster preparedness experts agree with Hubbard to some extent.
“Look, this fallout exposure is entirely preventable because it is something that happens after the detonation,” stated Brooke Buddemeier, a radiation safety specialist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where nuclear weapons are designed for the U.S. government. Buddemeier and his team assess potential post-attack scenarios and how best to survive them. “There’s going to be a fairly obvious nuclear explosion event, a large cloud. So just getting inside, away from where those particles fall, can keep you and your family safe.”
Buddemeier and other government officials are working to educate Americans—who once practiced nuclear attack drills under desks—on how to respond.
Following a devastating and deafening blast, a bright flash, and a mushroom cloud, radioactive fallout will take about 15 minutes to reach those a mile or more from ground zero, according to Michael Dillon, a scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
“It’s going to literally be sand falling on your head, and you’re going to want to get out of that situation. You want to go to your most robust building,” he advised. Their models estimate that people may need to stay inside for a day or two before evacuating.
Government efforts to inform the public were renewed after a false missile alert in Hawaii in 2018 caused widespread panic.
The emergency alert, sent to cellphones across the state just before 8:10 a.m., read: “BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT INBOUND TO HAWAII. SEEK IMMEDIATE SHELTER. THIS IS NOT A DRILL.”
For the next 40 minutes, chaos ensued with traffic jams, people rushing into and out of buildings, families huddling in bathrooms, students gathering in gyms, and drivers blocking tunnels, all in a bid to find shelter without understanding what “seek immediate shelter” truly meant.
Today, the federal government offers guidelines for citizens to prepare for a nuclear attack, advising them to head to a basement or the center of a large building and remain there, potentially for several days, until further instructions are given.
“Gently brush your pet’s coat to remove any fallout particles,” it recommends, adding that the 15-minute window between a bomb’s detonation and fallout provides “enough time for you to be able to prevent significant radiation exposure.”
Jeffrey Schlegelmilch, who leads the FEMA-backed National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University, remarked, “the scenarios of a nuclear detonation are not all or nothing.”
If a limited number of weapons are detonated rather than a full-scale war, he suggested that taking shelter inside a large building to avoid fallout could save lives.
Nonproliferation advocates are skeptical of bunkers or any notion that nuclear war is survivable.
“Bunkers are, in fact, not a tool to survive a nuclear war, but a tool to allow a population to psychologically endure the possibility of a nuclear war,” said Alicia Sanders-Zakre of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.
Sanders-Zakre described radiation as the “uniquely horrific aspect of nuclear weapons,” noting that even surviving fallout does not prevent long-term, generational health issues. “Ultimately, the only solution to protect populations from nuclear war is to eliminate nuclear weapons.”
Sam Lair, a researcher at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, noted that U.S. leaders stopped discussing bunkers decades ago.
“The political costs incurred by causing people to think about shelters again is not worth it to leaders because it forces people to think about what they would do after nuclear war,” he explained. “That’s something that very, very few people want to think about. This makes people feel vulnerable.”
Lair argued that constructing bunkers seems futile, even if they offer short-term protection.
“Even if a nuclear exchange is perhaps more survivable than many people think, I think the aftermath will be uglier than many people think as well,” he said. “The fundamental wrenching that it would do to our way of life would be profound.”
This has been a significant concern for Massachusetts Congressman James McGovern for nearly five decades.
“If we ever get to a point where there’s all-out nuclear war, underground bunkers aren’t going to protect people,” he stated. “Instead, we ought to be investing our resources and our energy trying to talk about a nuclear weapons freeze, initially.”
He continued, “we should work for the day when we get rid of all nuclear weapons.”
Each year, McGovern introduces legislation advocating for nonproliferation, but gazing out of his office window at the Capitol, he expressed disappointment at the lack of debate over a planned $1 trillion to build and modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
“The stakes, if a nuclear weapon is ever used, are that millions and millions and millions of people will die. It really is shocking that we have world leaders who talk casually about utilizing nuclear weapons. I mean, it would be catastrophic, not just for those involved in an exchange of nuclear weapons, but for the entire world.”
McGovern criticized FEMA’s efforts to prepare the public for a nuclear attack by suggesting people find shelter.
“What a stupid thing to say that we all just need to know where to hide and where to avoid the most impacts of nuclear radiation. I mean, really, that’s chilling when you hear people try to rationalize nuclear war that way,” he commented.
Nuclear war was not on the mind of a couple house-hunting in Southern California a few years ago. They were simply looking for a home where they could settle down and raise their family, with a need for extra garage space. They found an online ad for a house with at least eight parking spots. On the basketball court, there was a metal hatch. Beneath it lay a bunker.
This was the former home of Bernard Jones, which he sold for family reasons.
The husband, speaking anonymously out of concern for his family’s privacy, went ahead and purchased the house, bunker included. They aren’t particularly worried about nuclear war and haven’t spent a night in the bunker, but they have stocked it with food and medical supplies.
“We have told some of our friends, if something goes crazy and gets bad, get over here as fast as possible,” the husband said. “It does provide a sense of security.”
Mendoza reported from Sulphur Springs, Texas, and Livermore, California.
The Associated Press receives support for nuclear security coverage from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Outrider Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Additional AP coverage of the nuclear landscape: The New Nuclear Landscape
