Cutting through the noise and making sense of US's 'doomsday' FORTRESS plan

The US military is preparing for a scenario in which its bases would have to function for 90 days without external support, setting off alarm amid the prospect of a wider US-Iran war. In our report, we will cut through the noise and make sense of the 'FORTRESS' plan.

The US is preparing for a scenario in which its military bases could run for 90 days without external support in the face of any massive disruptions to power grids and other supply chains. The initiative, called FORTRESS, has understandably created a flutter, coming amid the prospect of a wider US-Iran war. That the plan surfaced just days after the UK and Japan urged households to stock up on essentials has only added to the concerns.

None of the countries, however, said a conflict, let alone a third World War, is imminent. Still, the overlap has fuelled social media theories of a "nightmare scenario" and a "doomsday" countdown. In our report, we will cut through the noise and make sense of the 'FORTRESS' plan. Also, we will explain why such contingency preparations should not automatically be read as a warning of a major conflict.

For the report, we examined the views of geopolitical experts and former military officials. A majority of them were unanimous in their assessment that military preparedness for worst-case scenarios is not, in itself, a reason to panic. They pointed to two possible reasons behind the FORTRESS plan - the growing threat of cyberattacks and the rapid advance of AI.

Before we proceed further, here's a glance at what the initiative entails.

WHAT IS THE US FORTRESS PLAN?

It aims to ensure that US military bases continue to operate for at least 90 days if power grids fail, supply chains collapse, and essential civilian services are disrupted.

Presently, civilian power grids support everything, from communications and logistics to weapons manufacturing, for the US military. Through FORTRESS, the US wants to do away with that dependence.

To achieve that, the plan entails shifting dependence to portable nuclear reactors, large battery storage systems and microgrids.

The requirement goes beyond securing electricity and fuel. The FORTRESS initiative, first reported by Fox News, also calls for strategic reserves of munitions, critical minerals, electronics, spare parts, and medical supplies.

The Pentagon is also planning to build strategic reserves of critical military supplies and prepare civilian factories to manufacture defence equipment during a crisis.

MAKING SENSE OF THE FORTRESS INITIATIVE

Essentially, behind the FORTRESS initiative, a key concern is the military's reliance on civilian power grids.

Its importance was underscored by Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell. "Power is combat now. Without electricity, you lose communications, water, logistics, assembly lines and just basic military command structures," Parnell said.

Geopolitical expert Matt Bracken, a former US Navy SEAL, said in a podcast that modern conflict no longer requires firing a missile at a rival. Bracken said an adversary could destabilise a country simply by taking out its power grids.

"The power grids are just low-hanging fruit. You don't need to drop a nuke on Chicago. If you cut off Chicago's power, Chicago will nuke itself in essence, because the people will absolutely go out of their minds within days," Bracken said.

"If North Korea shot a missile at San Francisco, we'd know exactly where it came from and whom to hit. But if San Francisco's power goes down, a false trail could be laid... So I think that the military might be preparing for that," he further said.

To buttress his point, Bracken cited the 2013 attack on the Silicon Valley power substation by unknown gunmen, which knocked off electricity to 13,000 customers. Communications lines were also cut, with the damage worth $15.4 million. It took nearly a month to bring the substation back to life.

US journalist Bruce Snyder called the FORTRESS plan a "necessary step" in national defence, rather than a sign of an impending "doomsday" scenario.

"Think about the world we are living in today. Cyberattacks are a very real threat, hostile actors have the ability to target our infrastructure, and with the rapid advancement of AI, we also have to consider the potential dangers of these powerful systems being weaponised or going rogue," he tweeted.

Such contingencies, Snyder said, were a reason for strengthening military preparedness, not for public alarm.