MISIUNEA definește DESIGNUL unui iaht Doomsday vs un buncăr cu Paul Madden de la Xplorer Yachts

8 thoughts on “MISIUNEA definește DESIGNUL unui iaht Doomsday vs un buncăr cu Paul Madden de la Xplorer Yachts”

1. I fear that only the super rich can afford the successful doomsday boat!!

2. Hull armor is always overlooked. Please look up how raptor liner, yes, the stuff you line your truck bed with stops explosions! And I'm not talking firecrackers! Those WHMPE boats they are making in Australia have their outter hulls lined with it. Just so you know, if we ever do meet, yeah, it will be put on both sides of the hull durring the refit. Expensive I know but I don’t believe in overkill. Also WHMPE (I think that's right) stops .50 cal rounds as seen in that demolition ranch video. A farring for any boat could easily made with it bc it's so easy to work with. I'm still waiting for drone defenses for anti piracy. After the war in Ukraine, other than maybe a deck gun or 2, regular guns seem kind of pointless now don't they?

3. What you can legally have in defense, is already built in to a modern commercial ship. Your crew is the weak link.

4. The highest factor of scarcity in most of the Doomsday scenarios will be fuel for vessels. As much as I enjoy indulging in the fantasy, you get one trip so make it count.

5. Knowing alternatives for propulsion and power generation & storage are items I need to explore with minimal crew.

6. With regard to what you called "electromagnetic warfare", that is when a hostile power, like say North Korea, detonates a nuclear weapon high in the atmosphere so as to destroy electronics over a near-continental area, possibly resulting in a collapse of society. (Nobody uses the term "electromagnetic warfare"; "electronic warfare" is something completely different.) Something to realise is that you can harden electronics to weather an EMP (electromagnetic pulse), which a doomsday yacht would most assuredly do.

   You appeared to be confused about volcanoes, wondering why they would all go off at once. That is NOT the concern. Preppers are concerned with SUPERvolcanoes. Supervolcanoes can expose hundreds of square miles to open volcanic activity, burying a continent in thick layers of ash and creating winters that go on for years. If the Yellowstone supervolcano went off, it would, for all intents, destroy the US and Canada's ability to produce food for many years, in addition to the more immediate effects. (We are technically "overdue" for a Yellowstone eruption, by the way.)

7. Thank you from Manhattan ©2025

8. Thanks for putting this together. Very interesting series. Some observations:

   1. Do we really need an explorer/expedition type vessel for a doomsday scenario? "Explorer" type is just marketing speak for having some sort of ice rating, meaning the vessel can handle herself top of 66 degrees north and bottom of 40 degrees south. Since these are some of the most treacherous waters on the planet, won't attempting to navigate them in times of disaster essentially be out of the frying pan and into the fire? I really can't imagine any doomsday scenario where we might want to go there especially since getting a vessel an ice rating is a significant expense.
   2. I am still not sure why relying on an regular crew is a good idea here. Doomsday/SHTF implies resources you're used to are no longer available. So, what if the engineer shows up for work, but the skipper doesn't? What if the crew decides the owners are expendable and take the boat for themselves? Also, this ties into the expedition nature as well since captains/engineers who have ice experience are pretty rare. I believe the first criteria for a doomsday boat should be that only the owner can access the vessel and needs no one else to operate it.
   3. Shouldn't we be trying to downsize the vessel to ensure that it remains manageable? Larger vessels require more upkeep than smaller ones, and have more things that can go wrong, after all.

Comments are closed.