Doomsday prepping makes economic sense

The continent-wide push for emergency preparedness represents a rational economic response to demonstrated vulnerabilities — and other nations would be wise to take note.

The European Commission recently urged every EU citizen to maintain a 72-hour emergency kit. Norway has told its population to prepare to manage on their own for a week. Germany has a large number of shelters and bunkers left over from World War II and the Cold War, but many of them are in need of repair or renovation. These are not isolated policies but components of a strategic push to acknowledge a fundamental truth that modern infrastructure is extraordinarily efficient yet catastrophically fragile.

Five years after COVID-19 exposed how quickly global systems can unravel, Europe has made a calculated decision: investing in citizen resilience costs far less than managing cascading system failures. This deserves careful consideration in the Gulf, where hyper-connected smart infrastructure presents its own form of risk.

What comes next?

Are the Europeans paranoid, or simply paying attention?

Madrid’s power outage last month told us everything we needed to know about modern vulnerabilities. What began as a local power failure quickly cascaded into system malfunctions, telecom disruptions, and payment network outages. A modern capital city found itself partially rewound to the 19^th century – no electricity, limited water, and cash quickly becoming the only viable currency. This was a predictable consequence of our increasingly interconnected systems.

According to the World Bank, COVID-19 triggered the largest global economic crisis in over a century. It widened inequalities, cut output and jobs, and caused global GDP to fall by 3.4 per cent in 2020 — a $2 trillion loss. For Europe, the pandemic cost around €2.3 trillion. Against that backdrop, even major investments in civil defense are fiscally sound.

For Gulf nations, the stakes are different but equally high. When drinking water depends on energy-intensive desalination and air conditioning becomes a lifeline in summer, disruptions to critical infrastructure pose existential risks. A coordinated attack on critical infrastructure could be catastrophic.

The critical 72 hours

European nations have identified what emergency management experts call the “vulnerability gap” – those critical first 72 hours between disaster onset and effective government response. The Dutch government recently updated its guidance, recommending households prepare for three days without assistance. Justice and Security Minister David van Weel made the rationale clear: in a crisis, government help may not come immediately.

This shift doesn’t absolve governments of responsibility. It acknowledges logistical reality by acknowledging the physical limitations of centralised response. If even the Netherlands — wealthy, compact, and efficient — says it can’t guarantee rapid response, others should take note.

Finland offers a powerful example. It maintains enough bunker space for its entire population and promotes citizen readiness through platforms like the 72tuntia.fi website. Its model blends institutional readiness with citizen responsibility — a hybrid approach with proven effectiveness.

By this summer, every French household will receive a 20-page “survival manual” outlining how to handle everything from natural disasters to cyberattacks and war. The message is consistent: be ready to manage alone, at least at first.

The cyber tipping point

The vulnerability of critical infrastructure is no longer hypothetical. In 2023 alone, over 200 cyber incidents targeted the energy sector, with more than half specifically directed at European facilities. The 2021 Colonial Pipeline attack in the US caused fuel shortages across the southeast — a reminder that digital breaches can have immediate physical consequences.

For Gulf states, where smart city initiatives are rapidly advancing, these risks are heightened. Projects like the UAE’s smart infrastructure or Saudi Arabia’s NEOM offer extraordinary potential — and new surfaces for cyber threats.

The pandemic fundamentally changed how we think about these risks. Before COVID-19, preparedness was often seen as alarmist; now it’s increasingly recognised as basic prudence. A global health crisis exposed how quickly supply chains could collapse, how rapidly hospital systems could be overwhelmed, and how dependent modern societies are on uninterrupted essential services.

Beyond pandemic thinking

But the next crisis may not look like COVID-19. It might stem from cyberattacks, infrastructure failures, or geopolitical conflict. European strategies now pair digital tools — like Germany’s shelter-finding app — with physical investments, striking a balance between innovation and fallback.

The European Commission’s “Preparedness Union” frames these efforts not as panic, but as risk management. For Gulf states — with strategic energy roles and global connectivity — the logic applies. Resilience isn’t pessimism; it’s planning for the inevitable.

Across Europe, citizens are being advised to stock basic supplies, including:

• Non-perishable food (canned goods, energy bars, dried meals)
• Potable water (at least 6 litres per person)
• Essential medications and first aid kit
• Flashlights and extra batteries
• Battery-powered or hand-crank radio
• Cash in small denominations (when payment systems fail)
• Copies of important documents in waterproof containers

The list extends further, but the principle remains consistent: be prepared to function when digital systems fail and centralised assistance is unavailable.

The Gulf’s advantage

Gulf countries don’t need to copy Europe. Their unique governance structures, geographic challenges, and strategic positions demand tailored solutions. But the focus on the 72-hour window offers a useful framework.

The UAE has already established an enhanced Civil Defence Authority under the National Emergency Crisis and Disasters Management Authority (NCEMA), implementing updated regulations covering disaster response and emergency management. Saudi Arabia has updated its civil defence regulations to standardise emergency responses across sectors. These institutional approaches provide excellent foundations.

Still, as European models show, institutional readiness must be matched by individual preparedness. The UAE’s active role in last month’s World Crisis & Emergency Management Summit — themed “Together Towards Building Global Resilience” — reflects a willingness to evolve.

Saudi Arabia’s upcoming NCT Middle East 2025 conference in Riyadh, focused on chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive risks, points to a growing strategic focus. Complementing this with citizen-level readiness would strengthen resilience further.

The economic case

The math is simple. Small investments in preparedness help avert massive losses. Finland’s long-standing readiness once seemed excessive — now, it feels visionary.

COVID-19 doubled global levels of severe food insecurity to 276 million people and triggered widespread stockpiling. Mental health took a hit too — depression and anxiety rose by 25 per cent globally in the first year alone, adding to the economic toll.

As Gulf countries continue developing emergency frameworks, Europe’s evolving playbook offers valuable insight. Preparedness is about recognising that resilience is always a smart investment.

So maybe those 72-hour emergency kits aren’t signs of fear or paranoia. Maybe they’re just good economics.