When America Goes Dark, Can the Military Keep Going?

The Pentagon's reported 90-day self-sufficiency plans raise a question I thought we had answered long ago.

I was reading an article about the Pentagon developing plans for major U.S. military installations to operate for at least 90 days without outside support.

Apparently, the news has stirred up quite a bit of speculation about impending wars, catastrophic attacks, and everything else that might bring America to its knees.

But that wasn’t what caught my attention.

My first thought was, “You mean they aren’t already prepared to do that?”

Now, that might seem like an odd reaction coming from someone who grew up on U.S. Army posts across the country until I was sixteen years old.

I remember power outages caused by severe weather, just like those experienced by the surrounding civilian communities. Being on an Army post certainly didn’t guarantee that your lights would stay on.

We knew there were vulnerabilities.

But there’s a difference between losing electricity in military housing during a thunderstorm and losing the ability to carry out essential military operations during a national emergency.

And over the decades, I simply assumed our military had developed the ability to sustain those operations through an extended failure of civilian infrastructure.

I wasn’t expecting every light bulb on every installation to stay lit indefinitely. I was expecting the military to be capable of taking care of itself when things got really bad.

Apparently, there’s more to that story.

I’m not a military engineer. I’m just someone who grew up on Army posts and found himself questioning an assumption he’d carried for years.

You Mean We Haven’t Already Done This?

The Pentagon recently announced an initiative called FORTRESS America, aimed at making military installations less dependent on civilian utilities, supply chains, and other infrastructure.

According to reporting published October 25, 2026, the effort includes a proposed goal for major domestic military installations to sustain essential operations for at least 90 days without outside support.

The initiative is real. The specific 90-day requirement comes from reported internal planning documents, not a publicly released, final department-wide standard.

Now, I’m not suggesting that military installations have been operating all these years without emergency generators, backup systems, fuel reserves, or contingency plans. Some installations already have substantial independent capabilities, and those capabilities vary from one installation to another.

This isn’t a case of the military suddenly discovering electricity.

But something else caught my attention.

In 2018, the Army acknowledged that its earlier energy-security planning commonly assumed outages lasting only two or three days. A directive issued in 2017 established a goal of maintaining electricity and water for critical missions for at least 14 days.

Fourteen days.

That’s a considerable improvement over two or three days, but it’s still a long way from 90.

And remember, we’re talking about sustaining critical military operations, not necessarily keeping an entire military community functioning normally.

So the military has recognized these vulnerabilities for years.

How much progress have we actually made, and why are we still working toward this level of independence?

I’m sure funding, competing priorities, and the differences between military installations all play a part.

But we’re talking about the infrastructure that supports the defense of the United States.

I would have thought keeping that infrastructure functioning during a national emergency was pretty high on the priority list.

Somewhere Around Chapter Three

If you’ve read many dystopian or post-apocalyptic novels, you know how the story usually goes.

Something terrible happens to the United States.

Maybe it’s a coordinated cyberattack, an EMP, a major attack on the electrical grid, or some other national catastrophe.

The electricity goes out. Communications fail. Fuel deliveries stop. Water systems break down. Emergency services become overwhelmed.

And somewhere around chapter three, somebody asks:

“Where in the hell is the military?”

It’s a familiar storyline, and not without reason.

When things really go bad, people naturally look toward the institutions they believe are best equipped to handle the situation.

And the United States military comes to mind pretty quickly.

After all, we expect our military to fight wars thousands of miles from home, establish bases in hostile environments, transport enormous quantities of supplies, and operate under conditions most civilians would find unimaginable.

So why wouldn’t we expect it to do the same thing here at home?

But let’s change our fictional scenario just a little.

Suppose the military installations people are counting on are experiencing many of the same problems as the surrounding communities.

Their primary electrical service is down. Backup generators are running through fuel that cannot easily be replaced. Water supplies are uncertain, communications are disrupted, and normal deliveries have stopped.

Now the commanders responsible for defending the country have another problem.

They must keep their own installations and personnel functioning while trying to accomplish their assigned missions.

And that brings us to something those dystopian novels occasionally get right.

Soldiers Have Families, Too

There’s an old military saying that has been around longer than I can remember:

“If the Army wanted you to have a family, they would have issued you one.”

Anyone familiar with military culture probably recognizes that one.

It was usually said with a certain amount of military humor, although I suspect more than a few soldiers’ families failed to appreciate the joke.

But there was a message behind it.

The mission comes first.

And in the military, that’s exactly how it has to be. The Army isn’t a family-support organization that happens to own tanks and helicopters.

Military dependents are not the first operational priority. That’s an unfortunate reality at times, but it is a reality nonetheless.

Still, there’s something we shouldn’t overlook.

Soldiers are human beings.

Many live on military installations with their spouses and children. Others live in nearby civilian communities.

Now imagine a soldier reporting for duty during a catastrophic national emergency.

The power is out across the region. Communications are unreliable. Food, water, and fuel are becoming scarce.

That soldier has a mission to perform.

But what about the family at home?

Are they safe? Do they have food and water? Can the soldier even contact them?

You can train someone to function under extraordinary stress. You can instill discipline, duty, and commitment.

But you can’t train the human being out of a soldier.

Now imagine that soldier’s family is living on a secure military installation with reliable electricity, water, food, medical services, and communications.

Wouldn’t that make a difference?

I certainly think it would.

The soldier still has a job to do. The mission still comes first.

But knowing your spouse and children are safe and being cared for removes a tremendous burden of worry.

It doesn’t solve every problem, especially for families living outside the installation. Nor am I suggesting that the military can guarantee the safety and comfort of every dependent during a national catastrophe.

But common sense tells me that taking care of military families, to the extent reasonably possible, helps the military take care of its mission.

Military families may not be the first priority, but they shouldn’t be an afterthought, either.

That’s something I hope the people developing these 90-day plans are taking into consideration.

Military Strength Isn’t the Whole Story

Let’s go back to our national catastrophe.

Communities are struggling. Emergency responders are overwhelmed. People need help.

And the military is being called upon to do what Americans expect it to do.

Defend the country, protect critical facilities, transport supplies, assist civilian authorities, and provide whatever support it can.

An all-hands-on-deck situation.

But what if the installations expected to provide that assistance are struggling to take care of themselves?

Here’s the problem as I see it.

The military cannot effectively help the country if it cannot keep itself operational.

And this isn’t just about helping civilians. If the catastrophe resulted from an attack, the military must still defend the nation against whatever comes next.

We spend enormous amounts of money on national defense, and we have some remarkable military capabilities to show for it.

But aircraft, ships, vehicles, weapons systems, and highly trained personnel all depend on something less glamorous.

Infrastructure.

Fuel. Electricity. Water. Communications. Maintenance. Logistics.

A backup generator is a wonderful thing until it runs out of fuel and the truck bringing the next delivery can’t get through.

Having the world’s most powerful military and having a military capable of sustaining itself during a prolonged national emergency are not necessarily the same thing.

One is military strength.

The other is military resilience.

And I would argue that we need both.

Ninety Days of What?

I welcome the Pentagon’s effort to make military installations more self-sufficient.

What surprised me is that we may still have significant work ahead of us in developing capabilities I assumed were already well established.

And I have some questions.

How many military installations can currently sustain essential operations for 90 days without outside electricity, water, fuel, or regular supply deliveries?

How many have actually tested that ability?

Does the proposed 90-day capability apply only to selected critical facilities, or does it account for the personnel and support systems necessary to keep the broader installation operating?

And what provisions are being made for the families living there?

Because there’s a big difference between having a plan that says you can do something and actually being able to do it.

I’ve seen enough of life to know that things don’t always work quite as well in practice as they do on paper.

Especially when the power goes out.

The Question I Keep Coming Back To

What interested me about that original article wasn’t the speculation about an impending war or catastrophe.

It was the realization that I might have been making an assumption about our military for most of my adult life.

I knew from childhood that military installations could experience power outages and other interruptions of essential services.

But I assumed that, as a matter of national defense, the military had long since developed the ability to sustain its critical operations through an extended failure of the civilian infrastructure around it.

Was that assumption justified?

I’m no longer sure.

And I wonder how many other Americans have simply assumed the same thing.

That’s why I believe the Pentagon’s initiative deserves attention, regardless of the predictions and speculation surrounding it.

I’m glad the military is working to strengthen its ability to operate independently.

I just wish I had a better understanding of how much of that capability already exists, how much is still missing, and how long it will take to close the gaps.

Because if America ever experiences a catastrophe serious enough to cripple civilian infrastructure, people will understandably look toward their military.

They will expect it to be standing, functioning, and ready to respond.

And I don’t think that’s an unreasonable expectation.

The question shouldn’t be why the United States military is preparing to survive 90 days without outside support.

The question should be why we assumed it could already do so—and whether we’ve done enough to make sure it actually can.

After all, when America goes dark, the last thing we need is for the military to be standing in line with everybody else, waiting for someone to turn the lights back on.

What do you think?

— Bobby Bama

---

Sources and background reading

• U.S. Army — The U.S. Army’s Pivot to Energy and Water Resilience (2018)

• DefenseScoop — Pentagon FORTRESS America Program Office (October 7, 2026)

• Air & Space Forces Magazine — FORTRESS America Energy Resilience (October 20, 2026)

• Fox News — Inside the Pentagon’s Doomsday Plan (October 25, 2026)