Inside the impenetrable £242m nuclear bunker where the rich and famous will shelter during WW3
In the face of a global disaster such as a world war or nuclear attack, the rich and famous will soon have somewhere to retreat.
Security company SAFE has a giant bunker planned for Virginia, named 'Aerie', which will house luxury apartments for billionaires to hide out in during a major disaster.
This impenetrable fortress' construction costs £242 million and while it may seem like something from a futuristic movie, it is actually set to be built by summer 2026.
There is no end of security features inside such as blast-proof walls and ballistic glass. There are also subterranean spaces and a nuclear-proof shelter. However, it's not just practical security that the company strives for. This apocalyptic members' club has been designed to perfection and is brimming with luxury facilities like swimming pools, AI medical suites, an IV therapy room and even a climbing wall.
SAFE is sworn to secrecy over their rich and famous clients and was unable to disclose any details due to strict NDAs. However, celebrities such as Kayne West, Kim Kardashian and Tom Cruise all have 'doomsday' style bunkers at their own properties, highlighting the growing trend for this level of security among the elite.
Naomi Corbi, Director of Medical Preparedness spoke exclusively to HELLO! about the company, explaining why she thinks SAFE's security is impenetrable. "SAFE's invisible security provides another very important advantage because you can't defeat what you can't see. And there is nothing more intimidating to the bad guys than the unknown."
"AERIE is the first ever solution to this age-old problem [security], providing the most effective solution to the threat," says Naomi.
So how did they decide which luxury leisure features to add inside Aerie? Naomi reveals that "there are two levels of features; those that are a part of the AERIE Club and those that members have custom tailored for their individual shelters. The AERIE Club features are decided by AERIE's Board and Member input. The tailored features within each member's sanctuary are left to their preferences."
The royal family share this concern over safety and they have had panic rooms installed in royal residences for many years now.
Global Citizen has previously reported that "Kate and William's royal apartment at Kensington Palace includes a panic room with an air filtration system, guarding against biological warfare, and an escape tunnel."
King Charles also has similar style panic rooms at Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace, installed under the late Queen Elizabeth II when the terrorism threat in the UK had been raised.
According to The Times, the structures have "a bullet-resistant and fire-retardant steel core" in the form of "18in thick steel walls," which will protect against all number of threats including "poison gas, bomb attacks or assassination by terrorists". They also have special air systems, battery-powered energy, food supplies and medicine.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Harvey Weinstein Rape Retrial Descends Into Chaos Amid Split Verdicts, Jury Tensions & Threats
A week into jury deliberations on Harvey Weinstein's New York rape retrial, the proceedings appear to be descending into chaos. The jurors just informed Judge Curtis Farber that they have reached a split verdict: guilty on Count 1 of a criminal sexual act in the first degree against Miriam Haley, not guilty of the same charge involving Kaja Sokola and no verdict on Jessica Mann. In this retrial, each count of first-degree criminal sexual act carries a maximum sentence of 25 years. More from Deadline Patricia Clarkson Recalls Harvey Weinstein Telling Her She'd 'Never Work Again' Warner Bros Discovery Hits Back At Russell Simmons' "Unfounded Allegations" In Ex-Mogul's $20M Suit Over 2020 Sexual Assault Documentary - Update Channel 4 Says It Doesn't Use NDAs, But Documents Reveal Company Is Curbing Free Speech Of Aggrieved Ex-Employees Tensions have been running high among the panelists all week, including apparent threats of violence from one juror against another and multiple complaints by jurors to Farber. Earlier today, the foreman of the seven-woman, five-man just told the judge, 'I can't go back in there with the other jurors.' Farber had confirmed hostilities among jurors, including some 'yelling and screaming.' The jury revealed its partial ruling at the request of Farber, who sent the panelists home early today to allow them time away from one another before they resume their deliberations on the last remaining, undecided charge involving Mann. As these near-unprecedented circumstances unfold, Weinstein himself addressed the judge this morning and asked for a mistrial. 'This is my life that's on the line, this is not fair,' said Weinstein, who saw his 23-year sentence from a 2020 conviction dismissed by an appeals court last year. 'I'm not getting a fair trial,' the ailing, 73-year-old added to Judge Farber. As he has before, the judge rejected the request for a mistrial. With Weinstein accused of assaulting numerous well-known actresses and models over the decades, prosecutors in the most benign way say he used his power and influence as an Oscar-winning producer and boss of mini-major Miramax to lure young women into his orbit. Offering what almost always were false promises of work and careers in film and television, they say Weinstein then often violently raped them or forced them into other unwanted sexual encounters. Weinstein, who won a Best Picture Oscar for Shakespeare in Love and also helped produce Pulp Fiction, The English Patient, Good Will Hunting, True Romance and many more films, always has maintained that the sexual relationships were consensual. 'They're all women with broken dreams,' his defense lawyer Arthur Aidala said in closing arguments last week. 'They're all women who wanted to cut the line.' We will update this post as new details emerge. Erik Pedersen contributed to this report. Best of Deadline Sean 'Diddy' Combs Sex-Trafficking Trial Updates: Cassie Ventura's Testimony, $10M Hotel Settlement, Drugs, Violence, & The Feds A Full Timeline Of Blake Lively & Justin Baldoni's 'It Ends With Us' Feud In Court, Online & In The Media Sean "Diddy" Combs: An Updated Timeline Of Charges, Allegations & Consequences The Rap Mogul Faces
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Harvey Weinstein Rape Retrial Descends Into Chaos Amid Split Verdicts, Jury Tensions & Threats
A week into jury deliberations on Harvey Weinstein's New York rape retrial, the proceedings appear to be descending into chaos. The jurors just informed Judge Curtis Farber that they have reached a split verdict: guilty on Count 1 of a criminal sexual act in the first degree against Miriam Haley, not guilty of the same charge involving Kaja Sokola and no verdict on Jessica Mann. In this retrial, each count of first-degree criminal sexual act carries a maximum sentence of 25 years. More from Deadline Patricia Clarkson Recalls Harvey Weinstein Telling Her She'd 'Never Work Again' Warner Bros Discovery Hits Back At Russell Simmons' "Unfounded Allegations" In Ex-Mogul's $20M Suit Over 2020 Sexual Assault Documentary - Update Channel 4 Says It Doesn't Use NDAs, But Documents Reveal Company Is Curbing Free Speech Of Aggrieved Ex-Employees Tensions have been running high among the panelists all week, including apparent threats of violence from one juror against another and multiple complaints by jurors to Farber. Earlier today, the foreman of the seven-woman, five-man just told the judge, 'I can't go back in there with the other jurors.' Farber had confirmed hostilities among jurors, including some 'yelling and screaming.' The jury revealed its partial ruling at the request of Farber, who sent the panelists home early today to allow them time away from one another before they resume their deliberations on the last remaining, undecided charge involving Mann. As these near-unprecedented circumstances unfold, Weinstein himself addressed the judge this morning and asked for a mistrial. 'This is my life that's on the line, this is not fair,' said Weinstein, who saw his 23-year sentence from a 2020 conviction dismissed by an appeals court last year. 'I'm not getting a fair trial,' the ailing, 73-year-old added to Judge Farber. As he has before, the judge rejected the request for a mistrial. With Weinstein accused of assaulting numerous well-known actresses and models over the decades, prosecutors in the most benign way say he used his power and influence as an Oscar-winning producer and boss of mini-major Miramax to lure young women into his orbit. Offering what almost always were false promises of work and careers in film and television, they say Weinstein then often violently raped them or forced them into other unwanted sexual encounters. Weinstein, who won a Best Picture Oscar for Shakespeare in Love and also helped produce Pulp Fiction, The English Patient, Good Will Hunting, True Romance and many more films, always has maintained that the sexual relationships were consensual. 'They're all women with broken dreams,' his defense lawyer Arthur Aidala said in closing arguments last week. 'They're all women who wanted to cut the line.' MORE TO COME… Erik Pedersen contributed to this report. Best of Deadline Sean 'Diddy' Combs Sex-Trafficking Trial Updates: Cassie Ventura's Testimony, $10M Hotel Settlement, Drugs, Violence, & The Feds A Full Timeline Of Blake Lively & Justin Baldoni's 'It Ends With Us' Feud In Court, Online & In The Media Sean "Diddy" Combs: An Updated Timeline Of Charges, Allegations & Consequences The Rap Mogul Faces


Time Business News
10 hours ago
- Time Business News
What Is Hush Money and What Is the Big Deal?
The Hush money meaning can be explained as the money that is given to an individual so that he/she keeps quiet about a particular incident or activity. The word is usually followed by scandal, misconduct, or sensitive information that may hurt a reputation, career, or business. Hush money involves a fundamental pillar of secrecy; that is, money is given in lieu of silence. Paying hush money is not necessarily a crime but in many cases, it may involve legitimate and critical legal and ethical concerns. Where the money is paid to hush up crime, then it may amount to obstruction of justice or conspiracy. Ethically, hush money may lead to the culture of silence, where victims or whistleblowers are less likely to emerge. Numerous high-profile hush money cases have come to the public eye, particularly those of celebrities, politicians, and corporations. The most notorious one could be the hush money payments, which are associated with political campaigns. Such cases frequently attract media coverage and usually lead to legal repercussions, especially when campaign finance or corporate governance rules are violated. There are many reasons why people take hush money. It could be because of fear of retaliation, the need for privacy or the feeling that they will not succeed in a legal battle. The payout may be considered an easier or less injurious solution compared to a long court process or being the subject of media attention. Hush money can also be employed in the workplace to hush up complaints of harassment, discrimination or other wrongdoings. Employers can also give out severance package or non-disclosure agreements (NDA) in consideration of silence. Such agreements are legally acceptable but may be controversial, particularly when they facilitate the repetition of offense by influential persons. In the past few years, there have been enactments of laws and regulations to curb the use of hush money in given circumstances. In some states, it is now prohibited by law to insist upon NDAs which would interfere with an employee reporting harassment or abuse. Governments and courts are taking a closer look at these payments and the purpose of such payments. There is an increase in the awareness of the people regarding the cases of hush money, particularly, with the emergence of social media and independent journalism. Citizens are better informed and intolerant of any attempt to purchase silence especially when the vulnerable members of the society are targeted. Hush money can be a dangerous move because transparency and accountability are becoming important values in society. The hush money is an ambivalent and tricky issue. Although it might appear as a remedy to dealing with scandals or reputation safeguard, it can boomerang in legal, ethical, and social circles. Being aware of its implications, individuals and organizations may make decisions that are better and more transparent. TIME BUSINESS NEWS