Is US bracing for bigger war? Making sense of its FORTRESS emergency plan

FORTRESS is a US military preparedness plan. It aims to keep bases operating for at least 90 days if civilian power grids fail, supply chains collapse, and essential services are disrupted. The plan responds to the military’s dependence on civilian infrastructure for communications, logistics, and production.

To build independence, bases would use portable nuclear reactors, large battery storage systems, and microgrids. The initiative also calls for reserves of munitions, critical minerals, electronics, spare parts, and medical supplies. Civilian factories could be prepared to produce defence equipment during a crisis.

The plan has drawn attention because it appeared amid concern about a wider US-Iran war and public discussion of emergency preparation. However, experts and former military officials cited in the report say preparedness does not prove that a major conflict is imminent. They point instead to cyberattacks and advancing AI as important risks.

The target is at least 90 days of independent operation. During that period, a base would need to continue essential military activities without relying on outside electricity, deliveries, or civilian services. The duration reflects preparation for a prolonged disruption, not a stated prediction that one will occur.

The plan covers several connected breakdowns. These include failures of civilian power grids, collapsed supply chains, and interruptions to essential services such as water and communications. It also addresses shortages of fuel, equipment, medical supplies, and other materials needed for sustained operations.

The article links this planning to possible cyberattacks and the rapid advance of AI. It does not identify a specific enemy, timeline, or cost. Experts quoted in the report therefore describe FORTRESS as worst-case preparedness, rather than evidence that a major war or a third World War is about to begin.

FORTRESS would shift bases away from total dependence on civilian electricity and deliveries. Its proposed technologies include portable nuclear reactors, large battery storage systems, and microgrids. These systems would help provide and manage electricity when the wider grid is unavailable.

Energy alone would not keep a base functioning. The plan also covers fuel and strategic reserves of munitions, critical minerals, electronics, spare parts, and medical supplies. Preparing civilian factories to manufacture defence equipment during a crisis would add another source of support when normal production and transport networks are disrupted.

Together, these measures create several layers of resilience. Local power could keep communications, water systems, logistics, and command structures running. Stored supplies could replace delayed deliveries, while factories could help restore weapons production. The article presents these preparations as responses to infrastructure, cyber, and AI-related risks, not as proof of a specific coming war.

If civilian grids failed, military bases could lose the systems that make operations possible. Communications could break down, water services could stop, logistics could stall, and basic command structures could weaken. Weapons manufacturing and assembly lines could also be interrupted, limiting the military’s ability to sustain or replace equipment.

Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell summarized the dependence directly: “Power is combat now.” The article explains that electricity supports communications, logistics, weapons manufacturing, and assembly lines. It also supports water and military command structures, so one disruption can affect several functions at once.

That chain of dependence is the central reason for FORTRESS. Portable reactors, batteries, and microgrids would provide alternative power, while stored supplies would help bases continue operating. The plan treats grid failure as a possible security problem, including one caused by cyberattacks, rather than merely a civilian inconvenience.

Cyberattacks on critical infrastructure are treated as military threats because they can disrupt national functions without a conventional attack. The article highlights power grids as especially important. Losing electricity can damage communications, water, logistics, command systems, and production, while the attacker’s identity may be harder to establish than after a missile strike.

The report cites the 2024 Volt Typhoon case. These Chinese state-sponsored hackers allegedly compromised IT networks belonging to US organisations in communications, energy, and transport. The article’s available account does not state the full impact of those compromises, but it presents the case as evidence of concern about hostile access to important infrastructure.

This helps explain FORTRESS without proving that war is imminent. The plan could be preparation for covert disruption, cyberattacks, or other systemic shocks. It also reflects the view that advanced AI may create additional security dangers, including the possibility of powerful systems being weaponised or going rogue.

The plan does not necessarily signal an approaching major war because military organisations prepare for worst-case scenarios before they happen. The article says none of the countries involved in the wider emergency-preparation discussion declared that a conflict or a third World War was imminent. Experts and former military officials largely judged that preparedness alone was not a reason to panic.

The concerns described are broader than a conventional invasion. Cyberattacks could target power grids and other infrastructure, while rapidly advancing AI could be weaponised or go rogue. Building backup power, reserves, and production capacity can therefore address several possible disruptions without targeting one named enemy.

The Pentagon has not publicly explained why FORTRESS was unveiled now. It has also not identified a specific country, timeline, or cost estimate. Those gaps have encouraged speculation, but the report presents the initiative primarily as defensive contingency planning rather than confirmation that a major conflict is about to start.

In basic terms, a power grid is an interconnected system that generates, moves, and distributes electricity to users. Civilian grids currently support many military functions, so bases depend on an infrastructure they do not fully control. That dependence becomes dangerous if the grid is damaged, disabled, or cut off.

The article lists the consequences of losing power: communications can fail, water can be disrupted, logistics can stop, assembly lines can go quiet, and basic command structures can weaken. Weapons manufacturing also depends on electricity. A grid outage can therefore affect both immediate operations and the ability to sustain a longer response.

That is why the Pentagon spokesperson said, “Power is combat now.” FORTRESS would add portable reactors, battery storage, and microgrids, alongside reserves of essential supplies. These measures aim to keep bases functional during infrastructure shocks, whether caused by cyberattacks or other massive disruptions.