Choosing Your Shelter: BOLs vs. Bunkers

6
473
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

When it comes to surviving TEOTWAWKI, nothing is more important than choosing your shelter whether that is your bunker situated near your home, or somewhere more remote like a bug out location. But there’s much debate circling around which is actually the best. Both bug out locations (BOLs) and bunkers have their benefits and pitfalls. Which is right for you?

Bunkers

Pros

Preppers who consider bunkers the best way to survive the apocalypse like shelters for good reason. Bunkers are not only discreet — hidden out of the sight of enemies’ eyes and from the watchful eye of the government — these shelters also offer a low energy cost, they are bulletproof and excellent for surviving high-impact storms.

But, when you’re spending the apocalypse in an underground bunker, there’s not much outdoor visibility. When outfitting your bunker, put up camouflaged and hidden HD security camera system, so that you can keep an eye on what’s happening outside of the bunker.

Cons

Although some survivalists think that a bunker is the best way to go, there’s also a large group of preppers who consider the bunker a death trap. These folks make a good point. Many bunkers do not have enough oxygen flowing through to keep you alive for very long. And, let’s face it, air is important when it comes to survival.

And, once your bunker is found, there’s no escaping. Whoever, or whatever, is outside waiting will stay there until you’re forced to come out.

underground-container-shelter1

Prepper experts advise survivalists who’ve already bought bunkers to consider turning them into root cellars to store fruits, vegetables and canned goods throughout winter.

Bug Out Locations

Pros

Getting a BOL is not hard. Getting the land for a bug out location is cheap and it will pay off when you need it. Just make sure the land you choose is accessible to you, not too vulnerable and in a spot where you can live off of the land with your own skills.

Having your own land away from civilization and the watchful eye of neighbors will allow you to stock up on survival supplies and grow your own food. You should use your land to build shelters, traps and everything else that’s needed to survive when the apocalypse hits.

af6c049e_original

Cons

Even if you’re already living in a rural area, it still may be too close to highly populated areas. When you’re thinking about your BOL, you’ve got to have a plan. Many survivalists take to the mountains since there are plenty of natural resources available there. But if you and your family aren’t trained and you don’t carry the necessary skill set to survive, you’re not going to last long. In some cases, if you’re not prepared, it’s just best to stay put to avoid a self-inflicted demise.

BOLs aren’t always easy to defend. If you’re not far enough away from the population center, you’ve got to plan for a siege or an attack. Make sure you’ve got the proper training for this.

 

Author Bio: Lauren Topor – Lauren Topor is a lifestyle writer based in the Southwest who spends her days writing about food and health, fashion, fitness and entertainment.

Leave a Reply

6 Comments on "Choosing Your Shelter: BOLs vs. Bunkers"

Notify of
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Arcangel911
Guest

Why not have both?

A bunker doesn’t always have to be underground…. it can be built on ground and then dirt and soil pulled up and around it.

BobW
Guest

Seems like the outline for a decent article. Unfortunately it wasn’t completed.

Too simplistic to encourage much intellectual discourse.

Huples
Guest
Agreed. A mobile sailing boat seems a good idea if you have the access and skills. A bunker would be great for a nuclear issue but they are easy enough to make if you have a basement. A bug out location is an essential even if you plan on bugging in. Overall the major con with a Bol is getting there safely unless it is also your peacetime home. A bunker is the lack of escape and cost. It’s one time deal. I had a chuckle at turning bunkers into root cellars. One expensive root cellar! I’m going with a… Read more »
BobW
Guest
Agreed. I think the idea of a BOL has gotten sideways to a degree. Most simply cannot afford to build a second (isolated) home, which seems to be the evolved standard. A tidy dirt patch with a beat up looking trailer with 100% strac components and multiple caches is a much easier standard for the average prepper. You won’t be there, but for weekends and vacations, so investing deeply in a BOL is a rich man’s venture. I kind of like the bunker under a trailer approach if I was building from unturned dirt. The way things are going, OPSEC… Read more »
Huples
Guest

Basically I kind of agree. Our new house is reasonable for long term but not isolated. In some sit reps it’s ideal, others not so much. I think no matter where you live have two or more Bol to go to that are prestocked just in case of snafu

BobW
Guest

Too smart. I agree completely. Having a generally viable homestead, a ‘main’ BOL, which you hopefully own, and a couple alternate options is a great approach.

Bury an old army tent with some supplies at each that doesn’t have a permanent structure on it.

wpDiscuz