I very much like the sentiment, but I’d mostly advocate for a data backup that doesn’t require any particular effort or memory to preserve in an emergency.
Obviously everyone’s personal situation varies, but as a simple default I usually recommend that friends and family simply use whichever cloud drive service is available from the device manufacturer that stores their photos (ie, google Drive, Microsoft one drive, or Apple iCloud). Photos are almost always the most irreplaceable digital asset, storage is typically just a few bucks a month, and using the “default” provider usually requires zero skill, effort, or recurring action. Other than making sure you can afford the auto-debit each month, your backs are mostly foolproof.
Cons include a dependency on a cloud service, which has a recurring charge and a privacy impact. The charge is typically minor vs the cost of a NAS or similar, and most services have some privacy assurances that may be enough to ease your concern. Nobody will ever care as much about your backups as you, but in aggregate a team of skilled full time FAANG engineers is often a more robust administrator than a solo customer.
If you have the desire and resources, you could and should do both backups, or as many as you reasonably can manage in as many places as possible.
No idea what they’re trying to claim. I can’t see any dimension in which this was “larger” than the typical WWII era firebombing. There were more planes, more bombs by weight, more casualties, more of everything.