In comments below you cite Kosovo. I think that in cases like that there was already plenty of social unrest so if a city was cut off from the powergrid or the main roads I can imagine that someone would have tried to get the upper hand. Something similar could also happen in some areas of Mexico, where the government presence is already pretty weak.

I can see how a veteran or ex-serviceman could always be very handy in a natural disaster, but that would be because they are able to lead, to follow orders, have plenty of practical skills and are trained to be self-sufficient. But the actual combat training or experience - nevermind the weapons - is not necessarily the most important thing to have when you are hit by a flood or a earthquake or a tsunami.

For example, in 2014, southeast Europe received record levels of rain, which lead to wide-spread flooding and landslides. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Southeast_Europe_floods which points out that it was the most rain in 120 years of recorded history. Some areas were isolated for a few days, 300,000 households were left without electric power, etc.

How close were they to having drug gangs or other groups take over local power? Do you have any evidence to back up your thesis?

How would additional weapons have helped the situation that actually did occur? What mix of weapons should they have had?

Are there any lessons from other European floods (the recent British floods, the North Sea flood of 1962, the 1953 storm and floods, etc.) to show how perilously close things were to total discord, which would have been solved by more weapons backed by combat veterans?

(Of course, in the 1950s and 1960s, most of Europe lived through WWII and many were combat veterans. But they didn't have the weapons you think are essential. Yet somehow they survived.)