2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: rpoL98 on January 14, 2018, 09:52:20 PM
-
in view of the recent dumbsh!t who went push the wrong button, is Hawaii a target because of its US military presence?
I don't think Kim Jong Un (KJU) could hit Puerto Rico since it's too far away, and American Samoa isn't even a state, after all, it's the "United States of America" (USA), not the "United States and Territories of America" (USTA). and KJU would like to poke a stick in the eye of American Imperialists, so what better target than the hedonistic pleasure destination of Waikiki? one of the actual 50 states of the USA, although on a normal day, kinda hard to believe most times.
I think the military presence is derived from Pearl Harbor being a wonderful harbor, and the location in the middle of the Pacific, and water to sustain a population. But I suspect that if Hawaii wasn't part of the USA, that Hawaii would be a British Colony (Capt Cook), if not a French Colony (e.g. Tahiti), if not a Portuguese Colony (e.g. Vasco de Gama, etc). so, no matter what, thanks to "location, location, location", there would be a military presence here. just a question of whose.
who knows, if we weren't part of the USA, the Chinese Govt might claim the Pacific Ocean as being theirs, just like they did for the South China Sea, and Hawaii would be part of Communist China, answering to Peking. and Lahaina might be the provincial capital.
just my uninformed, uneducated 2 cents here, or should I say 2 escudo's, or 2 yuans. ah, such a luxury of hypotheticals, it boggles the mind.
-
Don't forget how the US acquired a great portion of the mainland and Alaska -- purchase and trading.
If Hawaii were under another flag, such as France, it wouldn't take China declaring the Pacific theirs. All China would have to do is make an offer of cash and some trade agreements between them, and China could be the new "owner" of the Hawaiian Islands without any military action.
Heck, if the Hawaiians get their way and become a Kingdom again, Hawaii will be begging for US protection in exchange for military bases wherever we want.
-
Hawaii has been and will always (at least in foreseeable future) be a key location in the Pacific. And not only for military. Think commerce as well.
-
Heck, if the Hawaiians get their way and become a Kingdom again, Hawaii will be begging for US protection in exchange for military bases wherever we want.
nah, I think the Kingdom of Hawaii would entertain offers from Russia, China, UK, USA, and see who gave them the best deal, whole package deal: trade, debt, security, manufacturing. Look at the Philippines, sucking up to Mother Russia when they don't get what they want from Uncle Sam.
looking at modern history, I think the Russians and the Chinese usually present the best offer and window dressing to underdeveloped countries, look at how much chinese presence there is now in Africa, selling their cell phone infrastructure. and this being 2aHawaii, it'd be AK-47's, full-auto, in every household. maybe even RPG's. just a question of whether it's genuine Kalashnikov, or Norinco.
heck, Kingdom of Hawaii might even try to get their own nuke missiles, like Iran, NK, just for bargaining chips. but they better not have that same dumbshit govt civil service lifer manning The Button.
-
nah, I think the Kingdom of Hawaii would entertain offers from Russia, China, UK, USA, and see who gave them the best deal, whole package deal: trade, debt, security, manufacturing. Look at the Philippines, sucking up to Mother Russia when they don't get what they want from Uncle Sam.
heck, Kingdom of Hawaii might even try to get their own nuke missiles, like Iran, NK, just for bargaining chips. but they better not have that same dumbshit govt civil service lifer manning The Button.
But according to our resident expert in other threads, Hawaii won't want all that military or nukes, because a disarmed territory is a safer territory.
-
How do we know that DPRK would target Oahu if they were to launch a nuclear strike? It's a fine thing to say for propaganda purposes but does it make sense, strategically, for north korea?
-
How do we know that DPRK would target Oahu if they were to launch a nuclear strike? It's a fine thing to say for propaganda purposes but does it make sense, strategically, for north korea?
Depends on their objective. A show of force and resolve could be their goal. Then they would threaten more strikes, this time on the mainland, if whatever demands they have aren't met.
-
How do we know that DPRK would target Oahu if they were to launch a nuclear strike? It's a fine thing to say for propaganda purposes but does it make sense, strategically, for north korea?
no one outside of the DPRK really knows what they will do. Their actions are irrational and not economic-based.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/27/north-korea-executed-five-security-officials-anti-aircraft-guns/ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/27/north-korea-executed-five-security-officials-anti-aircraft-guns/)
Why would anyone execute people with anti aircraft guns when a simple gunshot would do and be cheaper?
Even S. Korean services have a hard time penetrating NK.
-
But according to our resident expert in other threads, Hawaii won't want all that military or nukes, because a disarmed territory is a safer territory.
an unarmed territory is ripe for the pickin's. especially one with such juicy economic benefits (harbor, resorts, etc). just march right in and hoist the flag. sort of like Red Dawn Patrick Swayze except without the unorganized militia.
at least, that's what the Argentinians thought regarding the Falklands.
we'd all be speaking chinese fo' sure. and I think the chinese are lousy tippers. them being so pake.
-
no one outside of the DPRK really knows what they will do. Their actions are irrational and not economic-based.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/27/north-korea-executed-five-security-officials-anti-aircraft-guns/ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/27/north-korea-executed-five-security-officials-anti-aircraft-guns/)
Why would anyone execute people with anti aircraft guns when a simple gunshot would do and be cheaper?
Even S. Korean services have a hard time penetrating NK.
Dude seems rational to me for a guy that has everyone in his country worshiping him like a god. Executing perceived threats to power is classic dictator stuff. Doing it with an AA gun? "Over the top" stuff runs in the Kim family.
-
so an analogous, micro view is that an unarmed person won't attract crime / violence directed to that person?
-
so an analogous, micro view is that an unarmed person won't attract crime / violence directed to that person?
Ed Zachery
-
so an analogous, micro view is that an unarmed person won't attract crime / violence directed to that person?
it's more PC to say "Micronesian"
don't want to trigger anyone...
-
quoted from the other thread.
It is not a distaste of the US military, it is the distaste of the presence of the US military in Hawaii that puts every person at a even greater risk of nuclear destruction. Did your read the numerous accounts of panic and anger in today's Sunday paper? Was yesterday's events not an eye opener to this reality?
you're absolutely right, if the Sandwich Isles were a Province of China instead, North Korea Kim Jong Un wouldn't dare event hint at threatening Hawaii nosireebob, cuz he'd get slapped silly upside the head, in public.
or if Hawaii were a British Colony, if KJU threatened Hawaii, the UK don't bother with My Button is bigger. they just send in the SAS and it's Job Done.
-
I posted this in the other thread:
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=30010.msg266417#msg266417
-
Military may be a small part of it, but it's mostly Hawaii is the largest and densest US population and economic center they can reliably reach with their missiles. Once their missile and nuclear technology improves they'll target larger cities like LA, San Francisco, DC etc instead. But Kim's not actually going to launch because he knows the US will flatten N Korea and kill him if he does. He may launch if he had nothing to lose like if the US actually invades or there's a coup.
-
I have no intel on the matter, but in my opinion, Hawaii would be a prime target because we are 1 of 50 states and hitting an actual state would send more of a message than hitting a territory (am.samoa, guam, etc...). We are also the closest to NK compared to Cali or any other state with the most populated areas vs. Alaska that has hundreds of miles of open land. And our resources are limited since we are in the middle of an ocean, so the after blast effects would be more harmful. Compared to a west coast state where they can just drive help in from across the nation.
-
no one outside of the DPRK really knows what they will do. Their actions are irrational and not economic-based.
That's a cop-out. Their actions are perfectly rational, but you have to attempt to look at it from their perspective which is difficult if the Jingoism Jingle is ringing so strongly in your ear that you are unable to listen.
They want to prevent a US invasion, and they watched what happened with Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. We left Iran alone because they have nukes. Nukes are a deterrent, because even in limited amounts they make the cost of invasion too great to consider. Yeah NK would lose everything if we went toe to toe, but the US would also destroy itself politically, economically, and become an international pariah. There would be an immediate insurrection to go after the mass murderers in Washington, and rightly so. Even if it was put down the nation would be too fractured to ever put back together, especially with a destroyed economic base and hyper-inflated dollar.
As far as the anti-aircraft execution KJU wanted to make a gruesome public demonstration of what happens to people who conspire against him. Rule by fear doesn't work in the long run, but it can certainly get the job done in the short term.
-
Some would say that Japan wouldn't have attacked Hawaii if the US had no presence on the island because the King had a treaty with Japan. I speculate that Japan would have invaded regardless because of the island's close location to the west coast. Regardless of what's on the island, Hawaii is the vanguard to the Pacific.
-
Saying that a foreign country wouldn’t attack Hawaii if the US military wasn’t here, is similar as saying that a robber wouldn’t hit a house because the homeowner wasn’t armed. Hawaii is a valuable as a strategic asset because of its geographic location in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. If it’s wasn’t, it’s economy would be as developed as the other island chains in the Pacific Ocean.
Unarmed Hawaii = easy target for a foreign nation.
Hawaii with a military presence = not so easy a target.
If the US military wasn’t here, it would be another nation that would see that and eventually claim it. At that point, Kuleana would post the argument that Hawaii is under threat of destruction when the US military points it’s missiles at Hawaii.
-
It's impossible to prove that Hawaii wouldn't be attacked without military presence. Historically the only two nations who (AFAIK) attacked it without a conventional military presence are Tahiti and the United States.
On the other hand that same military presence also makes it a target-rich environment. If you were another hostile Pacific rim power you can't afford to NOT attack. There's no denying probabilities of hostile action go way up. 1941 for example.
But then there's the case of Switzerland. They seem to sit out all the wars despite holding lots of desirable treasure and territory. If Hawaii was to position itself as the Swiss of the Pacific with a strong militia/people's army but a clear mandate to take no sides in international conflict then we'd likely be in a much safer position than we are now.
-
It's impossible to prove that Hawaii wouldn't be attacked without military presence. Historically the only two nations who (AFAIK) attacked it without a conventional military presence are Tahiti and the United States.
On the other hand that same military presence also makes it a target-rich environment. If you were another hostile Pacific rim you can't afford to NOT attack. There's no denying probabilities of hostile action go way up.
But then there's the case of Switzerland. They seem to sit out all the wars despite holding lots of desirable treasure and territory. If Hawaii was to position itself as the Swiss of the Pacific with a strong militia/people's army but a clear mandate to take no sides in international conflict then we'd likely be in a much safer position than we are now.
That fine. I was just trying to point out the irrational questioning of fear in nuclear attack from NK and calling terrorism a boogieman. One fits the subject’s narrative and the other doesn’t. I think it’s apparent and yes, beating a dead horse. That’s why I asked about thoughts on Guam. There are many Guam natives who feel that the military presence places a bullseye on the island. Not quite apples to apples with Oahu, but I hear the same irrational thinking. Aren’t you afraid for the consequences emotional approach as opposed to logical.
-
Logistically speaking Switzerland is the safer places to be during a World War. Of course that's where a lot of the dirty money gets moved, but that means they have enough capital to build bomb shelters for their civilians unlike some islands I know.
-
It's impossible to prove that Hawaii wouldn't be attacked without military presence. Historically the only two nations who (AFAIK) attacked it without a conventional military presence are Tahiti and the United States.
On the other hand that same military presence also makes it a target-rich environment. If you were another hostile Pacific rim power you can't afford to NOT attack. There's no denying probabilities of hostile action go way up. 1941 for example.
But then there's the case of Switzerland. They seem to sit out all the wars despite holding lots of desirable treasure and territory. If Hawaii was to position itself as the Swiss of the Pacific with a strong militia/people's army but a clear mandate to take no sides in international conflict then we'd likely be in a much safer position than we are now.
Exactly. My point. No one knows. The holy grail of predictive analysis is to know exactly what the other organization/person/state will do. Its like trying to predict when the stock market will crash, what sectors will be affected and what sectors wont.
-
Its like trying to predict when the stock market will crash, what sectors will be affected and what sectors wont.
don't go there...
-
What would be the US response if a NK missile "accidentally" landed on Japan or the Philippines?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/North_Korean_missile_launches_over_Japan.svg/500px-North_Korean_missile_launches_over_Japan.svg.png)
Guam is that little dot to the right of the Philippines.
-
It's impossible to prove that Hawaii wouldn't be attacked without military presence. Historically the only two nations who (AFAIK) attacked it without a conventional military presence are Tahiti and the United States.
On the other hand that same military presence also makes it a target-rich environment. If you were another hostile Pacific rim power you can't afford to NOT attack. There's no denying probabilities of hostile action go way up. 1941 for example.
But then there's the case of Switzerland. They seem to sit out all the wars despite holding lots of desirable treasure and territory. If Hawaii was to position itself as the Swiss of the Pacific with a strong militia/people's army but a clear mandate to take no sides in international conflict then we'd likely be in a much safer position than we are now.
Argentina attacked unarmed Falklands.
If Hawaii wasn't part of the USA, e.g. Kingdom of Hawaii instead, then The 2nd Amendment wouldn't be relevant in Hawaii, and Kingdoms usually aren't fond of armed peasants. and then this website wouldn't be.
separately, seriously, missile interceptors are forward deployed, and operational. I doubt any North Korean land-launched armed missile would ever hit Hawaii, or even Japan. The Israeli's have deployed their "Iron Dome" system, maybe only 90% effective, but that's because they don't bother shooting down the palestinian rockets that are going into farm pastures or wastelands. now, submarine-launched nuke is a different story. and you can count on one hand (maybe) which countries have that capability, and NK isn't one of them.
somebody chose not to shoot down the missiles flying over Japan, perhaps to better evaluate the capabilities of the threat. and they knew it wasn't armed.
-
One of my former bosses used to always say “90% of the time it’s the things you don’t anticipate that will kick your ass”. I’ve found that to be very true in my profession as well as in life in general. Think it fits this case too. But JMHO.
-
It's impossible to prove that Hawaii wouldn't be attacked without military presence. Historically the only two nations who (AFAIK) attacked it without a conventional military presence are Tahiti and the United States.
On the other hand that same military presence also makes it a target-rich environment. If you were another hostile Pacific rim power you can't afford to NOT attack. There's no denying probabilities of hostile action go way up. 1941 for example.
But then there's the case of Switzerland. They seem to sit out all the wars despite holding lots of desirable treasure and territory. If Hawaii was to position itself as the Swiss of the Pacific with a strong militia/people's army but a clear mandate to take no sides in international conflict then we'd likely be in a much safer position than we are now.
Um, Switzerland? They may remain neutral, but they are FAR from not having a military. They have conscription, the military are required to keep their issued weapons at home in case there's a call-up of forces, and they have some of the most sophisticated weaponry in the European theater for defense.
During WWII, they shot down aircraft on both the Axis and Allied Forces sides to defend their neutrality. They avoided hostilities from Germany by developing a significant financial relationship with them.
Neutral doesn't mean helpless. If military assets equals primary target, then Switzerland is the antithesis of your theory.
-
I do not have any great love for Oahu.
I live on an outer island and frankly despise
the tyrants of Oahu. The Norks would not nuke
Honolulu because it would be a favor
to the rest of Hawaii.
The day of the warning I opened up a
beer and kissed my wife. I had no fear.
I'm probably the only guy on this site that
every touched a nuclear weapon BTW.
-
I do not have any great love for Oahu.
I live on an outer island and frankly despise
the tyrants of Oahu. The Norks would not nuke
Honolulu because it would be a favor
to the rest of Hawaii.
The day of the warning I opened up a
beer and kissed my wife. I had no fear.
I'm probably the only guy on this site that
every touched a nuclear weapon BTW.
It's not the button pushers who have the power. It's the people who have the authority to order the launch.
-
nah, I think the Kingdom of Hawaii would entertain offers from Russia, China, UK, USA, and see who gave them the best deal, whole package deal: trade, debt, security, manufacturing. Look at the Philippines, sucking up to Mother Russia when they don't get what they want from Uncle Sam.
looking at modern history, I think the Russians and the Chinese usually present the best offer and window dressing to underdeveloped countries, look at how much chinese presence there is now in Africa, selling their cell phone infrastructure. and this being 2aHawaii, it'd be AK-47's, full-auto, in every household. maybe even RPG's. just a question of whether it's genuine Kalashnikov, or Norinco.
heck, Kingdom of Hawaii might even try to get their own nuke missiles, like Iran, NK, just for bargaining chips. but they better not have that same dumbshit govt civil service lifer manning The Button.
Could have not said it better than myself.
-
But according to our resident expert in other threads, Hawaii won't want all that military or nukes, because a disarmed territory is a safer territory.
I have no problem with the military, except if it is the US military which will put the people living in Hawaii in the nuclear sights of other nations.
However, should the US legally allow for the restoration of the Hawaiian nation, then of course Hawaii should have its own military as you shared Switzerland does and maybe access to some strategic missile deterrent. The only difference would be that a sovereign Hawaii has historically never or would seek to have any quarrel with the DPRK, Russia, or China.
-
Depends on their objective. A show of force and resolve could be their goal. Then they would threaten more strikes, this time on the mainland, if whatever demands they have aren't met.
Where is Ren to demand proof of your statements?
I do agree with your assessment BTW.
-
I have no intel on the matter, but in my opinion, Hawaii would be a prime target because we are 1 of 50 states and hitting an actual state would send more of a message than hitting a territory (am.samoa, guam, etc...). We are also the closest to NK compared to Cali or any other state with the most populated areas vs. Alaska that has hundreds of miles of open land. And our resources are limited since we are in the middle of an ocean, so the after blast effects would be more harmful. Compared to a west coast state where they can just drive help in from across the nation.
All true, but did you forget to add Hawaii's large US military presence that makes it an undeniably tempting strategic target, which also contributes to Hawaii being a prime target?
-
Some would say that Japan wouldn't have attacked Hawaii if the US had no presence on the island because the King had a treaty with Japan. I speculate that Japan would have invaded regardless because of the island's close location to the west coast. Regardless of what's on the island, Hawaii is the vanguard to the Pacific.
I agree they would have motivations to do so; however, only if they completed their strategic desire to conquer China and secure the rest of SE Asia first, which obviously they never did nor would they ever succeed due to the manpower it would require that they did not have.
-
Where is Ren to demand proof of your statements?
I do agree with your assessment BTW.
You let Ren live Rent-free in your head? So nice of you! :thumbsup:
-
Saying that a foreign country wouldn’t attack Hawaii if the US military wasn’t here, is similar as saying that a robber wouldn’t hit a house because the homeowner wasn’t armed. Hawaii is a valuable as a strategic asset because of its geographic location in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. If it’s wasn’t, it’s economy would be as developed as the other island chains in the Pacific Ocean.
Bad analogy since the goals of your example are entirely different.
For a robber, they are after the perceived wealth that a homeowner possesses and will target those who can not defend themselves. In the case of war between nations, at least two of the major goals of war is to primarily defeat the other side's military forces and prevent the natural resources their adversary needs to continue the war. Hawaii has at least of one of those two things I mentioned.
Unarmed Hawaii = easy, but debatable, target for a foreign nation.
Hawaii with a military presence = not so easy a target, but a guaranteed target of foreign nations resulting in immeasurable local casualties.
If the US military wasn’t here, it would be another nation that would see that and eventually claim it.
Though possible, it is still pure speculation in the 21st century. Unlike Ren though, I am not going to demand you to cite your sources that you base your position.
-
However, should the US legally allow for the restoration of the Hawaiian nation, then of course Hawaii should have its own military as you shared Switzerland does and maybe access to some strategic missile deterrent. The only difference would be that a sovereign Hawaii has historically never or would seek to have any quarrel with the DPRK, Russia, or China.
And there it is. That’s a whole different topic, but one that is no doubt sensitive and contentious, but where I believed you were coming from.
Is your feeling that if the military had a smaller (to no) foot print in Hawaii that would facilitate the path to restoration of the Hawaiian Nation? Or is it truly driven by fears nuclear targeting?
-
I do not have any great love for Oahu.
I live on an outer island and frankly despise
the tyrants of Oahu. The Norks would not nuke
Honolulu because it would be a favor
to the rest of Hawaii.
The day of the warning I opened up a
beer and kissed my wife. I had no fear.
I'm probably the only guy on this site that
every touched a nuclear weapon BTW.
You believe the rest of the island chain would be better without Oahu? Interesting.
-
Neutral doesn't mean helpless. If military assets equals primary target, then Switzerland is the antithesis of your theory.
Not sure who you are disagreeing with but it isn't me. As someone who has probably a little too much firepower at home I definitely understand the importance of being ready and willing to use lethal force if necessary. But I also don't go around trying to pick fights like a belligerent idiot and try using this thing called DIPLOMACY to solve my problems first.
-
Is your feeling that if the military had a smaller (to no) foot print in Hawaii that would facilitate the path to restoration of the Hawaiian Nation? Or is it truly driven by fears nuclear targeting?
Although there are some who can accept the fear and potential nuclear destruction of themselves and their love ones, as a result of the strong US military presence in Hawaii, I am one of the many thousands that I believe share and live in constant fear of nuclear attack, due to the afore mentioned as well as political leaders who lack the common sense to work towards relocating the US military presence elsewhere, in an effort to keep its citizens out of harms way, no matter the cost.
Given the events on Saturday, wouldn't that be a strong campaign platform for a candidate for Governor of Hawaii?
-
Although there are some who can accept the fear and potential nuclear destruction of themselves and their love ones, as a result of the strong US military presence in Hawaii, I am one of the many thousands that I believe share and live in constant fear of nuclear attack, due to the afore mentioned as well as political leaders who lack the common sense to work towards relocating the US military presence elsewhere, in an effort to keep its citizens out of harms way, no matter the cost.
Given the events on Saturday, wouldn't that be a strong campaign platform for a candidate for Governor of Hawaii?
Ok. Noted. Thank you for the feedback.
One more thing. You mention living “in constant fear or nuclear attack”, but have also mentioned terrorism as a boogieman belief. Why do you feel terrorism is such a far fetched threat versus attack via nuclear ballistic missile? Again, just trying to understand your line of thinking.
Personally, I view terrorism (such as sporting or entertainment event) as having a higher probability. No data to offer or anything like that. Just MHO.
-
Although there are some who can accept the fear and potential nuclear destruction of themselves and their love ones, as a result of the strong US military presence in Hawaii, I am one of the many thousands that I believe share and live in constant fear of nuclear attack, due to the afore mentioned as well as political leaders who lack the common sense to work towards relocating the US military presence elsewhere, in an effort to keep its citizens out of harms way, no matter the cost.
Given the events on Saturday, wouldn't that be a strong campaign platform for a candidate for Governor of Hawaii?
(https://dncache-mauganscorp.netdna-ssl.com/thumbseg/1160/1160711-bigthumbnail.jpg)
We should all give up all our firearms, because that just makes us a target. Better to just let criminals have their way with no resistance. It's much safer.... ::)
-
(https://dncache-mauganscorp.netdna-ssl.com/thumbseg/1160/1160711-bigthumbnail.jpg)
We should all give up all our firearms, because that just makes us a target. Better to just let criminals have their way with no resistance. It's much safer.... ::)
We need a guinea pig to test that theory...How about an unarmed person against a rabies infected bear?
-
One more thing. You mention living “in constant fear or nuclear attack”, but have also mentioned terrorism as a boogieman belief. Why do you feel terrorism is such a far fetched threat versus attack via nuclear ballistic missile? Again, just trying to understand your line of thinking.
Personally, I view terrorism (such as sporting or entertainment event) as having a higher probability. No data to offer or anything like that. Just MHO.
I did not say the threat of terrorism is not real. I merely shared how I am more afraid of some nation state launching a nuclear missile that no one person living in Hawaii can do anything about, except wait for death, versus a non-nuclear/biological/chemical terrorist attack where there are things normal citizens can do to be on the look-out for and/or take appropriate action to defend oneself.
-
(https://dncache-mauganscorp.netdna-ssl.com/thumbseg/1160/1160711-bigthumbnail.jpg)
We should all give up all our firearms, because that just makes us a target. Better to just let criminals have their way with no resistance. It's much safer.... ::)
Why do you think having a smaller US military presence in Hawaii equates with a decline in the US military's overall capabilities?
The national security of the US does not primarily hinge on the amount of military it stations in Hawaii. The US has more oversea military bases than any other nation on this planet. I seriously think you maybe overvaluing Hawaii's military significance in America's overall military strategy.
Moreover, let's not forget that America has a bigger nuclear button than anybody else that does not depend on whether Hawaii gets destroyed or not. And that is the problem for people living in Hawaii.
-
Why do you think having a smaller US military presence in Hawaii equates with a decline in the US military's overall capabilities?
The national security of the US does not primarily hinge on the amount of military it stations in Hawaii. The US has more oversea military bases than any other nation on this planet. I seriously think you maybe overvaluing Hawaii's military significance in America's overall military strategy.
Moreover, let's not forget that America has a bigger nuclear button than anybody else that does not depend on whether Hawaii gets destroyed or not. And that is the problem for people living in Hawaii.
Removing US military presence from Hawaii will weaken our security AND devastate the economy. My comment stands.
-
Removing US military presence from Hawaii will weaken our security AND devastate the economy. My comment stands.
Whose overall security Hawaii's or the US Mainland?
As for Hawaii's economy, I can introduce you to a bunch of realtors and entrepreneurs who would love to develop and commercialize the lands currently being utilized by the US military here in Hawaii.
-
Whose overall security Hawaii's or the US Mainland?
As for Hawaii's economy, I can introduce you to a bunch of realtors and entrepreneurs who would love to develop and commercialize the lands currently being utilized by the US military here in Hawaii.
If that where the case that CERTAINLY would not be to the benefit of Hawaii's citizens and local people.
Have you seen what has become of Barbers Point NAS after being turned over to the state, entrepreneurs, and developers? If you want to go take a look, don't go after dark without sufficient self defense tools.
-
If that where the case that CERTAINLY would not be to the benefit of Hawaii's citizens and local people.
Have you seen what has become of Barbers Point NAS after being turned over to the state, entrepreneurs, and developers? If you want to go take a look, don't go after dark without sufficient self defense tools.
Barbers NAS is currently a sh!thole
-
I did not say the threat of terrorism is not real. I merely shared how I am more afraid of some nation state launching a nuclear missile that no one person living in Hawaii can do anything about, except wait for death, versus a non-nuclear/biological/chemical terrorist attack where there are things normal citizens can do to be on the look-out for and/or take appropriate action to defend oneself.
Thats naive.
If I were in the towers on 9/11 I couldnt defend myself unless I could get a Stinger
-
(https://i.imgur.com/HbdHu1B.jpg?1)
-
I did not say the threat of terrorism is not real. I merely shared how I am more afraid of some nation state launching a nuclear missile that no one person living in Hawaii can do anything about, except wait for death, versus a where there are things normal citizens can do to be on the look-out for and/or take appropriate action to defend oneself.
While the loss of life of in a “non-nuclear/biological/chemical terrorist attack” is likely to be much less than in a nuclear missile, the idea that one can defend yourself against the attack is an illusion.
Please explain how you would have defended yourself in attacks like the sarin attack on the subway in Japan. Or even in the Las Vegas shooting.
Yes, we take steps to prevent mass casualties. However, most measures are reactive as opposed to proactive. That said, I’m not saying to cower from the terrorist threat boogieman or that nuclear missile threat isn’t realistic.
-
Please explain how you would have defended yourself in attacks like the sarin attack on the subway in Japan.
The sarin attack in Japan was a chemical attack, which leave very little one can do.
Or even in the Las Vegas shooting.
For an open area entertainment event in Las Vegas, like many in this forum, proper situational awareness, like scanning for places where a mass shooter would most likely place themselves. I am no means an expert, but also knowing avenues of escape, areas of cover and concealment, and shadow zones, if at night, and etc.
-
For North Korea I think Hawaii would be higher on a list of targets since it is a stepping stone if we were to attack them. Not the top target but maybe top 5. However if it were another country like China or Russia then I don't think they would nuke Hawaii because an irradiated Hawaii would be useless to them as a stepping stone.
-
Yet more reason to rethink having such a large military presence in Hawaii.
Please see https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/us/politics/missile-launch-test-failed.html
First, incompetent incoming missile warning system.
Now, suspect missile defense designed to protect Hawaii from incoming ballistic missiles.
Well, at least most of the military personnel will be spared the destruction in their already constructed bomb shelters. For the rest of the civilian population, however, I guess we have to just wait for the end.
-
Yet more reason to rethink having such a large military presence in Hawaii.
Please see https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/us/politics/missile-launch-test-failed.html
First, incompetent incoming missile warning system.
Now, suspect missile defense designed to protect Hawaii from incoming ballistic missiles.
Well, at least most of the military personnel will be spared the destruction in their already constructed bomb shelters. For the rest of the civilian population, however, I guess we have to just wait for the end.
I got lotsa room in my shelter. :thumbsup:
-
I got lotsa room in my shelter. :thumbsup:
Great, I hope you make room for the 1,000,000 or so of us top side. :shaka:
-
Great, I hope you make room for the 1,000,000 or so of us top side. :shaka:
:thumbsup:
-
Yet more reason to rethink having such a large military presence in Hawaii.
Please see https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/us/politics/missile-launch-test-failed.html
First, incompetent incoming missile warning system.
Now, suspect missile defense designed to protect Hawaii from incoming ballistic missiles.
Well, at least most of the military personnel will be spared the destruction in their already constructed bomb shelters. For the rest of the civilian population, however, I guess we have to just wait for the end.
I'm not sure what high-tech, large projects you've worked on, but just because it didn't hit the target doesn't mean it was a failure.
Tests are not supposed to demonstrate capability as much as gather data. If they found several procedures that did not provide the expected results, it was a successful test.
Now they are analyzing the data and reviewing the design, operations and other factors that were unexpected. That's going to lead to changes and improvements that eventually produce a better overall defense system.
If we only cared that the missile was hit, we may not notice or identify system problems until it really counts in a live launch.
Complex systems can't be created with perfection. Cost would not allow it, not to mention the fact humans are not infallible. We get the high priority requirements working, and hope the rest are really lower than those. Hence, the need to do a good job testing.