Since when did "America having to fall" become  determining factor or even relevance to the threat that NK could launch an attack on Hawaii?  Is not the threat itself enough? 

And there are many more threats than "brute force" damage" to be wary of.

much like global warming
global cooling
climate change

That's the scope of things,  in fact perfectly pertains to this.  Climate change affects the whole world.  NK nuking a tiny part of hawaii doesn't. 

There's the problem right there!!!   

He doesn't care about anyone but himself. I wonder if he is a millennial?

I wish I was that young.  I'm just speaking from statistical odds I am trying to carry no emotion into this. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/sep/09/north-korea-nuclear-test-suspected-after-huge-seismic-explosion-detected-live
South Korea said the explosion at 9am local time (1.30am BST) was the biggest of the North’s five tests so far with a yield of 10 kilotonnes.
The explosion was recorded as a 5.3 magnitude seismic event by monitors in the US, Japan, China and Europe.

http://www.atomicheritage.org/history/little-boy-and-fat-man
About half the power of the nukes we used in ww2 against japan....utterly weak.

North koreas missiles
http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/north-korea/delivery-systems/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-17399847

Many failures,  They are many decades behind the rest of the world.  With almost no proof of accuracy.

http://38north.org/
John Shilling, an aerospace engineer who writes for 38north.org, a North Korea-watcher website, questioned the real abilities of North Korea's arsenal. The Musudan could only make it to Guam, but it "barely works, exploding in seven out of eight tests so far," he said. Others, the "KN-08" and the "KN-14," have not been tested – only paraded as mock-ups. That threat, he said, is years out.

Thank you for your response.   

I will take a look when I have more time to review closer. 

Good luck with that!!! 

Actually, I didn't want to tell him but his position was very similar to my position 10 years ago. I have changed my position a bit because a lot can and has changed in 10 years. But I am not here trying to tell everyone I KNOW FOR A FACT what NK is capable of. I have opinions and I have not been too quick to say anything. Mostly because I am not an expert. And while I know what I feel, I can certainly be wrong (and probably am wrong).

All of this started because I posted an article that contradicted his belief system. And when he feebly tried to tear it apart I just asked him to tell me what his qualifications are that makes him an expert in this field. That is when he started a one man argument towards me. Assuming he knows my position on this subject and putting words into my mouth. He was assuming my opinion was that of the article I posted. It is just his tone and demeanor like he knows it all and he is better than everyone else that prompted me to push him for his qualifications. If he is the real deal I'll bite. But so far he has said nada about what his qualifications are. But of course we know what they are....

I prefer my movie popcorn with light butter and heavy salt. In the biggest bag I can buy. 

I don't know for any facts nor am I even close to an expert on the matter.  Through indirect involvement with certain programs, I had the opportunity to attend security and threat related briefings.  I will just say that it was eye opening, if even a fraction of what was discussed were to become reality.  Yeah, the chances that any of them becoming a reality is low, but if any do, the impact is VERY high.  One can also say that in general, it's the things you don't see coming that will kick your ass.  As I mentioned previously, of course it is fun to speculate, but when people start holding such a "solid" stance based on beliefs and not facts, that's not an argument that will generally go anywhere near agreement. 

Casualties of the Pearl Harbor Attack:

AMERICAN CASUALTIES:

4 battleships sunk
4 battleships damaged
2 other ships sunk
3 cruisers damaged
3 destroyers damaged
3 other ships damaged
188 aircraft destroyed
159 aircraft damaged
2,403 killed
1,178 wounded

JAPANESE CASUALTIES:

4 midget submarines sunk
1 midget submarine grounded
29 aircraft destroyed
64 killed
1 sailor captured

CIVILIAN CASUALTIES:

68 killed
35 wounded
3 aircraft shot down

Point being? 

There were 470,000 people living in hawaii according to (http://ww2db.com/country/hawaii)
2403 + 68 = 2471 people died in the attack
You had a 0.005 chance to die that day. 

Point being? 

There were 470,000 people living in hawaii according to (http://ww2db.com/country/hawaii)
2403 + 68 = 2471 people died in the attack
You had a 0.005 chance to die that day.

This is not an exercise in relativity.  It's about the level of destruction that can be, and was, obtained on certain targets.

Stop trying to disguise your obviously losing argument by using percentages.  That's totally dishonest.

I don't know for any facts nor am I even close to an expert on the matter.  Through indirect involvement with certain programs, I had the opportunity to attend security and threat related briefings.  I will just say that it was eye opening, if even a fraction of what was discussed were to become reality.  Yeah, the chances that any of them becoming a reality is low, but if any do, the impact is VERY high.  One can also say that in general, it's the things you don't see coming that will kick your ass.  As I mentioned previously, of course it is fun to speculate, but when people start holding such a "solid" stance based on beliefs and not facts, that's not an argument that will generally go anywhere near agreement.

I'm just saying statistically we have basically nothing to worry about.  If somehow it did happen in the average scenario we still don't have all that much to worry about.  Now in an utter worse case scenario maybe...maybe we have something to worry about but at that point we can also just fear nukes from china,  or meteorites or super volcanoes, etc. Now i don't have secret information like maybe you do, but since i don't have it and can't get it I can't currently chance my opinions. 

This is not an exercise in relativity.  It's about the level of destruction that can be, and was, obtained on certain targets.

Stop trying to disguise your obviously losing argument by using percentages.  That's totally dishonest.

Yes that is the whole point of this....Sure destruction could happen, people will die.  But what you have been saying is that it will ruin us.  It won't.  We recovered from that attack very quickly and went on with our lives soon after.   Everyone on the island didn't die.  All the buildings didn't fall oahu wasn't doomed.  Hating science is the first sign of losing an argument.  When you can't argue based on statistics and math that's just plain emotion.

I'm just saying statistically we have basically nothing to worry about.  If somehow it did happen in the average scenario we still don't have all that much to worry about.  Now in an utter worse case scenario maybe...maybe we have something to worry about but at that point we can also just fear nukes from china,  or meteorites or super volcanoes, etc. Now i don't have secret information like maybe you do, but since i don't have it and can't get it I can't currently chance my opinions.

Is this something I worry about on a day to day basis?  Nope, not even close.  That said, to say that NK isn't a threat to be concerned about is shortsighted.  At least IMO. 

Regarding available information.  To be honest, that's also a lot of speculation as well.  It's great to have opinions, and we all do.  Just that you, and others, seem so set on your opinions based on beliefs and I was just pointing out that that is a recipe for arguments that are somewhat equivalent to emotional arguments as to Ford or Chevy. 

I don't know for any facts nor am I even close to an expert on the matter.  Through indirect involvement with certain programs, I had the opportunity to attend security and threat related briefings.  I will just say that it was eye opening, if even a fraction of what was discussed were to become reality.  Yeah, the chances that any of them becoming a reality is low, but if any do, the impact is VERY high.  One can also say that in general, it's the things you don't see coming that will kick your ass.

I have a neighbor who claims to be intimately involved in emergency preparedness for Oahu. She basically said exactly everything you stated here. What she kept stressing to me is that it won't take much for us to run out of food. She said a week is optimistic. And the real problem will start in 2-3 days. If our major port is nuked and America is at war, those civilian merchant ships with food supplies are not going to want to sail into a war zone or any where near ground zero. That was one scenario she talked about. It gets worse if we don't have electricity. Which means water becomes a problem. Things start cascading from there. Because water can get contaminated easily with radiation people are going to die from poisoning. So I asked her what about the military and the bases here. She basically said the military won't help us because their job is to protect us. So we can starve to death while they are keeping the hoards from invading.

As I mentioned previously, of course it is fun to speculate, but when people start holding such a "solid" stance based on beliefs and not facts, that's not an argument that will generally go anywhere near agreement.

That is why I posted the article with a different viewpoint about this subject. I mean, let's have a discussion about the different aspects of things. It just gets bad when "facts" are thrown around as proof one is right and everyone who disagrees is wrong. Sounds like a Democrat to me!!! 

Yes that is the whole point of this....Sure destruction could happen, people will die.  But what you have been saying is that it will ruin us.  It won't.  We recovered from that attack very quickly and went on with our lives soon after.   Everyone on the island didn't die.  All the buildings didn't fall oahu wasn't doomed.  Hating science is the first sign of losing an argument.  When you can't argue based on statistics and math that's just plain emotion.

Show me where I said "it would ruin us."  I never said any such thing.

Will you ever learn to stop putting words in other people's comments?

I have a neighbor who claims to be intimately involved in emergency preparedness for Oahu. She basically said exactly everything you stated here. What she kept stressing to me is that it won't take much for us to run out of food. She said a week is optimistic. And the real problem will start in 2-3 days. If our major port is nuked and America is at war, those civilian merchant ships with food supplies are not going to want to sail into a war zone or any where near ground zero. That was one scenario she talked about. It gets worse if we don't have electricity. Which means water becomes a problem. Things start cascading from there. Because water can get contaminated easily with radiation people are going to die from poisoning. So I asked her what about the military and the bases here. She basically said the military won't help us because their job is to protect us. So we can starve to death while they are keeping the hoards from invading.
That is why I posted the article with a different viewpoint about this subject. I mean, let's have a discussion about the different aspects of things. It just gets bad when "facts" are thrown around as proof one is right and everyone who disagrees is wrong. Sounds like a Democrat to me!!! 

As long as Oahu is ground zero I don't give a darn.  The death of Democrats do not diminish me, in fact it improves my lifestyle.
I can survive just fine without the entire Democrat and union state.  I don't need Democrats.   I certainly  am prepared because
today's Democrats are more scary than the worst thing humanity has ever produced.  I have prepared for Democrats and war.
Yes the Military will let you Democrats starve, after all Democrats have been starving and abusing them for the last 8 years. 
I swore to uphold the Constitution,  that oath is for life,  Democrats piss on it and seek to destroy it.   I did not swear to protect
the Democrat enemies of that constitution.

North Korean Defector Tells Lester Holt ‘World Should be Ready’

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/north-korean-defector-tells-lester-holt-world-should-be-ready-n741901

A senior North Korean defector has told NBC News that the country's "desperate" dictator is prepared to use nuclear weapons to strike the United States and its allies.

Thae Yong Ho is the most high profile North Korean defector in two decades, meaning he is able to give a rare insight into the secretive, authoritarian regime.

According to Thae, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un is "desperate in maintaining his rule by relying on his [development of] nuclear weapons and ICBM." He was using an acronym for intercontinental ballistic missiles — a long range rocket that in theory would be capable of hitting the U.S.

Or if you don't want to give NBC a click:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/03/north-korean-leader-kim-jong-un-desperate-ready-to-strike-us-defector-says.html

[Has autoplay 4 minute video interview with American analyst.]

I have a neighbor who claims to be intimately involved in emergency preparedness for Oahu. She basically said exactly everything you stated here. What she kept stressing to me is that it won't take much for us to run out of food. She said a week is optimistic. And the real problem will start in 2-3 days. If our major port is nuked and America is at war, those civilian merchant ships with food supplies are not going to want to sail into a war zone or any where near ground zero. That was one scenario she talked about. It gets worse if we don't have electricity. Which means water becomes a problem. Things start cascading from there. Because water can get contaminated easily with radiation people are going to die from poisoning. So I asked her what about the military and the bases here. She basically said the military won't help us because their job is to protect us. So we can starve to death while they are keeping the hoards from invading.

That is why I posted the article with a different viewpoint about this subject. I mean, let's have a discussion about the different aspects of things. It just gets bad when "facts" are thrown around as proof one is right and everyone who disagrees is wrong. Sounds like a Democrat to me!!! 

Hawaii's isolation does have it's pros and cons in situations like emergency preparedness.  Location in the Pacific is also a key consideration as well.  It's no secret that there has been a lot of focus on the Pacific region and more so in the past 5 years for sure.  I know that's keeping me busy for sure during that time period. 

Yup.  Hawaii's situation is quite delicate.  There's also so many with the "ainokea" attitude that I assume will depend on taking from those to did take the time to care and prepare, but without adequate means, motivation, etc to protect what they have. 

As for the military helping?  I am not positive either way.  I do know that they have helped with disaster recovery in places like Guam and other remote locations.  However, those were in the case of natural disaster (massive typhoon) and not attack.  While I assume the military will place a priority on maintaining operations and mission, I would have to believe that they will be at the forefront of disaster relief.  That is one of their missions in the Pacific region for sure.  However, what that relief is, when it comes, will it be enough, etc is surely anyone's guess.  Even in my organization, we have a group for contingency engineering and one of the main focus areas is disaster relief. 

Hawaii's isolation does have it's pros and cons in situations like emergency preparedness.  Location in the Pacific is also a key consideration as well.  It's no secret that there has been a lot of focus on the Pacific region and more so in the past 5 years for sure.  I know that's keeping me busy for sure during that time period. 

Yup.  Hawaii's situation is quite delicate.  There's also so many with the "ainokea" attitude that I assume will depend on taking from those to did take the time to care and prepare, but without adequate means, motivation, etc to protect what they have. 

As for the military helping?  I am not positive either way.  I do know that they have helped with disaster recovery in places like Guam and other remote locations.  However, those were in the case of natural disaster (massive typhoon) and not attack.  While I assume the military will place a priority on maintaining operations and mission, I would have to believe that they will be at the forefront of disaster relief.  That is one of their missions in the Pacific region for sure.  However, what that relief is, when it comes, will it be enough, etc is surely anyone's guess.  Even in my organization, we have a group for contingency engineering and one of the main focus areas is disaster relief.

HI based military assets assisted in the Fukushima event and wouldn't be surprised that "unofficially" assets are still being used to assist in the Fukushima decon in 2017.  However if the bases are hit during an attack, probably couldn't count on their help for a while.  With any disaster, nuke or hurricane, I will bet the state asks for military support in the form of using naval vessels aka "former ferries" to bring aid to outer islands.   USS Guam and USS Puerto Rico formerly Huakai and Alakai to the rescue after Ige begs for help.  We all know the real reason the Hawaii Superferry went down was because it was promoted by a republican.  If Cayetano had pushed this, it would still be running today.  To me these vessels would have been the best and fastest way to get goods and supplies to our islands.   Wouldn't be surprised if Ige was one of the Superferry's opponents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Guam_(HST-1)

HI based military assets assisted in the Fukushima event and wouldn't be surprised that "unofficially" assets are still being used to assist in the Fukushima decon in 2017.  However if the bases are hit during an attack, probably couldn't count on their help for a while.  With any disaster, nuke or hurricane, I will bet the state asks for military support in the form of using naval vessels aka "former ferries" to bring aid to outer islands.   USS Guam and USS Puerto Rico formerly Huakai and Alakai to the rescue after Ige begs for help.  We all know the real reason the Hawaii Superferry went down was because it was promoted by a republican.  If Cayetano had pushed this, it would still be running today.  To me these vessels would have been the best and fastest way to get goods and supplies to our islands.   Wouldn't be surprised if Ige was one of the Superferry's opponents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Guam_(HST-1)

I was involved in "home office" support for some of that effort.  Mostly running some numbers as well as problem solving some unique situations.  That's the thing with disaster situations, you're having to overcome a number of different scenarios that are not typically encountered in day to day life.  Like simply routing a fuel line to support construction equipment because most of the roads are impassible. 

Yeah, if disaster or attack affects a base directly, their priority is going to be on their operations and mission.  Once that is set, then the humanitarian assistance becomes available.  That's not to say that the military won't help right away, just don't count on it right away. 

North Korea fires missile into sea off east coast: South Korea

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-idUSKBN1762XX

As for the military helping?  I am not positive either way.  I do know that they have helped with disaster recovery in places like Guam and other remote locations.  However, those were in the case of natural disaster (massive typhoon) and not attack.  While I assume the military will place a priority on maintaining operations and mission, I would have to believe that they will be at the forefront of disaster relief.  That is one of their missions in the Pacific region for sure.  However, what that relief is, when it comes, will it be enough, etc is surely anyone's guess.  Even in my organization, we have a group for contingency engineering and one of the main focus areas is disaster relief.

There are some pretty specific conditions that have to be met for federal military forces to assist with domestic disaster relief/consequence management.  Their first priority is going to be "inside the gate," protecting/maintaining mission capability...  That means taking care of the base, the soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines, and their equipment. 

A commander can also invoke "immediate response authority" in order to "save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage within the United States." 

Primary response to an emergency within the U.S. is tiered, and starts with local authorities (City and County).  When the situation requires capabilities that local authorities can't provide, they ask the state for help.  The state responds to the extent of their capability (to include using the National Guard when civilian response capabilities have been exhausted).  When the state runs out of Schlitz, they request help from the Fed.  Federal response starts with civilian responders (e.g., FEMA), and federal military forces participate only when the situation calls for capabilities unique to the military and on a "last in, first out" basis.

And they have to get reimbursed for everything they do...

Coast Guard is a little different, in that they have a designated domestic role, and they can participate in law enforcement (which federal military normally can't).

The Fukushima incident is foreign humanitarian assistance/disaster relief, and falls under a whole different ruleset...

haha
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4399076/China-deploys-150-000-troops-North-Korea-border.html

haha
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4399076/China-deploys-150-000-troops-North-Korea-border.html

Why do you say that?

Or are you simply trolling?