Hide behind your car? This'd be funny if it weren't so stupid. The government "authorities" should just admit "If we're attacked my nukes of sufficient power and accuracy most people are gonna die and there's not a damn thing we can do about it. And the following days and weeks will be really really ugly."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/02/hawaii-preparation-for-north-korea-nuke-attack-far-from-complete.html

Hawaii preparation for North Korea nuke attack far from complete

Kailua, a beach community on the Hawaiian island of Oahu, has everything that residents and visitors could want from a tropical paradise: exquisite beaches, crystal clear water and modern amenities. No wonder it now boasts nearly 55,000 residents and thousands of yearly tourists, including the Obamas.

But one thing this paradise doesn’t have is an adequate number of fallout shelters – there are only three with enough room for 235 people -- in case North Korea launches an intercontinental ballistic missile or nuclear attack.

People who are home or in a building that is not close to a designated shelter should go to a basement, the center of the structure or behind concrete or a dirt mound, anything with density. Anyone stuck on the freeway should pull over and get behind their car.

Instead of worrying whether Hawaii can defend itself from a nuclear missile attack, why are not people realizing the reasons as to why Hawaii is a top five target for destruction and make the correct decision, accordingly?

HINT: Have the US military take all of its assets and relocate themselves on another island.  I am sure the military industrial complex will love the multi-billion dollar contracts that project would entail and the residents of Hawaii could live without fear of nuclear annihilation.

Kuleana

I for one love the military here.

you like seamen?
 

That would ruin our local economy AND cost the federal government billions maybe even a trillion long term.  Which we would end up paying for.... I for one love the military here.

How would it ruin Hawaii's local economy and cost the federal government billions or trillions of dollars in the long-term, if the US military decided to base its operations on another island?

Kuleana

Ruin is a strong term.  The military presence in Hawaii qualifies the state for additional funds to support the infrastructure and services used by service members, federal civilian employees, spouses and children.

Ruin was a term used by Omnigun.


That money would have to be reinvested on the outer island/s where the military is relocated.  Schools. housing, roads, utilities, and other infrastructure would need to be increased/improved there.  That may also include the local airport/s.

Not if they were to move on another island not currently inhabited by people.


Military bases would need to be moved and built there, but I can't imagine Pearl Harbor's assets relocating.  The Harbor is where it is for a reason.

Who says the US can not build its own harbors elsewhere in the Pacific Rim.  If China can build artificial harbors in the South China Sea, so can the US, anywhere.


No matter what, the income presently spent by the military on Oahu would shift to another island/s.

If the US military decides to leave its current location in Hawaii, there is always commerce and money to be made in the lands vacated by them.


Kuleana

Not if they were to move on another island not currently inhabited by people.

How many islands are not currently inhabited by people?  How many of those are capable of being inhabited by people?

It sounds like you expect the military and their families to live in tents and grow their own food.

How would it ruin Hawaii's local economy and cost the federal government billions or trillions of dollars in the long-term, if the US military decided to base its operations on another island?

Kuleana

There are many uninhabited islands in the Pacific archipelago capable of sustaining life supplemented by provisions shipped from the continental US, no different for the military in Hawaii.

As for military families, who said the federal government is obligated to build living quarters for their spouses and families serving overseas?

Kuleana

There are many uninhabited islands in the Pacific archipelago capable of sustaining life supplemented by provisions shipped from the continental US, no different for the military in Hawaii.

As for military families, who said the federal government is obligated to build living quarters for their spouses and families serving overseas?


Kuleana

Well for one building a base isn't cheap.  You know how much it would cost to build a whole harbor, airfields, housing and other necessities?  Probably a trillion dollars or more over 10 years.   As for the economy the US government through the military pumps billions into Hawaii every year.  Not only that tens of thousands of people are employed or connected to the military.  That would mean all those people now have no jobs and are forced to move if the want.  So if they have spouses or kids they have to leave too.  All this unemployment would utterly wreck the local economy.  We can't live off tourism alone, we don't export much products so we need money coming in.

Your assessment is valid if your ideal economic base for Hawaii is to primarily rely on military spending.  I do not subscribe to such narrow economic views.  Hawaii can diversify its economy into anything it wants with respect to its cost curves.  Hawaii's economy will not crash just because the military and its families decide to leave Hawaii.  There are many sharp business people in Hawaii who can and would find ways to offset the local GDP lost by an exodus of the US military.


Do you even understand logistics of supply lanes?  This new "island"  would have to have dedicated ships and planes to supply.  No longer can you batch items for the local population cause there is none on undeveloped islands.  You start from scratch.  As for china building islands they are spending huge amounts of money and those bases are not even 1/100th of the size of oahus.

So what's your point?


Now after that you have to find an island large enough for 20k people and build houses and entertainment for them.  Its not simple....

The military is there to serve, not be served.


The military is indeed obligated to provide food and shelter for the families of its soldiers...do you want half of your new island to be homeless?  And all the kids to not go to school?

Like I mentioned earlier, the federal government may be obliged to provide for the families of military personnel, but that does not mean they have to accompany them on every deployment or overseas assignment.


Kuleana

The topic of accompanied versus unaccompanied remote tours is too complicated to try and explain in writing to someone who doesn't understand how any of it works.

As for the 130 islands and rocks in the Hawaiian chain, logistics is a major issue.  We can't arbitrarily move military bases to remote locations without necessary supply lines to support day-to-day missions.  The added complications and delays would be cost-prohibitive.

All true, but what it comes down to is this: Hawaii is a top five target for destruction should WWIII begin due to the military footprint on the islands.

The question is: do people living in Hawaii want to live under those conditions?

Many on this forum like myself lived in Hawaii during the Cold War.  When those monthly civil defense sirens went off on every month, everyone prayed that it was either a test, a hurricane, or tsunami.  If it was neither of those things, we all had approximately 30 minutes left to live since the only other reason for the sirens were for the warning of a nuclear attack.  When the Cold War ended, we all enjoyed a sigh of relief.  However, with the US adopting an imperialist foreign policy since then, Hawaii has one again become a target for destruction.  No one should live in such a state of fear, especially if it can be avoided.


Kuleana

Why do we constantly wait until it's is almost too late before we do anything around here? 

Hawaii is not a target because it houses military units.

Hawaii houses military units because it is a target.

No, Hawaii has and is still the headquarters of all of the military forces in the Pacific, all orders on a tactical level are routed from Hawaii.  Furthermore, I am confident that Hawaii still has a few land based ICBMs left, not to mention Hawaii is the home port of the US Navy's SLBM fleet.  Consequently, Hawaii remains a vital strategic target that will most likely be eliminated should WWIII begin.


We learned many lessons from the attack.  At any given point in time, a complete fleet of ships is out at sea in the Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean, in transit, or whatever.  Exercises, training, and trips to active humanitarian and military operations keep the fleets busy.  3rd, 5th and 7th Fleets are almost never in the same area of operations.

To attack Pearl expecting the same results as Dec 7, 1941, would be ignorant and impossible.  If we ever have an aircraft carrier in port, it's in transit or participating in RIMPAC.

I agree, but it still does not negate why Hawaii is a top-five strategic target in the Pacific Theater for the reasons listed above.


Kuleana