I am questioning why are our politicians (Both fed and state) just now thinking it would be a good idea to install advanced radar and misses capable of shooting down medium range misses and ICBM's? Would it not have been a good idea to install all of this when it became available? Is it not their duty to protect us the best they can as soon as they can? Why do we constantly wait until it's is almost too late before we do anything around here? 

I am confident that Hawaii still has a few land based ICBMs left
Why do you think, they based so many ICBMs on the islands during the Cold War?

where were/are the ICBMs based?

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.

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

I am questioning why are our politicians (Both fed and state) just now thinking it would be a good idea to install advanced radar and misses capable of shooting down medium range misses and ICBM's? Would it not have been a good idea to install all of this when it became available? Is it not their duty to protect us the best they can as soon as they can? Why do we constantly wait until it's is almost too late before we do anything around here? 

On submarines and stored in Waikele.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

he said land based, not on subs and not stored
to me, land based means in the ground and ready to fire
just looking for clarification, i guess

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.

he said land based, not on subs and not stored
to me, land based means in the ground and ready to fire
just looking for clarification, i guess

Gotcha, I must not have read it all that good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

What?  We don't have factories, we don't have massive amounts of land for agriculture the fuck do you think we will do to grow our economy passed our already tourist heavy dependence?  If I were to estimate about 25-30% of our economy is military related.  Do you really thing "local businesses" will fill in that multi billion dollar gap magically?  Do you think we can just sell a billion pineapples or convince a few extra million people to visit us for no reason?  Simple answer is no.  If you lay off a quarter of your population you will go into the great depression during time 25% of the US on average was unemployed and times were BAD.  So unless you want hawaii to be backwards and poor with a chunk of the population homeless you will want to keep the military. I mean whats next are you going to say you want to kick all the non Hawaiians off and leave the union and form a new country?

The military is there to serve, not be served.

Its a mixture of both, its a symbiotic relationship that we have

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.

Most miliary members don't abandon their families when they move to different locations....You don't leave your wife and kids in Nebraska while you work out of Washington for 10 years...there is a reason why we have so much military housing with actual houses not just bunks in an apartment.

We do not have "land based" icbms.  We do not have atlas missile silos or anything near it.  I would love it we did then when they get put for sale I could buy one   All the ICBMs we have are on ships or subs.   Not sure why Kuleana here is so anti military.  Its one of our greatest assets and without our strategic placing we would be a poor shitty island in the middle of the pacific that no one cares about.  Hell we probably wouldn't even be a state.

No.  ICBMs are all land-based How can it be "INTER-CONTINENTAL" if there are not two, you know, continents involved?

Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles are on subs. Those are not ICBMs.  They are SLBMs.

Subs also carry Cruise Missiles -- SLCMs.

Ships that have intermediate and long range missiles carry Cruise Missiles.  Whether land or ship based, they are considered Surface-to-Surface Cruise Missiles (SSCM).  Launched from an aircraft?  ALCM.

Maybe before you buy one, you should study up on them so you're better informed?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missiles

I was being generic but okay you are correct.   I tend to lump all long range nuclear weapons into the same group.  In the end we don't have any missile silos in hawaii.  Period.

I expect better from a Scientist at Heart!   

Just cause I value knowledge doesn't mean I know everything.  Its all about learning...something you don't understand cause your line of thought is a brick wall.

something you don't understand cause your line of thought is a brick wall.

Just cause I value knowledge doesn't mean I know everything.  Its all about learning...something you don't understand cause your line of thought is a brick wall.

You might value knowledge, but most of us value truth and clarity over just knowledge which a good part of the time includes lies, deceit, propaganda and fake news. This is why most of here disagree with your "Knowledge". We have different value systems for sure. For me truth and clarity and being humble are more important than what you THINK you know as knowledge. JMHO

Its quite the opposite.  I value knowledge because i seek the truth (scientific facts).  You folks value "truth and clarity" because it makes sense to what you desire to be true.  AKA religion, denying climate facts etc.   He presented me with facts and i admitted I was wrong.  That's all I value, proof.