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. Feelings and emotions are dumb and useless. Something doesn't have to absolutely "clear" to be true.  I don't understand many things which i know are true.   I don't understand partial physics doesn't mean just cause it isn't clear to me it isn't true.

It's not what you said. You are now back tracking on what you said. You said you value knowledge. You did not say you value truth and clarity. Which is completely different than knowledge as I stated. If you want to be understood you should speak clearly and don't back track as it makes you look like you are not telling the truth.

How are we supposed to know what you really mean if you don't state it the first time? Understand what I am writing here. DO NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION. It is meant as a rhetorical question meaning I already know the answer. If you attempt to answer the question I'll know you don't read what I write nor understand it. And I really don't want to hear your gums flap. Just read the question over and over until you understand why I asked it. Then discuss with everyone here with clarity and truth. Any time you have to back track you are not doing this.

Knowledge?  Maybe the problem isn't what you don't know, but what you know for sure that just isn't so.


You're hilarious, since the only one demonstrating emotional outbursts on here is you! 

Kind of like most of the stuff you talk about!
Like religion and most recently the wall. And the worship of trump who can do no wrong and is the answer to all your prayers.

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.

What report or announcement are you basing your claim that all the islands in Hawaii are ICBM free?


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.

I am not anti-military, but pro-life.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Hawaii is still one of the top five targets for destruction should WWIII take place.   Apparently, the thought of being the first one to perish is not of any concern to you.  However, I can speak with confidence that this is a major concern for about 99.99% of the rest of the residents living in Hawaii.


Kuleana

I'm not sure what you know about the missions of Headquarters units, but their primary objectives are to train and equip organizations so they can be used by theater commanders if/when needed.  Depending on location or event, the commanders will be on a command ship, carrier, or ground command center.

For example, when 5th and 7th fleets deploy to the Persian Gulf, they are under the command of CENTCOM in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia.  Each Component Commander (Army, Navy Air Force & Marine) would report to the Theater Commander.

Taking out a Headquarters unit does not cripple the operational units under that command.  The worst that could happen would be a loss of communications if NCTAMS in Wahiawa were taken out, which would then be replaced by retasking the satellites to route communications to bases in CA.

That is exactly my ultimate point.  Due to the military assets stationed on Hawaii, Hawaii and all of its residents ultimately become potential collateral damage should those assets be targeted.


Where exactly are the Hawaii land-based ICBMs?  I don't think there are any.  Any missiles we have are sea-based, purely defensive or for testing at PMRF at Barking Sands, Kauai.

I hope you are right.  But even if you are, it still does not take Hawaii off the main targets to bomb list in the event of WWIII.


As mentioned, the fleets don't reside at Pearl for long.  The SLBM Fleet is at sea for months at a time and rotate in port for maintenance, resupply and shore duty.  Taking out one or two subs is not a mission-critical concern.

Let's pray those subs are not offered as bait to start WWIII, as those battleships were offered to Japan to start WWII.


Kuleana

What report or announcement are you basing your claim that all the islands in Hawaii are ICBM free?

However, I can speak with confidence that this is a major concern for about 99.99% of the rest of the residents living in Hawaii.

What report or announcement are you basing your claim that any the islands in Hawaii have or had ICBMs?

Please see http://peacemagazine.org/archive/v02n1p05.htm for an approximation of the number of nuclear weapons located on Hawaii during the Cold War.


What report or announcement are you basing your claim that this is a major concern for about 99.99% of the rest of the residents living in Hawaii?

If given a choice of life or potential death due to being collateral damage, I am willing to make a huge assumption that a majority of common sense individuals will choose life.


Kuleana

Please see http://peacemagazine.org/archive/v02n1p05.htm for an approximation of the number of nuclear weapons located on Hawaii during the Cold War.

If given a choice of life or potential death due to being collateral damage, I am willing to make a huge assumption that a majority of common sense individuals will choose life.

"In 1972 there were 3100 nuclear weapons stored on Oahu alone"
in an article without citations...
not really proof of your land based ICBM claims...

True, but I don't think the US military will be forthcoming to officially confirm or refute my claim either.  In any event, no one has yet refuted that Hawaii is still one of the top targets in a potential WWIII.


"huge assumption" of majority does not equal 99.99%

Once again statistically true.

By the way, I am sure you are not one who would choose potential death over life, right?


Kuleana

True, but I don't think the US military will be forthcoming to officially confirm or refute my claim either.

I am sure you are not one who would choose potential death over life, right?

Please see http://peacemagazine.org/archive/v02n1p05.htm for an approximation of the number of nuclear weapons located on Hawaii during the Cold War.

your claim right now is roughly equal to: there may be potential UFOs being hidden somewhere in Hawaii on a military base

Stating the possibility of nuclear weapons based on Hawaii is not as far fetched as speculating that there are alien spacecraft kept at Hickam AFB.

Whether people want to believe it or not, it is at their own peril from a political and personal safety standpoint.


Kuleana

If given a choice of life or potential death due to being collateral damage, I am willing to make a huge assumption that a majority of common sense individuals will choose life.

That article was written in 1986.  That was 31 years ago.

Are you really using 31-year-old info from "Peace Magazine" as your source for military information?

Though very old and not very academically source cited, it was published during the Cold War, which gives one view of what nuclear weapons might have been located on Hawaii at that time.


I can tell you, if there were nukes here, the locations and numbers tell me they are for use on naval ships and subs and perhaps flown to a staging location somewhere in the world (Japan?  Diego Garcia? ). 

Based on my years in the Air Force (in the 80s & early 90s), and 24 years with a defense contractor working with all branches and Cost Guard, there have never been ICBM launch facilities in Hawaii.  The logistics alone would be prohibitive, not to mention the fact that these are ISLANDS!  How many homes do you know here with full basements?  Now imagine a 103' tall missile (Titan II) and a silo facility below ground.  There is much more to a launch site than the silo.  Much, much more!

We've had missile batteries stationed on Oahu, but those are not ICBMs.  Those are like the Nike missile batteries first fielded in the 1950s.  Those are SAMs (surface-to-air missiles) meant to defend against aircraft and missiles during the Cold War. 

I don't doubt there were a number of nukes stored in the islands (including the small atolls).  The Pentagon released information last year that we stored nukes on Okinawa before the island was returned to Japan in 1972.  Some Hawaiian atolls were used for nuclear testing.

Very good info.  If all true back then to now, residents of Hawaii still and currently have every reason to fear annihilation during the Cold War till today.


As I said, that was 31 years ago, and the Cold War has been over for 26 years.  Storage is one thing, and sea-launched is something else, but ICBMs in Hawaii never happened.  If I'm wrong, maybe that'll be downgraded and released in another 10-20 years!

Let's hope WWIII does not occur so we can finally know the truth.


Kuleana

Whether people want to believe it or not, it is at their own peril from a political and personal safety standpoint.

SNIP

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

 

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