Major concern of mine of being first to perish at outbreak of WWIII due to a nuke?  Not even remotely a major concern.  Have plenty of other things in life like taking care of an elderly parent than concern like this sort "could happen".  Hell, I'm more concerned about what I'm going to eat for lunch today than perishing at outbreak of WWIII due to a nuke attack.  I'm not moving anywhere, at least any time soon.  Some of you need to start enjoying the quality of LIFE. . .

Enjoying a quality of life is what is the issue here.

It is one thing to live in the Boonietown, USA secluded from any human beings for hundred of miles, but to have the US Government arbitrarily militarize an area that makes the populace collateral damage is another thing.  Taking note of this reality and trying to change the potential deadly outcome is nothing but an act to ensure the quality of life remains undisturbed.


As for all those proof of land based ICBMs or other nukes.  I personally have no clue on the facts of that matter.  I don't believe there are any ICBM silos or anything like that here.  Are there nuke in munition storage here?  I don't think so either, but I wouldn't doubt it if someone told me so.  I know am pretty sure there is a nuke storage base in WA and also other installations around the Pacific rim have them, but didn't think we had them here.  There are other installations much closer to China & NK than Oahu for that stuff, let alone subs.  Interesting topic though which no doubt are ripe with conspiracy theories.

Whether there were/are or were/are no ICBMs on Hawaii will probably never be truly known by the civilian population.  What is important is to stay vigilant and try to lessen the possibility of a nuclear weapon footprint in the continuing effort to take Hawaii off the top five targets list should WWIII becomes a reality.


Kuleana

What is important is to stay vigilant and try to lessen the possibility of a nuclear weapon footprint in the continuing effort to take Hawaii off the top five targets list should WWIII becomes a reality.

1) Enjoying a quality of life is what is the issue here.

2) It is one thing to live in the Boonietown, USA secluded from any human beings for hundred of miles, but to have the US Government arbitrarily militarize an area that makes the populace collateral damage is another thing.  Taking note of this reality and trying to change the potential deadly outcome is nothing but an act to ensure the quality of life remains undisturbed.

3) Whether there were/are or were/are no ICBMs on Hawaii will probably never be truly known by the civilian population.  What is important is to stay vigilant and try to lessen the possibility of a nuclear weapon footprint in the continuing effort to take Hawaii off the top five targets list should WWIII becomes a reality.

Kuleana

1) I hear that.   

2) When you mention the US Gov arbitrarily militarizing an area, are you referring to Hawaii?  If so, I assume you mean militarizing Hawaii back before WWII.  If not, then they've pretty much always been here in terms of reference point for most people on this forum.  I don't think any of you are old enough to predate the US military being in Hawaii.  I am not sure when the US military first established itself here, but I've worked on facilities in Pearl that are well over 100 years old. 

Yes. The reality of the situation is the US military is here and I don't see it/them going anywhere.  At least not in my lifetime. 

That may be true, but just like fighting for the removal of the current senseless gun control measures in Hawaii, one must never give up.


3) True and I'm with ya there.  Just curious, what are the other top 5 targets that you see?

Mostly America's forward operating bases located in Europe, the Middle East, the Indian Ocean, and East Asia.


Kuleana

Would you have said the same thing about the people who went to work at the World Trade Center towers 1 and 2 on September 11, 2001?

What about the people at the Pulse night club June 12, 2016?

What about the people at the San Bernardino County Christmas Party December 2, 2015?

What about the people attending the music concert at the Bataclan in Paris November 13, 2015?

Etc., etc., etc.

You may want to believe that you can "lower the odds" of being the target of evil, and you may be right to some degree in some circumstances and conditions, but overall, especially given "irrational" actors, there is no guarantee of "safety", especially at the cost of disarming individuals or countries from effective self-defense.

The odds of Hawaii being out of the major targets list of a potential WWIII scenario are drastically reduced should the military footprint in Hawaii be reduced.


Kuleana

Is that the exact same group, or is there any overlap at all, as the "majority of common sense individuals" who support making it as difficult as possible for people to keep and bear arms? You know, the Bloombergian Demanding Moms and Grabby Gifford's people who initiate ballot measures for "universal background checks" for every single "transfer" of a firearm (including handing it to a friend at the range or while hunting) as part of their "common sense gun safety/gun violence prevention" legislation? Attempting to hijack the phrase "common sense" and thus place anyone who disagree with you as "irrational loonies" is very Alinskyesk of you, and it probably works with people who don't have the ability to analyze what they've just been told. But for the rest of us... FAIL.

I was not aware of hijacking any phrase.

"Irrational loonies"?  Never heard of that phrase before.  Where did you hijack that from?


Plus, of course, you present a "false dilemma" as a premise.

Please articulate the false dilemma that I presented.

Kuleana

I see, so it's really just a CYA move to put some other Americans in the sights of nukes, but not you. Good to know.

I was not aware I could dictate where America's military should be based?  And yes, I make no apology for advocating to keep Hawaii and its residency out of harms way of potential nuclear holocaust. 


I'd sure like to hear the discussion between you and the others guys about who deserves most to be targeted for death, and why. All in the context of "peace" of course.

A government that chooses to maintain its military arm and locate it in a geographic area that would not endanger its populace is a government that would gain much respect and devotion amongst its citizenry.


Kuleana

That may be true, but just like fighting for the removal of the current senseless gun control measures in Hawaii, one must never give up.

Mostly America's forward operating bases located in Europe, the Middle East, the Indian Ocean, and East Asia.


Kuleana

"I am confident that Hawaii still has a few land based ICBMs left"

"they based so many ICBMs on the islands during the Cold War"

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." (reply by kuleana)

"Whether there were/are or were/are no ICBMs on Hawaii will probably never be truly known by the civilian population.  What is important is to stay vigilant and try to lessen the possibility of a nuclear weapon footprint"

"Stating the possibility of nuclear weapons based on Hawaii"

I was not aware I could dictate where America's military should be based?  And yes, I make no apology for advocating to keep Hawaii and its residency out of harms way of potential nuclear holocaust. 

these separate statements in this thread as it has gone along are not congruent...

The odds of Hawaii being out of the major targets list of a potential WWIII scenario are drastically reduced should the military footprint in Hawaii be reduced.

I was not aware of hijacking any phrase.

You haven't read or heard statements by civilian disarmament advocates (Bloomberg's groups, Brady, Grabby Giffords, VPC, a multitude of politicians, etc.) for the past 3+ years prefacing nearly every statement about their recommended gun control legislation using the term "commonsense"? It's intent, as is yours, is to cast those who disagree, as, obviously, lacking in "commonsense". And everyone knows "commonsense" is a good thing, therefore those who disagree with your "commonsense" proposal are not only wrong due to lacking in commonsense, but they are bad people (because they are irrational in some way to oppose what is obviously "commonsense").

"Irrational loonies"?  Never heard of that phrase before.  Where did you hijack that from?

There are many possible combinations of terms that would convey the derogatory intent of your use of the term "common sense" to apply only to those who agree with you.

Please articulate the false dilemma that I presented.

Kuleana quote: "If given a choice of life or potential death due to being collateral damage..."

That is not a "real world" "choice". There is no such "either/or" option in reality. It's a gross oversimplification and based upon purely speculative assumptions (including that an enemy would or would not target Hawaii based upon your assumptions as to why any enemy would or would not target Hawaii).

I see, so it's really just a CYA move to put some other Americans in the sights of nukes, but not you. Good to know.

I was not aware I could dictate where America's military should be based? 

Me either?

And yes, I make no apology for advocating to keep Hawaii and its residency out of harms way of potential nuclear holocaust. 

But surely you realize that if you are successful in your efforts to move Hawaii further down the list of "preferred targets" (based upon all your possibly unwarranted assumptions) that some other group of American citizens in another geographical location will be elevated to the incineration list, right? I didn't ask for an apology, I just noted that it was a CYA move.

I'd sure like to hear the discussion between you and the others guys about who deserves most to be targeted for death, and why. All in the context of "peace" of course.

A government that chooses to maintain its military arm and locate it in a geographic area that would not endanger its populace is a government that would gain much respect and devotion amongst its citizenry.

Please name the possible top five military base geographic locations where they "would not endanger its populace" and/or there would be the least "collateral damage" civilian decimation if your assumptions are correct about enemy targeting. Please also include the ports where the Navy vessels and their "supplies" would be staged.

And your evidence for that is where? You are assuming that the attacks will be based upon some "rational" strategic decision having to do with the opponents military capability. You could very well be incorrect. I gave the examples that I did precisely because none of them were of military, or really any other particular "importance", much less militarily strategic... they were chosen because they would "make a statement", and the threat of being stopped was relatively minimal. Again, you assume that (however you are defining)"WWIII" will follow some rational pattern based upon your assumptions. Maybe. Maybe not.

The incidents you raised were based on acts of violence conducted by individual(s).  The scenario of WWIII would involve nation states.


An enemy, especially if the range of their weapons is limited, might be very satisfied to see Honolulu and its famous tourist beaches incinerated... for the few moments they'd have before they were themselves were  incinerated.

How are you justifying this position that some nation state with ballistics weaponry would launch an attack for the sole purpose of seeing tourist beaches incinerated?  What examples can you draw upon where a nation state ignored a military target in favor of launching an attack on a non-military target.  Such acts are war crimes on the highest order.


Kuleana

What?  I've never said i value "truth and clarity". 

I value fact. 

Truth is ambiguous and clarity is even worse its all emotions and feelings. 

I don't know how someone could read what I said and not understand its pretty obvious...

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.[/u]   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. 

[/b]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.

I do admit I probably shouldn't of said "truth" in the 2nd sentence might of been slightly confusing but as all the other sentences spell it out fairly obviously...

How are you justifying this position that some nation state with ballistics weaponry would launch an attack for the sole purpose of seeing tourist beaches incinerated?  What examples can you draw upon where a nation state ignored a military target in favor of launching an attack on a non-military target.  Such acts are war crimes on the highest order.

Palestine against Israel.

Hamas against Israel.

Iraq against Saudi Arabia.

North Korea against TBA.

"But surely you realize that if you are successful in your efforts to move Hawaii further down the list of "preferred targets" (based upon all your possibly unwarranted assumptions) that some other group of American citizens in another geographical location will be elevated to the incineration list, right? I didn't ask for an apology, I just noted that it was a CYA move."

Although at great cost, the federal government can easily relocate its military forces to a less populated area if it wanted to.


"Please name the possible top five military base geographic locations where they "would not endanger its populace" and/or there would be the least "collateral damage" civilian decimation if your assumptions are correct about enemy targeting. Please also include the ports where the Navy vessels and their "supplies" would be staged."

In the Pacific, there are many islands that the US could transform into a state-of-the-art military base, though at a large cost.  With surface ships being able to refuel while at sea, the US Navy does not need static ports, since it would be a sitting target waiting for destruction.  Man made docks could supplement natural island docks to offload supplies as such to the secret base.  This would be 21st century military at its finest that limits potential collateral damage to non-combatants. 


Kuleana