Palestine against Israel.

Palestine has no ballistic weaponry.


Hamas against Israel.

Hamas has no ballistic weaponry.


Iraq against Saudi Arabia.

Iraq has not launched any ballistic weaponry to Saudi Arabia that I am not aware of.


North Korea against TBA.

This waits to be seen.


BTW, Germany, England and the USA in WWII ignored military targets and dropped bombs on/and fire bombed cities.

All of those acts were war crimes against humanity.


Kuleana

Please list all the programs and benefits the government now pays for you'd prefer they reduce in order to afford these isolated bases you speak of. 

Food stamps, Education, Workers Comp, Healthcare, infrastructure, law enforcement, public services, salaries, benefits, retirements, ....  Which ones are not so important so that you can feel safer from an attack that will in all probability never happen?

What makes you think a ballistic missile attack from a military peer is not possible?


Kuleana

"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

BTW, Germany, England and the USA in WWII ignored military targets and dropped bombs on/and fire bombed cities.

Really? You think those V2s weren't aimed a "military installations" in downtown London?

Kuleana's claim that an enemy wouldn't target a non-military target is both pure speculation and wishful thinking, and ignores all history. Especially if such a target was one of the only ones within the range and accuracy of its nuclear delivery vehicles. If those V2s had had the range to reach New York City that's where they would have gone... maybe a few to Boston and D.C., regardless of any lack of significant military targets in those locations. And I'm not very knowledgeable re "war crimes", but I'm pretty sure in all recent "wars" and "conflicts" that each "side" has committed what at least some people would consider fits the definition of "war crimes". Those definitions don't seem to have really prevented their occurrence. I'd guess that North Korea is no different.

Really? You think those V2s weren't aimed a "military installations" in downtown London?

Kuleana's claim that an enemy wouldn't target a non-military target is both pure speculation and wishful thinking, and ignores all history. Especially if such a target was one of the only ones within the range and accuracy of its nuclear delivery vehicles. If those V2s had had the range to reach New York City that's where they would have gone... maybe a few to Boston and D.C., regardless of any lack of significant military targets in those locations. And I'm not very knowledgeable re "war crimes", but I'm pretty sure in all recent "wars" and "conflicts" that each "side" has committed what at least some people would consider fits the definition of "war crimes". Those definitions don't seem to have really prevented their occurrence. I'd guess that North Korea is no different.

Palestine against Israel.

Hamas against Israel.

Iraq against Saudi Arabia.

North Korea against TBA.

While I like the point and agree, there is no "Palestine." there is a Palestinian Authority and Hamas, both of which are located in Gaza and claim to represent the Arabs located throughout Israel and Gaza, but they have no state. (Nor have they ever had a state, government, language, money, military, etc. They are simply Arabs inhabiting a particular place.) Hezbollah is the other main terrorist group that launches attacks from Lebanon.

I guess your reading comprehension is at zero along with your knowledge about about this subject. I never said anything about you valuing truth and clarity. I said I value truth and clarity. I quoted you when you said you value knowledge. Get it straight, I wrote it clear enough for someone with even poor reading comprehension to understand.
There you go back tracking again from your statement about valuing knowledge. Two different things here. Or don't you understand the difference? You value knowledge. I value truth. Which has to involve facts. But knowledge does not have to involve facts.

This is utterly wrong.  "Truth" can be based on zero facts and zero evidence. For example you can believe in the truth of god but you have zero facts or evidence to back this up.  "Truth is highly subjective and based on opinions.  While knowledge is more decentralized from emotions.
 
What planet are you on? Clarity has nothing to do with emotions except for your hysterics here.

Clarity is something that makes sense to yourself.  You can make sense of anything and it doesn't have to have basis in facts.  Not sure what to do to make you understand this...

Yes, it is quite obvious. You are back tracking and and trying to wiggle out from underneath the truth of your previous statements because I showed you and everyone else here that knowledge is not truth. Knowledge can be as much a lie as it can be truth. It depends on what you want to believe. Combined with my exposing your back tracking and you obviously realize you need to change what you said in order to make yourself look not as foolish as you did the first time. Unfortunately, you are looking more and more foolish every time you try to back track on your previous statement.

knowl·edge
ˈnäləj/
noun
1.facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
2.awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.

I still stand by the fact that "truth" is more relative than knowledge. 

Now you are being a hypocrite. If you seek knowledge then you could just as easily seek fake news. Because fake news appears as knowledge to the naive. And if truth is ambiguous as you said, then why would you now back track and say you seek truth? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Maybe you can explain to everyone here how truth is ambiguous. I want to see what you think about this.

Did you just skip over the first sentence of my reply I said i used the word truth incorrectly there....I don't "seek truth" by my definitions.  I seek fact.

Truth is ambiguous because you can believe anything to be true.  You don't need facts to back this up.  You can believe gods existence is truth.  You have nothing to back this up.  You can believe in the "truth" that the government has conspiracies with no real fact.  Just cause you believe something is true doesn't make it so.  Knowledge is like science its gathering ALL facts, then because you know all the facts you know the answer

That is absolutely false. For me, I have no predisposition to what I want something to be. I seek the truth. If it means that climate change as you define it is true then I would believe it in the exact same way you do.
I really have no idea what you are talking about here. I don't care about your other conversations you are having here.
Then provide proof that 97% of all climate scientists agree and know exactly what percentage of climate change that man affects? I dared you in another thread to provide that percentage and you ignored me. The fact is no one knows. Not even the lying scientists. How can you say you value "proof" when you won't even consider the fact that man may only be affecting the climate 0.000000000000000001%? And the proof that no one knows doesn't figure in with your ideology so you ignored my question the last time. The only correct answer here is a
percentage.

Literally posted this probably 5 times
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

It absolutely has to be clear to be the truth. What have you been smoking my dear boy? If something is not clear then it would be left up to multiple interpretations. Only one interpretation can be true. Otherwise it cannot be considered truth. The truth can not be left open to multiple interpretations. For something to be the truth everyone has to agree on the same thing. If it can be left open to interpretation then it is a theory or such. But it cannot be the truth.
Give me an example of something you don't understand but can show proof that it is true. Would you not have to have at least some understanding of something for it to be true? Otherwise what you are doing is blind truth and that is nothing more than a belief or faith. Like religion.
Prove its true.

Wait what?  Ok is partial physics clear to you?  Is quantum mechanics clear to you? Are both of these "true"?   My friend truth is more of something you BELIEVE not something that is fact.  Hence personal truths and beliefs...

Omni - Do you mean "partial" physics? Or particle physics?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

maybe he means "physics at heart"

Truth and clarity... lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

97% of scientists who believe in partial physics think that it is truth and clarity


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

97% of scientists who believe in partial physics think that it is truth and clarity


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk