I find it fascinating that some posters are convoluting my basic premise/question.

i find it fascinating that you made a statement, and then turned it into a question...

I find it fascinating he thinks anything he posts is not convoluted.   

What would be the point of a nuclear strike on Honolulu? It's not like they could occupy the island. Meanwhile, we've turned the northern peninsula into a radioactive wasteland and China couldn't say a thing about it.

However, if the US tries to nuke the DPRK, it will be WWIII for sure.

The OP, Surf, stated that Hawaii would be a prime target even if it did not have a military presence.

Yes, the terrorism boogieman is everywhere, we must all hide under our beds for fear of the cyber-hacked nuclear or suitcase nuclear bomb.  In all seriousness, outside of terrorism extremists, I find it hard to see any nuclear armed nation target a location that posseses no strategic military presence.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I don't see or have heard of other island locations like American Samoa or Puerto Rico put on some nation's nuclear hit list.

That is right; I do not see those islands on-par with threat of nuclear destruction as Hawaii, due to the fact Hawaii does have a strong US military presence here, where American Samoa or Puerto Rico does not.  That is why I am asking whether anyone has evidence to show that locations that do not have a strong US military presence live in the same amount of fear of nuclear destruction as Hawaii.

I find it fascinating that some posters are convoluting my basic premise/question.

i find it fascinating that you made a statement, and then turned it into a question...

I agree, it is not the DPRK that would have the capability to launch nuclear missiles accurately to Hawaii, but a nuclear armed peer.  However, if the US tries to nuke the DPRK, it will be WWIII for sure.

No answers to my basic question.

Only personal attacks, twisting what I said, or everything is top secret classified.

there, I started a separate post.

https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=30027.new#new

Really a moot point being debated as to the hypothetical "what ifs" whether the military was here or not because Hawaii will always have a strong military presence (presumably), not to mention the Commander USPACOM physically resides here, with COG over the Pacific AOR, plus PACFLT, USARPAC, PACAF (to include the JFACC) physically reside here as well. Hawaii will always be a top-tier target of our "capable" enemies, both strategically and tactically, whether conventional or unconventional weapons are being considered.

Kuleana made an argument that IF Hawaii had no military presence then Hawaii would not be a target.
So again. I ask for your sources that support your statement. Which countries target or don't target Hawaii at this time? What are their criteria for targeting?
What is the credibility of your sources?

It appears that your obvious distaste of the US military has skewed your argument.

It is not a distaste of the US military, it is the distaste of the presence of the US military in Hawaii that puts every person at a even greater risk of nuclear destruction.  Did your read the numerous accounts of panic and anger in today's Sunday paper?  Was yesterday's events not an eye opener to this reality?

Really a moot point being debated as to the hypothetical "what ifs" whether the military was here or not because Hawaii will always have a strong military presence (presumably), not to mention the Commander USPACOM physically resides here, with COG over the Pacific AOR, plus PACFLT, USARPAC, PACAF (to include the JFACC) physically reside here as well. Hawaii will always be a top-tier target of our "capable" enemies, both strategically and tactically, whether conventional or unconventional weapons are being considered.