No.  No it was not.  Some of us are wide awake without needing a reality check.

I haven't read the Hawaii Pravda in decades.

Was not referring to you.

Was not referring to you.

Oh.

I don't think Ren would agree with you either, but that's just a guess.

Don't forget the Navy Shipyard, NCTAMS (SATCOM), SUBPAC, MARFORPAC, ... The entire theater during peacetime is commanded and supported by Hawaii-based HQs.

Hence, the reason why Hawaii is more a primary target for nuclear destruction than say American Samoa or Puerto Rico.  No need for top secret clearance to understand this reality.

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?

so you are saying that if the EXACT same events happened in Am. Samoa, there would not be numerous accounts of panic and anger in their Sunday paper?

Oh.

I don't think Ren would agree with you either, but that's just a guess.

I was not saying he is part of the sheeple.

I was referencing about how his unconditional love and support for the presence of the US military in Hawaii, outweighs the potential collateral damage of a nuclear attack that would result in the deaths of the majority of the people in Hawaii.

Or in other words, how he feels that the death of thousands from a nuclear attack on Hawaii is a small price to pay as long as Hawaii bases a strong US military presence on its shores.

I was not saying he is part of the sheeple.

I was referencing about how his unconditional love and support for the presence of the US military in Hawaii, outweighs the potential collateral damage of a nuclear attack that would result in the deaths of the majority of the people in Hawaii.

Or in other words, how he feels that the death of thousands from a nuclear attack on Hawaii is a small price to pay as long as Hawaii bases a strong US military presence on its shores.

uhhhh......

so you are saying that if the EXACT same events happened in Am. Samoa, there would not be numerous accounts of panic and anger in their Sunday paper?

Out of context, I have been saying American Samoa and Puerto Rico do not have the same potential of nuclear attack as Hawaii due to Hawaii's relatively large US military presence.

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?

Yesterday's events were not related to a the presence of the US military in Hawaii - it was the result of a mistake.
You still haven't revealed your source of information that supports your argument that a US military presence would make Hawaii less of a target or no target at all. Come on put on your biggest and brightest red hat and tell us what you think from the mind of a person living in Hawaii about how a North Korean leader would or would not target Hawaii. Do you know NK doctrine? Or what NK doctrine is derived from? How big is their nuclear arsenal? What kind of delivery vehicles do they have? What do they think of our counter strike capabilities?
Mind you that other nations are invested heavily in Hawaii and the United States.

If Hawaii had no military presence, why would any nation want to drop nuclear weapons on Hawaii, as a primary target?

Kuleana,

Just to be clear, I don't for a minute think you are stupid, but there is no doubt that you are uninformed on this topic.
 
I am not trying to be rude or dismissive of your questions, but this topic has arrived at a point where no amount of written discussion on my behalf will make a difference. The downfall of forums and lack of face to face and interpersonal discussion.

Out of context, I have been saying American Samoa and Puerto Rico do not have the same potential of nuclear attack as Hawaii due to Hawaii's relatively large US military presence.

again, what are your supporting information or evidence of that?

I was not saying he is part of the sheeple.

I was referencing about how his unconditional love and support for the presence of the US military in Hawaii, outweighs the potential collateral damage of a nuclear attack that would result in the deaths of the majority of the people in Hawaii.

Or in other words, how he feels that the death of thousands from a nuclear attack on Hawaii is a small price to pay as long as Hawaii bases a strong US military presence on its shores.

Just curious, but what are your feelings on US military presence in say Guam, CNMI, or even Alaska?

Kuleana,

Just to be clear, I don't for a minute think you are stupid, but there is no doubt that you are uninformed on this topic.
 
I am not trying to be rude or dismissive of your questions, but this topic has arrived at a point where no amount of written discussion on my behalf will make a difference. The downfall of forums and lack of face to face and interpersonal discussion.

Did not say Hawaii or any other location could not be primary or secondary targets for nuclear missiles.  But no one since I responded to your initial post has provided a simple answer as to how a demilitarized Hawaii or any other location lacking a strong US military presence will still be a primary target of nuclear weapons.

Yesterday's events were not related to a the presence of the US military in Hawaii - it was the result of a mistake.
You still haven't revealed your source of information that supports your argument that a US military presence would make Hawaii less of a target or no target at all. Come on put on your biggest and brightest red hat and tell us what you think from the mind of a person living in Hawaii about how a North Korean leader would or would not target Hawaii. Do you know NK doctrine? Or what NK doctrine is derived from? How big is their nuclear arsenal? What kind of delivery vehicles do they have? What do they think of our counter strike capabilities?
Mind you that other nations are invested heavily in Hawaii and the United States.

Never said the DPRK would not target Hawaii.

Only said Hawaii might be a less of a target for any nation, if it did not have such a large US military footprint.

I was not saying he is part of the sheeple.

I was referencing about how his unconditional love and support for the presence of the US military in Hawaii, outweighs the potential collateral damage of a nuclear attack that would result in the deaths of the majority of the people in Hawaii.

Or in other words, how he feels that the death of thousands from a nuclear attack on Hawaii is a small price to pay as long as Hawaii bases a strong US military presence on its shores.

"unconditional love and support" you make a lot of presumptions with that one.
This argument has nothing with what I feel.
No military or military how do you know what NK targets or does not target? What are those targeting requirements? What COAs did they develop that did not include Hawaii as a target? Better yet tell us what framework or risk analysis methodology did they use in their targeting?

Out of context, I have been saying American Samoa and Puerto Rico do not have the same potential of nuclear attack as Hawaii due to Hawaii's relatively large US military presence.

in context
you brought up the fact that they are not nuclear targets
so they should not be worried about attacks
Hawaii is a target for attacks, hence the panic and anger
so therefore, there will not be panic and anger in Am. Samoa

Never said the DPRK would not target Hawaii.

Only said Hawaii might be a less of a target for any nation, if it did not have such a large US military footprint.

and how did you formulate that conclusion?
OK. Tell us which countries WOULD NOT target us if there were NO US military presence in Hawaii?

Just curious, but what are your feelings on US military presence in say Guam, CNMI, or even Alaska?

Feel very sorry for those people, for they share the daily fear of nuclear destruction as we in Hawaii.  I am only concerned for Hawaii though, because that is where I live, as most on this forum do.

and how did you formulate that conclusion?
OK. Tell us which countries WOULD NOT target us if there were NO US military presence in Hawaii?

Did you see FJ's post?  He listed a number of military departments, offices, etc.  It does not take a genius to figure out with such a large military presence, Hawaii would indeed make a tempting target for an enemy of the US.

OK. Tell us which countries WOULD NOT target us if there were NO US military presence in Hawaii?

When I use the word target, I am referencing nuclear bombs.

To answer your question, Hawaii may still targeted; I never said it could not.  However, Hawaii would potentially move from a primary to a much better secondary target. That would be much better for all of us who live here.  Do you agree?

Feel very sorry for those people, for they share the daily fear of nuclear destruction as we in Hawaii.  I am only concerned for Hawaii though, because that is where I live, as most on this forum do.

Would you say that Guam has it better or worse than Hawaii? And why?

As in would you say that Hawaii or Guam is a more attractive target? For any sort of strike. Not necessarily just nuclear, but can stick with that threat as that is the primary focus of your questions.