Just speculative on my part but aside from the whole military or not aspect, I kinda think the the NK leader would hit whatever he is capable of hitting that is tied to US interests or allies. Maximum number of casualties possible being his goal. He is not stupid enough to believe his country wouldn't be destroyed if he attacked the US, our territories or our allies. If he could hit DC or NY, he would be singing that tune as well, and if he could hit DC, I suspect our political leaders would be much more engaged in finding a solution, whether diplomatically or militarily. Although at the rate things have been going for several decades, if nothing is done to nip this in the butt, he will have the means to do just that.

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

I do not understand your question.  However, if you are referring to a pressing of a wrong button type situation, then of course they would be panic and anger.

per CNN:
The officer responsible for the mistake has been disciplined and reassigned, Miyagi told CNN, but not fired.

Vern Miyagi also referred to the person as a "he". so we know it's a guy.  but what does "disciplined" mean for a civil servant.  suspended with pay (free vacation), letter of reprimand (slap on the wrist).  and "reassigned", moved up into management?  maybe he's now the Training Director?

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.

Don't hide behind someone else's post. I asked you. Your unfounded generalizations are based on a military presence in Hawaii. Like I said you don't have the experience or understandings of another nation. You formulate your argument with broad generalizations. The fact is no one knows what another nation will do. The current NK regime has a somewhat historical pattern of nuke tests and missile launches. There is no telling what they could do or what they will target. Mind you he did kill his half brother. Why? We can only guess.

Bottom line no one knows for sure. We can disarm in the face of a country that is going the opposite direction. Would you be willing to do that? Disarm while your neighbors are arming themselves?

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.

I do not think I can comment on who would have it worse.  Guam is geographically closer to the DPRK, China, or Russia and would be attrative in that respect.

Would Guam be lesser of a target if they had a smaller US military footprint?  I speculatively think so.  However, they are most likely on someone's hit list now beacuse of that footprint.

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.

I don't think you understand how the component commands fit into the bigger picture of operational command.

The peacetime role of the military is to train, equip, and maintain readiness.  When called on to support an operational mission, they are placed under the command of a theater command structure.  Did you know the war in the Persian Gulf region was run from Bahrain?  That's where joint component commanders from the US and all the allies coordinated operations.

I'm not going to even try to educate you on military support and operational doctrine.  It's way too involved.  Plus, for all I know, some NK intelligence officer is printing out this thread as we hit the "ALERT" key.

per CNN:
The officer responsible for the mistake has been disciplined and reassigned, Miyagi told CNN, but not fired.

Vern Miyagi also referred to the person as a "he". so we know it's a guy.  but what does "disciplined" mean for a civil servant.  suspended with pay (free vacation), letter of reprimand (slap on the wrist).  and "reassigned", moved up into management?  maybe he's now the Training Director?

If anything like the federal government, if it's his first disciplinary offense, he surely will not be fired. More likely a letter of reprimand and possibly reassigned. Sounds like the new policy will be that this is controlled by the military, which is where it should have resided in the first place.

Bottom line no one knows for sure. We can disarm in the face of a country that is going the opposite direction. Would you be willing to do that? Disarm while your neighbors are arming themselves?

Who said anything about having the US disarm?

Having a smaller US military footprint in Hawaii does not mean the US military is any weaker.

I do not think I can comment on who would have it worse.  Guam is geographically closer to the DPRK, China, or Russia and would be attrative in that respect.

Would Guam be lesser of a target if they had a smaller US military footprint?  I speculatively think so.  However, they are most likely on someone's hit list now beacuse of that footprint.

Don’t think you can comment? It’s just your opinion. I’m not gonna ask you to prove or or back it up. Just your opinion.

I’d have to check, but i believe Guam has a greater military footprint per capita than does 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?

That's an odd method. "Target, referencing nuclear bombs" Explain that. What is your objective? A "secondary" target? SO in another words, Hawaii would still be on a target list. But again, I wasn't raised or educated on NK or any other countries' decision making processes. So I wouldn't know. I wouldn't want to be that person to tell US leaders that "hey, if we moved all military out of Hawaii - no nation would want to target that state"

If anything like the federal government, if it's his first disciplinary offense, he surely will not be fired. More likely a letter of reprimand and possibly reassigned. Sounds like the new policy will be that this is controlled by the military, which is where it should have resided in the first place.

Hawaii Government Employee Association

Union won't let him be fired if they think he's being used as a scapegoat.  If it was intentional and can be proven, then maybe he'll get canned.

I do not think I can comment on who would have it worse.  Guam is geographically closer to the DPRK, China, or Russia and would be attrative in that respect.

Would Guam be lesser of a target if they had a smaller US military footprint?  I speculatively think so.  However, they are most likely on someone's hit list now beacuse of that footprint.

There you go - your whole argument is speculative.
And who's "hit list" are they on? China? NK?

That's an odd method. "Target, referencing nuclear bombs" Explain that. What is your objective? A "secondary" target? SO in another words, Hawaii would still be on a target list. But again, I wasn't raised or educated on NK or any other countries' decision making processes. So I wouldn't know. I wouldn't want to be that person to tell US leaders that "hey, if we moved all military out of Hawaii - no nation would want to target that state"

I agree with you.

However, as a person who loves and lives in Hawaii, I WANT to be that person to inform US leaders that the larger the military presence in Hawaii they decide to base there, the riskier for the residents who live there of nuclear destruction.

I don't think you understand how the component commands fit into the bigger picture of operational command.

The peacetime role of the military is to train, equip, and maintain readiness.  When called on to support an operational mission, they are placed under the command of a theater command structure.  Did you know the war in the Persian Gulf region was run from Bahrain?  That's where joint component commanders from the US and all the allies coordinated operations.

I'm not going to even try to educate you on military support and operational doctrine.  It's way too involved.  Plus, for all I know, some NK intelligence officer is printing out this thread as we hit the "ALERT" key.

And there you have OUR way of conducting military operations. The North Koreans and the rest of the world do things differently. Their decision processes and cycles differ. They perceive things differently than we do.

I agree with you.

However, as a person who loves and lives in Hawaii, I WANT to be that person to inform US leaders that the larger the military presence in Hawaii they decide to base there, the riskier for the residents who live there of nuclear destruction.

I feel the same way. Born and raised here. By all means you can be that person but you'd need a very strong argument supported with lots of data and facts.
i.e. I was there in North Korea's War Room accompanied by Dennis Rodman and I have their target list and white paper. It says that Kim Jun Un WILL NOT target Hawaii IF all military presence is relocated somewhere else.

"unconditional love and support" you make a lot of presumptions with that one.
This argument has nothing with what I feel.

You constant rebuttals to my posts has a lot to do of how you feel about the US military presence here in Hawaii.  Why are you denying it?

Tell the truth, I am correct on your feelings of a strong military presence in Hawaii, regardless of the potential civilians deaths it could result from a nuclear attack.  Right?

You constant rebuttals to my posts has a lot to do of how you feel about the US military presence here in Hawaii.  Why are you denying it?

Tell the truth, I am correct on your feelings of a strong military presence in Hawaii, regardless of the potential civilians deaths it could result from a nuclear attack.  Right?

Negative you are wrong about how I feel. My feelings are irrelevant to your argument of a military presence. I'm asking you for supporting information. Not about how you or I feel. I don't know you outside of this forum.

Your attempt to appeal to feelings is a sign that you have no supporting data or facts to your argument.
Like I stated before. If you have solid, supporting information to your argument I'd probably support the argument of relocating the military out of Hawaii. Dennis Rodman is a far more credible source than you or I.

All of this is my opinion only. I have no information to share.

My opinion is that Hawaii is too commonly known a target. Why not aim a nuke somewhere we are not expecting. Maybe the nuke would have a better chance of doing more damage and hurting us more in loss of life and financial loss. Which seems like how our non-sofisticated enemies seem to want to hurt us. Let me use a couple of real life examples. First the NY Trade Center. Maximized loss of life and shut down our financial markets for a time. The next example is Guam. Even though Guam has been a threat to NK, the threat caught the U.S. somewhat with their pants down. They have since reinforced and heavily fortified Guam. And let's not forget the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The element of surprise is what could inflict the most damage, loss of life and maximize financial loss. I would just make a guess but I would guess all nuclear power plants, damns and even other world trade centers in the U.S. And then there are major cities with densely packed high rises. And let's not forget the threat of an EMP on our grid. My opinion is that we are quite vulnerable as our missile defense system is far from perfect. JMHO

I do not understand your question.  However, if you are referring to a pressing of a wrong button type situation, then of course they would be panic and anger.

you said:
Hawaii military, Am. Samoa not
you said:
Hawaii nuke target, Am. Samoa not
you said:
Hawaii people scared of nukes, Am. Samoa not
you said:
therefore Hawaii panic and anger from false alert, Am. Samoa panic and anger from theoretically same false alert

you see where your argument falls apart?