I totally agree!

Sorry about that.

From memory it said "We don't have false alarms, but we do have tanks to go with your BBQ grill." Or something to that effect.

Obviously a play on the missle warning false alarm.

Drove by there on the way home today. You forgot the “Korean” in front of the BBQ. That made it even more funny.

so, piecing it together:
"WE DON'T HAVE FALSE ALARMS
BUT WE CAN RENT YOU A
TANK WITH A KOREAN BBQ GRILL"

that's pretty good, I hope the guv'ner drives past there at least once, maybe daily? that would be good, rub some salt into the wound.  yeah, but you can't fix stupid.

and the fact that there are nuclear weapons in the silos of subs DOES NOT infer that they were placed there to spare the continental US the potential risks of being targeted directly

and you still have not proven or withdrawn your statement that there were ballistic missile silos on Hawaiian soil during the cold war
(other than a copy of "mother goose" or something like that from long ago)

Latrine maintenance detail? No, I don't really know, but several people here have assured us that based upon their personal acquaintance, these "are the people you want in charge".

And of course the guy they put in charge of the military "investigation" will be "investigating" his direct superior officer. Gee, I wonder how that will turn out?

How does is not infer?  Having nuclear weapons already makes where they are located a target.

Do you disagree with that premise?

so tell me why would anyone put nukes on a sub?

Trick question?

So they can be launched closer to their intended target?

=========
Yeah I know you don't believe me. I don't blame you.
But consider this for a moment....
If the real s--t hits the fan which would you prefer to be in charge?
A guy who is known by many in our gun club?
Or a some unknown bureaucrat appointed by politicians?

How does is not infer?  Having nuclear weapons already makes where they are located a target.

Do you disagree with that premise?

I do not disagree with that premise
that is not what you said, i have quoted you several times
you said, "they were placed there to spare the continental US the potential risks of being targeted directly"
i answered your question, you have yet to ever answer any of mine

Your anti-military rhetoric is getting old.

Having a large military footprint in Hawaii, which potentially results in a nuclear strike that could kill every man, woman, and child in Hawaii is what is getting OLD!


Meanwhile other countries i.e. Russia and China would love to get a foot hold in as much places as the US. In fact, China builds their own islands with no care what so ever. It's all part of their long term strategic plan.

Although I would not deny the possibility of your position, it is still speculation on your part.  Moreover, if China is building islands of their own, then even more so why would they even need Hawaii?

But don't worry, I will not ask you to share your sources as to the insights of the strategic plans of Russian and China.

Having a large military footprint in Hawaii, which potentially results in a nuclear strike that could kill every man, woman, and child in Hawaii is what is getting OLD!

Although I would not deny the possibility of your position, it is still speculation on your part.  Moreover, if China is building islands of their own, then even more so why would they even need Hawaii?

But don't worry, I will not ask you to share your sources as to the insights of the strategic plans of Russian and China.

As I recall from that thread, it appeared that no one could confirm or deny the exisitence of nuclear silos based on Hawaii's soil during the Cold War.

For myself, I had to accept it as it is.