in view of the recent dumbsh!t who went push the wrong button, is Hawaii a target because of its US military presence?

I don't think Kim Jong Un (KJU) could hit Puerto Rico since it's too far away, and American Samoa isn't even a state, after all, it's the "United States of America" (USA), not the "United States and Territories of America" (USTA).  and KJU would like to poke a stick in the eye of American Imperialists, so what better target than the hedonistic pleasure destination of Waikiki?  one of the actual 50 states of the USA, although on a normal day, kinda hard to believe most times.

I think the military presence is derived from Pearl Harbor being a wonderful harbor, and the location in the middle of the Pacific, and water to sustain a population.  But I suspect that if Hawaii wasn't part of the USA,  that  Hawaii would be a British Colony (Capt Cook), if not a French Colony (e.g. Tahiti), if not a Portuguese Colony (e.g. Vasco de Gama, etc).  so, no matter what, thanks to "location, location, location", there would be a military presence here.  just a question of whose.

who knows, if we weren't part of the USA, the Chinese Govt might claim the Pacific Ocean as being theirs, just like they did for the South China Sea, and Hawaii would be part of Communist China, answering to Peking.  and Lahaina might be the provincial capital.

just my uninformed, uneducated 2 cents here, or should I say 2 escudo's, or 2 yuans.  ah, such a luxury of hypotheticals, it boggles the mind.

Don't forget how the US acquired a great portion of the mainland and Alaska -- purchase and trading.

If Hawaii were under another flag, such as France, it wouldn't take China declaring the Pacific theirs.  All China would have to do is make an offer of cash and some trade agreements between them, and China could be the new "owner" of the Hawaiian Islands without any military action.

Heck, if the Hawaiians get their way and become a Kingdom again, Hawaii will be begging for US protection in exchange for military bases wherever we want.

Hawaii has been and will always (at least in foreseeable future) be a key location in the Pacific. And not only for military. Think commerce as well.

Heck, if the Hawaiians get their way and become a Kingdom again, Hawaii will be begging for US protection in exchange for military bases wherever we want.

nah, I think the Kingdom of Hawaii would entertain offers from Russia, China, UK, USA, and see who gave them the best deal, whole package deal: trade, debt, security, manufacturing.  Look at the Philippines, sucking up to Mother Russia when they don't get what they want from Uncle Sam.

looking at modern history, I think the Russians and the Chinese usually present the best offer and window dressing to underdeveloped countries, look at how much chinese presence there is now in Africa, selling their cell phone infrastructure.  and this being 2aHawaii, it'd be AK-47's, full-auto, in every household.  maybe even RPG's.  just a question of whether it's genuine Kalashnikov, or Norinco.

heck, Kingdom of Hawaii might even try to get their own nuke missiles, like Iran, NK, just for bargaining chips.  but they better not have that same dumbshit govt civil service lifer manning The Button.

nah, I think the Kingdom of Hawaii would entertain offers from Russia, China, UK, USA, and see who gave them the best deal, whole package deal: trade, debt, security, manufacturing.  Look at the Philippines, sucking up to Mother Russia when they don't get what they want from Uncle Sam.

heck, Kingdom of Hawaii might even try to get their own nuke missiles, like Iran, NK, just for bargaining chips.  but they better not have that same dumbshit govt civil service lifer manning The Button.

But according to our resident expert in other threads, Hawaii won't want all that military or nukes, because a disarmed territory is a safer territory.

How do we know that DPRK would target Oahu if they were to launch a nuclear strike? It's a fine thing to say for propaganda purposes but does it make sense, strategically, for north korea?

How do we know that DPRK would target Oahu if they were to launch a nuclear strike? It's a fine thing to say for propaganda purposes but does it make sense, strategically, for north korea?

Depends on their objective.  A show of force and resolve could be their goal.  Then they would threaten more strikes, this time on the mainland, if whatever demands they have aren't met.

How do we know that DPRK would target Oahu if they were to launch a nuclear strike? It's a fine thing to say for propaganda purposes but does it make sense, strategically, for north korea?

no one outside of the DPRK really knows what they will do. Their actions are irrational and not economic-based.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/27/north-korea-executed-five-security-officials-anti-aircraft-guns/

Why would anyone execute people with anti aircraft guns when a simple gunshot would do and be cheaper?
Even S. Korean services have a hard time penetrating NK.

But according to our resident expert in other threads, Hawaii won't want all that military or nukes, because a disarmed territory is a safer territory.

an unarmed territory is ripe for the pickin's.  especially one with such juicy economic benefits (harbor, resorts, etc).  just march right in and hoist the flag.  sort of like Red Dawn Patrick Swayze except without the unorganized militia.

at least, that's what the Argentinians thought regarding the Falklands.

we'd all be speaking chinese fo' sure.  and I think the chinese are lousy tippers.  them being so pake.

no one outside of the DPRK really knows what they will do. Their actions are irrational and not economic-based.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/27/north-korea-executed-five-security-officials-anti-aircraft-guns/

Why would anyone execute people with anti aircraft guns when a simple gunshot would do and be cheaper?
Even S. Korean services have a hard time penetrating NK.

 Dude seems rational to me for a guy that has everyone in his country worshiping him like a god. Executing perceived threats to power is classic dictator stuff. Doing it with an AA gun? "Over the top" stuff runs in the Kim family.

so an analogous, micro view is that an unarmed person won't attract crime / violence directed to that person?

so an analogous, micro view is that an unarmed person won't attract crime / violence directed to that person?

Ed Zachery

so an analogous, micro view is that an unarmed person won't attract crime / violence directed to that person?

it's more PC to say "Micronesian"
don't want to trigger anyone...

quoted from the other thread.

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?

you're absolutely right, if the Sandwich Isles were a Province of China instead, North Korea Kim Jong Un wouldn't dare event hint at threatening Hawaii nosireebob, cuz he'd get slapped silly upside the head, in public.

or if Hawaii were a British Colony, if KJU threatened Hawaii, the UK don't bother with My Button is bigger.  they just send in the SAS and it's Job Done.

I posted this in the other thread:

https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=30010.msg266417#msg266417

Military may be a small part of it, but it's mostly Hawaii is the largest and densest US  population and economic center they can reliably reach with their missiles.  Once their missile and nuclear technology improves they'll target larger cities like LA, San Francisco, DC etc instead.  But Kim's not actually going to launch because he knows the US will flatten N Korea and kill him if he does.  He may launch if he had nothing to lose like if the US actually invades or there's a coup.

I have no intel on the matter, but in my opinion, Hawaii would be a prime target because we are 1 of 50 states and hitting an actual state would send more of a message than hitting a territory (am.samoa, guam, etc...).  We are also the closest to NK compared to Cali or any other state with the most populated areas vs. Alaska that has hundreds of miles of open land.  And our resources are limited since we are in the middle of an ocean, so the after blast effects would be more harmful.  Compared to a west coast state where they can just drive help in from across the nation.

no one outside of the DPRK really knows what they will do. Their actions are irrational and not economic-based.

That's a cop-out. Their actions are perfectly rational, but you have to attempt to look at it from their perspective which is difficult if the Jingoism Jingle is ringing so strongly in your ear that you are unable to listen.

They want to prevent a US invasion, and they watched what happened with Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Iran.  We left Iran alone because they have nukes. Nukes are a deterrent, because even in limited amounts they make the cost of invasion too great to consider. Yeah NK would lose everything if we went toe to toe, but the US would also destroy itself politically, economically, and become an international pariah. There would be an immediate insurrection to go after the mass murderers in Washington, and rightly so. Even if it was put down the nation would be too fractured to ever put back together, especially with a destroyed economic base and hyper-inflated dollar.

As far as the anti-aircraft execution KJU wanted to make a gruesome public demonstration of what happens to people who conspire against him. Rule by fear doesn't work in the long run, but it can certainly get the job done in the short term.

Some would say that Japan wouldn't have attacked Hawaii if the US had no presence on the island because the King had a treaty with Japan. I speculate that Japan would have invaded regardless because of the island's close location to the west coast. Regardless of what's on the island, Hawaii is the vanguard to the Pacific.

Saying that a foreign country wouldn’t attack Hawaii if the US military wasn’t here, is similar as saying that a robber wouldn’t hit a house because the homeowner wasn’t armed. Hawaii is a valuable as a strategic asset because of its geographic location in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. If it’s wasn’t, it’s economy would be as developed as the other island chains in the Pacific Ocean.

Unarmed Hawaii = easy target for a foreign nation.
Hawaii with a military presence = not so easy a target.

If the US military wasn’t here, it would be another nation that would see that and eventually claim it.  At that point, Kuleana would post the argument that Hawaii is under threat of destruction when the US military points it’s missiles at Hawaii.