It's impossible to prove that Hawaii wouldn't be attacked without military presence. Historically the only two nations who (AFAIK) attacked it without a conventional military presence are Tahiti and the United States.

On the other hand that same military presence also makes it a target-rich environment. If you were another hostile Pacific rim you can't afford to NOT attack. There's no denying probabilities of hostile action go way up.

But then there's the case of Switzerland. They seem to sit out all the wars despite holding lots of desirable treasure and territory. If Hawaii was to position itself as the Swiss of the Pacific with a strong militia/people's army but a clear mandate to take no sides in international conflict then we'd likely be in a much safer position than we are now.

It's impossible to prove that Hawaii wouldn't be attacked without military presence. Historically the only two nations who (AFAIK) attacked it without a conventional military presence are Tahiti and the United States.

On the other hand that same military presence also makes it a target-rich environment. If you were another hostile Pacific rim power you can't afford to NOT attack. There's no denying probabilities of hostile action go way up. 1941 for example.

But then there's the case of Switzerland. They seem to sit out all the wars despite holding lots of desirable treasure and territory. If Hawaii was to position itself as the Swiss of the Pacific with a strong militia/people's army but a clear mandate to take no sides in international conflict then we'd likely be in a much safer position than we are now.

Its like trying to predict when the stock market will crash, what sectors will be affected and what sectors wont.

It's impossible to prove that Hawaii wouldn't be attacked without military presence. Historically the only two nations who (AFAIK) attacked it without a conventional military presence are Tahiti and the United States.

On the other hand that same military presence also makes it a target-rich environment. If you were another hostile Pacific rim power you can't afford to NOT attack. There's no denying probabilities of hostile action go way up. 1941 for example.

But then there's the case of Switzerland. They seem to sit out all the wars despite holding lots of desirable treasure and territory. If Hawaii was to position itself as the Swiss of the Pacific with a strong militia/people's army but a clear mandate to take no sides in international conflict then we'd likely be in a much safer position than we are now.

It's impossible to prove that Hawaii wouldn't be attacked without military presence. Historically the only two nations who (AFAIK) attacked it without a conventional military presence are Tahiti and the United States.

On the other hand that same military presence also makes it a target-rich environment. If you were another hostile Pacific rim power you can't afford to NOT attack. There's no denying probabilities of hostile action go way up. 1941 for example.

But then there's the case of Switzerland. They seem to sit out all the wars despite holding lots of desirable treasure and territory. If Hawaii was to position itself as the Swiss of the Pacific with a strong militia/people's army but a clear mandate to take no sides in international conflict then we'd likely be in a much safer position than we are now.

I do not have any great love for Oahu.
I live on an outer island and frankly despise
the tyrants of Oahu. The Norks would not nuke
Honolulu because it would be a favor
to the rest of Hawaii.
The day of the warning I opened up a
beer and kissed my wife. I had no fear.
I'm probably the only guy on this site that
every touched a nuclear weapon BTW.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Where is Ren to demand proof of your statements?

I do agree with your assessment BTW.

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.

Bad analogy since the goals of your example are entirely different.

For a robber, they are after the perceived wealth that a homeowner possesses and will target those who can not defend themselves.  In the case of war between nations, at least two of the major goals of war is to primarily defeat the other side's military forces and prevent the natural resources their adversary needs to continue the war.  Hawaii has at least of one of those two things I mentioned.


Unarmed Hawaii = easy, but debatable, target for a foreign nation.
Hawaii with a military presence = not so easy a target, but a guaranteed target of foreign nations resulting in immeasurable local casualties.



If the US military wasn’t here, it would be another nation that would see that and eventually claim it.

Though possible, it is still pure speculation in the 21st century.  Unlike Ren though, I am not going to demand you to cite your sources that you base your position.

However, should the US legally allow for the restoration of the Hawaiian nation, then of course Hawaii should have its own military as you shared Switzerland does and maybe access to some strategic missile deterrent.  The only difference would be that a sovereign Hawaii has historically never or would seek to have any quarrel with the DPRK, Russia, or China.

I do not have any great love for Oahu.
I live on an outer island and frankly despise
the tyrants of Oahu. The Norks would not nuke
Honolulu because it would be a favor
to the rest of Hawaii.
The day of the warning I opened up a
beer and kissed my wife. I had no fear.
I'm probably the only guy on this site that
every touched a nuclear weapon BTW.