Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Korea may fire missile toward Hawai'i

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Leo Lakio
    replied
    Re: Korea may fire missle toward Hawai'i

    Originally posted by Random View Post
    Let's not get into a beauty contest between Palin and Lingle, okay?
    I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

    Leave a comment:


  • Random
    replied
    Re: Korea may fire missle toward Hawai'i

    Originally posted by Leo Lakio View Post
    But it's rumored that Kim Jong Il has a thing for Sarah Palin.


    (FWIW, I am hereby officially starting said rumor.)
    Let's not get into a beauty contest between Palin and Lingle, okay?

    Leave a comment:


  • Leo Lakio
    replied
    Re: Korea may fire missle toward Hawai'i

    Originally posted by anapuni808 View Post
    If Hawaii were not part of the US, then maybe they would aim for Alaska instead.
    But it's rumored that Kim Jong Il has a thing for Sarah Palin.


    (FWIW, I am hereby officially starting said rumor.)

    Leave a comment:


  • matapule
    replied
    Re: Korea may fire missle toward Hawai'i

    Originally posted by anapuni808 View Post
    If Hawaii were not part of the US, then maybe they would aim for Alaska instead.
    Naaaaw, they'd never do that because Palin can see NK from her front door and Kim Il raises his head she will just say, "git", "shoo" wink wink, and he would back off.

    Leave a comment:


  • anapuni808
    replied
    Re: Korea may fire missle toward Hawai'i

    Originally posted by joshuatree View Post
    If Hawaii had no military presence today, NK would still be aiming for Hawaii because it's US territory that their limited missile technology can or almost can reach.
    If Hawaii were not part of the US, then maybe they would aim for Alaska instead.

    Leave a comment:


  • Leo Lakio
    replied
    Re: Korea may fire missle toward Hawai'i

    Originally posted by Frankie's Market View Post
    ... the failure to destroy even a single aircraft carrier on 12/4/41 ...
    Well, considering that the attack took place on 12/7/41, it's no surprise that they didn't "destroy even a single aircraft carrier on 12/4" ...

    Leave a comment:


  • Frankie's Market
    replied
    Re: Korea may fire missle toward Hawai'i

    Originally posted by matapule View Post
    Hmmmm. That isn't the reason for target selection given by the Target Committee at Los Alamos.
    You're right. Truman's stated reason for bombing Hiroshima wasn't the same reasoning as that used by the Target Committee members. However, I wasn't talking about the rationale used by the Target Committee. This is what I said.

    Originally posted by Frankie's Market View Post
    It's like what President Truman was doing when he made the decision to drop the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    So I wasn't talking about what the scientists and military bigwigs at Los Alamos were thinking. I was talking about the Prez, who was the one who made the ultimate decision on using the bomb and choosing the target. And this is what President Truman addressed to the world on August 9, 1945:

    http://www.dannen.com/decision/hst-ag09.html

    The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. But that attack is only a warning of things to come. If Japan does not surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on her war industries and, unfortunately, thousands of civilian lives will be lost. I urge Japanese civilians to leave industrial cities immediately, and save themselves from destruction.

    Leave a comment:


  • matapule
    replied
    Re: Korea may fire missle toward Hawai'i

    Originally posted by Frankie's Market View Post
    It's like what President Truman was doing when he made the decision to drop the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. "See how much death and damage these bombs can cause? Imagine how much more devastating it would be if we dropped the same bomb on Tokyo?".

    Hmmmm. That isn't the reason for target selection given by the Target Committee at Los Alamos. You might want to read the criteria for selecting Hiroshima and Nagasaki here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Frankie's Market
    replied
    Re: Korea may fire missle toward Hawai'i

    Originally posted by joshuatree View Post
    If Hawaii had no military presence today, NK would still be aiming for Hawaii because it's US territory that their limited missile technology can or almost can reach.
    Correct.

    BTW, I don't think the Hawn. Islands are only a potential target for the N. Koreans. Hawaii could be a target for any country with nuclear/chemical weapon capability that wanted to demonstrate its power against the US as a "warning." It's like what President Truman was doing when he made the decision to drop the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. "See how much death and damage these bombs can cause? Imagine how much more devastating it would be if we dropped the same bomb on Tokyo?"

    Originally posted by joshuatree View Post
    The Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor was specifically to cripple the US Pacific Fleet, the objective wasn't to capture Hawaii.
    Originally posted by joshuatree View Post
    It was a partial battle victory because the IJN did not locate and destroy the US carriers. The fatal flaw was for the Japanese admiral to scrub the third wave of attack because he feared he lost the element of surprise at that point.
    Everything is correct, EXCEPT that it wasn't really even a "partial" victory. Admirals Yamamoto and Nagumo knew that the failure to destroy even a single aircraft carrier on 12/4/41 meant that the objective of crippling the US navy was a failure and that Japan would have its hands full with a fleet that would be able to carry out bombing missions against them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Adri
    replied
    Re: Korea may fire missle toward Hawai'i

    Originally posted by joshuatree View Post
    If Hawaii had no military presence today, NK would still be aiming for Hawaii because it's US territory that their limited missile technology can or almost can reach.

    Thanks joshuatree. That's what I meant. That Hawaii would still be a target even without military strategic value and without a military presence because it's the part of the US that N. Korea would be most likely to be able to reach at this point.

    Leave a comment:


  • joshuatree
    replied
    Re: Korea may fire missle toward Hawai'i

    Originally posted by anapuni808 View Post
    Ever stop to think about Pearl Harbor - were the Japanese attacking Hawaii or the US Military? Would No. Korea today being attacking Hawaii or attacking the US Military in Hawaii? Maybe if Hawaii were not so "militarized", we would not be a target.
    If Hawaii had no military presence today, NK would still be aiming for Hawaii because it's US territory that their limited missile technology can or almost can reach.


    Originally posted by Random View Post
    Personally, I thought it was stupid of Imperial Japan to attack Pearl Harbor with the American fleet in port. It was so out of character for them, considering how they invaded and occupied the Asian-Pacific islands, including the Philippines. Even their best strategic war analysts said so, but someone from the higher up override them.

    Despite the destruction, including USS Arizona, it wasn't considered a Japanese victory. They didn't capture Pearl Harbor and Hawaii. They did managed to sever US military strength who weren't involved in the World War at the time. Instead, US bounced back and the attack gave them impetus to get involved.

    If they had been smart, they could capture Hawaii when the fleet is NOT in port. Then they get Pearl Harbor for their Imperial fleet to launch and refuel/replenish for an attack on the US mainland, as well as have control over the Pacific.
    The Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor was specifically to cripple the US Pacific Fleet, the objective wasn't to capture Hawaii. As you noted, they invaded and took over the Philippines and the Dutch East Indies. The US embargo on oil, rubber, and other resources for the Japanese atrocities in China was crippling their war machine. So they wanted to seize the resource rich Asian Island nations but the US Navy could/was a deterrent. What they had planned/hoped for was to cripple the US Navy, take over these targets, and in securing resources, the US would simply seek some sort of peace like the Russo-Japanese War. Up till Pearl Harbor, the US was anti-war. They provided supplies but the British, Russians, and Chinese were the ones actually on the ground fighting. So they figure the Americans would avoid war if possible.

    It was a partial battle victory because the IJN did not locate and destroy the US carriers. The fatal flaw was for the Japanese admiral to scrub the third wave of attack because he feared he lost the element of surprise at that point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nords
    replied
    Re: Korea may fire missle toward Hawai'i

    Originally posted by Adri View Post
    Hawaii used to be strategically more important to the US military especially as a stopping over/refueling place. With advances in technology, I think that is far less true today.
    The U.S. Navy has maintained a number of ships in Japanese homeports for over 50 years (in addition to aircraft and Marines on Japanese territory). The Navy went to considerable trouble (and expense) to homeport submarines in Guam a few years ago. (Setting up a port for nuclear reactor maintenance is not easily achieved.) It's all done to have the forces (and the supplies) as close to the scene as possible for a reduced response time.

    I wonder how the Philippine govt feels these days about kicking the military out of Subic Bay. I know how the locals felt.

    As for the missile... I wonder who Jong-Il is more worried about: China, Japan, the U.S., or his own army officers?

    Leave a comment:


  • Random
    replied
    Re: Korea may fire missle toward Hawai'i

    Originally posted by anapuni808 View Post
    Ever stop to think about Pearl Harbor - were the Japanese attacking Hawaii or the US Military? Would No. Korea today being attacking Hawaii or attacking the US Military in Hawaii? Maybe if Hawaii were not so "militarized", we would not be a target.
    Personally, I thought it was stupid of Imperial Japan to attack Pearl Harbor with the American fleet in port. It was so out of character for them, considering how they invaded and occupied the Asian-Pacific islands, including the Philippines. Even their best strategic war analysts said so, but someone from the higher up override them.

    Despite the destruction, including USS Arizona, it wasn't considered a Japanese victory. They didn't capture Pearl Harbor and Hawaii. They did managed to sever US military strength who weren't involved in the World War at the time. Instead, US bounced back and the attack gave them impetus to get involved.

    If they had been smart, they could capture Hawaii when the fleet is NOT in port. Then they get Pearl Harbor for their Imperial fleet to launch and refuel/replenish for an attack on the US mainland, as well as have control over the Pacific.

    Sighs. Not too many smart tyrants these days.

    Let's face it. The rules of engagement (the stupid rank-and-file meeting in a battlefield that was used up until the Civil War) have gone the way of the dodo. The smart thing for a military unit to do is NOT get in a fair fight with another equally strong military unit.
    Last edited by Random; June 18, 2009, 11:03 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Random
    replied
    Re: Korea may fire missle toward Hawai'i

    Originally posted by Adri View Post
    Hawaii used to be strategically more important to the US military especially as a stopping over/refueling place. With advances in technology, I think that is far less true today. I think we're a target to N. Korea in large part because we're one of the parts of the U.S. closest to N. Korea and thus one of the parts most likely that they can reach with a missle at least until their technology improves.
    Used to be? It still is. Not many countries are as advanced as us.

    Even if we're no longer flying an American flag, we're still a strategic landmark to control the Pacific.

    Leave a comment:


  • Adri
    replied
    Re: Korea may fire missle toward Hawai'i

    Hawaii used to be strategically more important to the US military especially as a stopping over/refueling place. With advances in technology, I think that is far less true today. I think we're a target to N. Korea in large part because we're one of the parts of the U.S. closest to N. Korea and thus one of the parts most likely that they can reach with a missle at least until their technology improves.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X