When it comes to preparing for an attack from North Korea, it’s important to know the difference between fearmongering and preparedness.

State Department of Defense officials on Friday unveiled a range of actions as preparation for a civil response to the launch of a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile targeting Hawaii.

So far, the actions appear to be appropriately low-key, focusing on community education and warning systems — nothing in the fearmongering category.

Even so, there are legitimate concerns from Hawaii’s tourism industry that public service announcements, if not carefully handled, could generate unwarranted fears by visitors that their favorite vacation spot is an imminent target. Going forward, state officials must take these concerns into account.

Some preparations are already completed. These include enhancement of the launch notification process and laying the groundwork for a community education program.

Among the steps currently underway:

>> Formation of five working groups to conduct further response planning.

>> Development of preparedness guidance for individuals, families and businesses, both handouts and web-based publications.

>> Upgrading the siren system to provide for a new warning signal.

Nuclear attack is not something that, until quite recently, seemed even a remote possibility to most Americans who came of age after the worst of the Cold War era. The prospect of hearing air raid sirens and finding a bomb shelter has retreated to the realm of documentary film footage and history books.

Even now, that threat does not seem imminent. But the unpredictable nature of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea — specifically, of its mercurial leader, Kim Jong-un — means that it can’t be dismissed.

The regime, first under Kim’s father, Kim Jong-il, quit the global nuclear non-proliferation treaty 14 years ago and, based on the observed results of ICBM testing, has advanced in its launch capability. Nuclear warheads also have undergone testing, but surveillance has not discerned whether or not miniaturization has managed to shrink them to a size suitable to be carried on a warhead.

That’s unknowable, so the only prudent course is to get the 1980s-vintage civil defense strategies updated well in advance of Kim reaching that juncture.

The announcement has received a less than heartfelt endorsement from the visitor industry. A spokeswoman for the Hawaii Tourism Authority, said it supports the efforts of the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency toward disaster preparedness.

But the HTA also cited reactions from its industry partners that the state’s announced moves to prepare for a nuclear attack can be “misinterpreted” and lead travelers and groups to stay away from Hawaii.

Charlene Chan, communications director for the agency, described the nuclear threat as “a very remote possibility at this time.”

That’s why the messaging to visitors should not be alarmist but should convey that, should the remote possibility become real, the state and its private partners can effectively direct the civil response.

There is no cause to panic, and that needs to be part of the public educational outreach. Missile expert John Schilling wrote that, although North Korea has “an unreliable missile that can reach Alaska or Hawaii with a single nuclear warhead,” it would be “lucky to hit even a city-sized target.”

Even so, Hawaii is a remote location, vulnerable to natural disasters, as well as this projected, unconscionable manmade threat. There is nothing to be lost in preparing for both hazards, in holding public and private drills so that people move toward safety with some surety.

As horrific as this prospect is, knowing that the islands are as ready as they can be should bring some peace of mind to the people who call this home, and to visitors as well. Providing that should be part of the state’s mission.