First, the root NHM is relatively common whether in Semitic countries or America itself. In fact, one of the Spalding witnesses (though I do not subscribe to that theory) was named Nahum. As far as we can tell, and as John Hamer has pointed out, the names in the BOM were derived from known sources like the Bible.
Second, the altars were written in South Arabian script where the root NHM refers to stone cutting, not comfort.The Hebrew word for comfort is “nacham” with a hard “h” unlike “nahom.” In fact, “nahom” is not a Hebrew word and is not known to be a real place. The fact that “nahom” is spelled like it is in the BOM leads me to believe that it was adapted from the Bible, and perhaps a scribe just misspelled it.
Third, the fact that a cemetery was nearby proves nothing. I think most tribal regions (a large region, not a place per se) had cemeteries.
Fourth, the fact that it was located on a major trade route near a key junction proves nothing. Doesn’t it seem logical that any tribe would do something like that? Additionally, as John H. pointed out above, there are other NHM places located on key trade routes. By the way, both of the other NHM-like places he stated are several thousand years old.
Fifth, in the typical vague nature of the early books of the BOM, there is little reference to directional indicators, allowing the geography to be placed just about anywhere. Also, the region of NIHM (which is not the same as NAHOM) was populated by nature worshiping people. Why aren’t they mentioned? Did Lehi’s family just waltz right in and bury their dead in a populous place? That’s ludicrous.
Sixth, apologists want us to accept that a group of Christian-like Jews who had spent their entire life in Jerusalem decided to leave and spend up to seven years in the Empty Quarter of Arabia. Really?
Seventh, even with the NHM find, the geography is still far from perfect. While early models (like Nibley’s) had the problem of traveling nearly eastward across the Empty Quarter, the Kent Brown version stretches the limits of going nearly eastward. That is because even with the NHM find, the vagueness of the geography prevents apologists from reaching a consensus as to where the events took place.
Eighth, it is very easy to cherry pick evidence for anything. UFOlogists (like Warren Aston, the BYU-researcher who pioneered the NHM geography), conspiracy theorists, etc find seemingly legitimate evidence all over the place. The fact that a common Semitic root was found in a Semitic country does not impress me at all. It seems far more likely that Joseph pulled Nahom from the Bible. When conclusive evidence shows up in the Americas (and that does not mean Sorenson’s ideologically driven, diffusion theories), then I will be impressed. Until then, I feel obligated to remain in line with dispassionate anthropologists (several of whom I have contacted), and view the Book of Mormon from a pseudepigraphical point of view, which I am content doing.

Does Wunderli engage with Ostler’s Expansion Theory at all? That would seem to account for most of the problems raised in the post.