4 ms·
This is a bizarre claim to make. This route would be much easier to block than any land route - it's a single bridge disappearing into a tunnel shortly off the
by skwirl 8y ago
This is a bizarre claim to make. This route would be much easier to block than any land route - it's a single bridge disappearing into a tunnel shortly off the coast of Hong Kong. It is about as easy of a choke point to block as you can get. The bridge the island goes to also only has a single bridge leading off it into the rest of Hong Kong.
- jorblumesea 8y agoIt's a single bridge, going over water and underground, into an area that requires blue water presence. Choke points work both ways, easy to choke but also easy to secure. The permanent garrison of PLA in Hong Kong would be able to secure the HK side of the bridge long enough for reinforcements to get through. China's biggest worry in this area is civil unrest, not hostile foreign powers and most of the bridge is inaccessible to potential rioters or dissidents. It's a huge game changer for the region, allowing China to move initial response troops into the area much faster. (30 min vs 4 hours)
- aclsid 8y agoRight, who has even heard of amphibious landing ships. Not like they need them in any case, since they happen to have the fastest amphibian armored vehicle in the world. But you are either trolling here or way too deep into conspiracy theories to care for facts.
- jorblumesea 8y agoExpensive, and looks like a military invasion to the outside world as compared to moving troops over a bridge. China isn't stupid, they built this bridge for a very good strategic reason.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]