6 ms·

Wouldn’t guerilla warfare in the alleys and tight buildings be an absolute nightmare

• andrekandre 7y ago
  the result then basically being that they just end up destroying what they sought...
  • JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > they just end up destroying what they sought Cities are people, not buildings. This underlines the Swiss defense strategy, for instance [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Redoubt_%28Switzerland%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Redoubt_%28Switzerlan...
    • Apocryphon 7y ago
      The Chinese government likely cares more about the capital contained and produced in HK, which they would ruin if they were to bust up the place.
  • mc32 7y ago
    They don’t only seek to incorporate HK but also as important or moreso to quash what they see as an incompatible political system.
• barry-cotter 7y ago
  Guerrilla warfare relies on willingness to abide by the laws of armed conflict for its effectiveness. If you’re willing to kill everyone and the rebellious population realises it you win. See Chechnya. Also, Hong Kong is a city. In cities guerrilla warfare just plain doesn’t work. If it did the Israelis would not have been able to occupy the Gaza Strip and West Bank for decades. This without the willingness to disregard international law that harvesting Falun Gong organs or keeping millions in concentration camps in Xinjiang shows the CCP very obviously has. Guerrilla warfare only works against weak states or strong ones that will follow international law. The British won the Boer war. The PLA has more men and Hong Kong is a lot smaller than South Africa or even just the Orange after State. Hong Kong cannot win a guerrilla war.
  • lyrr 7y ago
    Total BS. Irish War of Independence is a good example of guerrilla warfare beating the oppressor, and the British did not subscribe to 'laws of armed conflict' in the slightest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1920) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1920) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_and_Tans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_and_Tans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Cork https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Cork
    • deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    • barry-cotter 7y ago
      The British had just finished WWI, they were broke and they had narrowly avoided having a civil war over granting Irish Home Rule by virtue of WWI breaking out[1]. If they had been willing to follow the same tactics in Ireland as they had in South Africa only 20 years before they’d have won. Armed irregulars cannot win against a well trained regular army that has massive superiority in terms of training, discipline and logistics if the regular army is willing to kill everyone and the irregulars know that. People are generally not willing to die when they know defeat is certain if life is an option. If the British had been willing to be as brutal as Cromwell to retain Ireland they’d have won. They weren’t. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curragh_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curragh_incident
  • etaioinshrdlu 7y ago
    > If you’re willing to kill everyone and the rebellious population realises it you win. Would the Vietnam war not be a counterexample of this?
    • unholythree 7y ago
      I'm of the opinion America lost that conflict and it was so terrible because officials chose to be restrained in overt military action, out of fear of direct conflict with the Soviet Union, and at the same time unrestrained in covert action. It was a poisonous mix that achieve nothing but years of death and misery; that said a full scale push by America could have spiraled into nuclear war.