4 ms·

If they were armed this would have been over a long time ago. China would have gone in with tanks and the army, or even air strikes. Once you take up arms again

If they were armed this would have been over a long time ago. China would have gone in with tanks and the army, or even air strikes. Once you take up arms against the government that’s not a protest, that’s a civil war.

derefr 7y ago
Or, given alliances and treaties, the spark setting off a world war.
trophycase 7y ago
Air striking the people would be just the beginning, not the end
hokumguru 7y ago
The world would react quite brutally I imagine to another massacre from China - especially one on this potential scale.
- Andrex 7y ago
  They successfully swept Tiananmen Square under the rug without much internal fuss, so I wouldn't underestimate the Chinese state in this regard. Also, "the world" is too homogeneous a group to predict it would all simultaneously go after China for some single incident. Who is in the world? What would their motivations be for "reacting" to China? And more importantly, what counter-motivations exist that could sway them from doing so? If you take all this into account, you'll find the group willing to go "against" China for anything is actually very small. Edit- Added section responding to the "world" comment.
- heavyset_go 7y ago
  China is putting millions of Uighers in concentration camps[1]. The response from the international community has been crickets chirping. [1] https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/muslims-camps-china/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/muslims-...
- empath75 7y ago
  What would they do? The us economy is utterly dependent on Chinese manufacturing.
- MikeHolman 7y ago
  Killing armed rioters would get much less condemnation than killing unarmed protesters.
donatj 7y ago
Tanks, the army and air strikes have all been used against a well armed populace in the middle east for quite a while now to little lasting success.
MichaelApproved 7y ago
Putting aside how insane air strikes would be in Hong Kong, you’d probably see more Guerrilla warfare, if the citizens were armed.
vageli 7y ago
Air strikes in Hong Kong? So the government would destroy the very thing they are attempting to keep from rebellion?
- magduf 7y ago
  Absolutely, yes. It would be an example to anyone else thinking of rebelling.
ThrowawayR2 7y ago
> China would have gone in with tanks and the army, or even air strikes Thereby ruining the very thing they want to control and profit from. That's the thing that the "They'll just send in the army, LOL" folks don't seem to get: bombed out cities and a population under armed guard aren't very economically productive and, on top of that, you need to station military units there to keep a lid on things which is also costly.
- threwawasy1228 7y ago
  I think that this is a very old perspective on Hong Kong, whilst before it was an integral part of their economy, now that is much less the case. As this vox article states correctly, Hong Kong used to make up 1/5th of their entire GDP. But with expansion and growth in cities across the country, it is now but a minor component of their economy. In the grand scheme of things it isn't a large enough chunk of their economy that they couldn't afford to lose it. Especially not if the balancing act is, bomb this one city and regain political stability vs massive instability for the greater entity. [0]https://www.vox.com/2014/9/28/6857567/hong-kong-used-to-be-18-percent-of-chinas-gdp-now-its-3-percent https://www.vox.com/2014/9/28/6857567/hong-kong-used-to-be-1...
- coryfklein 7y ago
  This is too simplistic a calculation. If Beijing shows that Hong Kong can write its own rules just by brandishing some weapons, then it's setting a precedent to lose every other major urban center. For Beijing, the destruction of some parts of one urban may be exactly the price they're willing to pay to maintain their grip.
- magduf 7y ago
  A single bombed out city is a small sacrifice to make an example for the rest of the nation.
- empath75 7y ago
  And yet we had exactly that happen in Syria.

derefr 7y ago

Or, given alliances and treaties, the spark setting off a world war.

trophycase 7y ago

Air striking the people would be just the beginning, not the end

hokumguru 7y ago

The world would react quite brutally I imagine to another massacre from China - especially one on this potential scale.

Andrex 7y ago
They successfully swept Tiananmen Square under the rug without much internal fuss, so I wouldn't underestimate the Chinese state in this regard. Also, "the world" is too homogeneous a group to predict it would all simultaneously go after China for some single incident. Who is in the world? What would their motivations be for "reacting" to China? And more importantly, what counter-motivations exist that could sway them from doing so? If you take all this into account, you'll find the group willing to go "against" China for anything is actually very small. Edit- Added section responding to the "world" comment.
heavyset_go 7y ago
China is putting millions of Uighers in concentration camps[1]. The response from the international community has been crickets chirping. [1] https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/muslims-camps-china/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/muslims-...
empath75 7y ago
What would they do? The us economy is utterly dependent on Chinese manufacturing.
MikeHolman 7y ago
Killing armed rioters would get much less condemnation than killing unarmed protesters.

donatj 7y ago

Tanks, the army and air strikes have all been used against a well armed populace in the middle east for quite a while now to little lasting success.

MichaelApproved 7y ago

Putting aside how insane air strikes would be in Hong Kong, you’d probably see more Guerrilla warfare, if the citizens were armed.

vageli 7y ago

Air strikes in Hong Kong? So the government would destroy the very thing they are attempting to keep from rebellion?

magduf 7y ago
Absolutely, yes. It would be an example to anyone else thinking of rebelling.

ThrowawayR2 7y ago

> China would have gone in with tanks and the army, or even air strikes Thereby ruining the very thing they want to control and profit from. That's the thing that the "They'll just send in the army, LOL" folks don't seem to get: bombed out cities and a population under armed guard aren't very economically productive and, on top of that, you need to station military units there to keep a lid on things which is also costly.

threwawasy1228 7y ago
I think that this is a very old perspective on Hong Kong, whilst before it was an integral part of their economy, now that is much less the case. As this vox article states correctly, Hong Kong used to make up 1/5th of their entire GDP. But with expansion and growth in cities across the country, it is now but a minor component of their economy. In the grand scheme of things it isn't a large enough chunk of their economy that they couldn't afford to lose it. Especially not if the balancing act is, bomb this one city and regain political stability vs massive instability for the greater entity. [0]https://www.vox.com/2014/9/28/6857567/hong-kong-used-to-be-18-percent-of-chinas-gdp-now-its-3-percent https://www.vox.com/2014/9/28/6857567/hong-kong-used-to-be-1...
coryfklein 7y ago
This is too simplistic a calculation. If Beijing shows that Hong Kong can write its own rules just by brandishing some weapons, then it's setting a precedent to lose every other major urban center. For Beijing, the destruction of some parts of one urban may be exactly the price they're willing to pay to maintain their grip.
magduf 7y ago
A single bombed out city is a small sacrifice to make an example for the rest of the nation.
empath75 7y ago
And yet we had exactly that happen in Syria.