4 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoI 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 agoThis 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 agoA single bombed out city is a small sacrifice to make an example for the rest of the nation.
- empath75 7y agoAnd yet we had exactly that happen in Syria.