Hacker News Reader

Comment by r00fus | Hacker News Reader

Anyone not expecting this? It's fairly clear that the newest bridge to the peninsula was directly intended to enable such intervention.

This is not a judgement against China, but a nation that plans massive infrastructure projects, has a history of single-party rule (and rule by dynastic monarchs) and also is responsible for the Uighur re-education camps, doesn't really sound like a country unwilling to wield it's military might.

While it's citizenry and residents are much more diverse and identify not as Chinese but seperate, HK has historically been part of China, and only really a separate state/entity for a couple of centuries.

View on HN

Mainland China has 19 miles of land border with Hong Kong, it hardly needs to ship its tanks through the Macau-Zhuhai bridge.

Also, the PLA already has about 6,000 troops stationed in HK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Hon...

I don't know where this conspiracy theory came from but it's patently absurd. Hong Kong already shares a river border with Shenzhen on which there are at least 7 ~100m long bridges as well as 1 ~3km long bridge that can put Chinese tanks directly onto HK New Territories.

The HK-Zhuhai-Macau bridge is a 55km long bridge connecting a 8x smaller city in China to Lantau Island which then requires another separate two bridge crossing to reach the New Territories (and then another to reach HK Island).

The military strategic value of this bridge is less than nil. The bridge was built for its stated purpose which was to increase integration and economic growth of the Greater Bay Area. The indirect effect of this is to tie HK's economy more deeply into the Mainland's so that HK becomes assimilated but there this was plainly stated from the beginning of the project.

Using the military on an backwater province is different from deploying troops to a dense city filled with millions of people. Not saying they might not still do it, just pointing out that a PLA invasion of HK would command significant attention and sympathy worldwide.

>Using the military on an backwater province is different from deploying troops to a dense city filled with millions of people. Not saying they might not still do it, just pointing out that a PLA invasion of HK would command significant attention and sympathy worldwide.

And, sadly, like in Tienanmen Square, little would change.

The "international community" may condemn the violence and human rights abuses but, well, the "international community" still does business in Saudi Arabia, so the chance of the condemnation changing anything seems minimal.

Pretty apt "Where was Gondor" case.

HK-ers are alone. No one will help them.

Tienanmen and how little the West leaned on China for that is the original sin that led us to the current situation. It's essentially the West' fault for not cutting ties and putting sanctions on China immediately after that. We're paying the price for our cheap electronics.

Agreed. Not because it would have helped much, but at least we wouldn't have gotten into this dependency mess.

> PLA invasion of HK

Did the 1st Marine Division invade LA in 1992?

Does LA have its own multi-party legislature, legal system, monetary system, immigration policy, official languages, postal system, and educational system?

I do think there’s a difference in that the city of LA had armed bands fighting each other. In this case, it’s the government vs protesters. The protesters want some laws changed to ensure they aren’t extradited and disappeared. In LA there were thugs looting stores and the store owners shooting at them.

Hing Kong will go back peacefully if they have the Chinese government back down. Hing Kong is also essentially a client state to a large degree. So, invasion isn’t exactly a wrong way to describe it.

The LA riots weren’t “thugs looting stores”. It was an oppressed minority rising up against decades of racial oppression.

Yes, by looting stores run by their neighbors (who usually were also of the same minority).

> a PLA invasion of HK would command significant attention and sympathy worldwide

Which probably doesn't matter one iota, given Tibet, BUT: it's going to be hard to hide that invasion from mainland Chinese who live in big cities, and may just start asking some difficult questions. If you live in Shanghai -- or I guess more to the point in Shenzen -- you'll have to work quite hard to see why you might not be next

If you live in Shenzhen or Shanghai, aren't you already fully under PRC control?

China invading HK would certainly make peaceful reunification with Taiwan impossible though.

It's already impossible.

Yes, you are, as were the demonstrators in Tiananmen. I think my point is: it’s one thing to watch your government put down the “other” — Turkic Muslims, kinda-Indian Buddhists — but when they start coming for people who look and live like you, it’s liable to give you a moment’s pause. I think the risk of unrest spreading is much higher in this case.

Mainland Chinese are well aware of what’s going on in Hong Kong. And whether you’re in Shanghai or Shenzhen there’s no question of you being next; this is already the reality you live in.

I'm not as close to the situation right now, but several mainland Chinese people that I talked to following the mid-June protests (up to 2m protesters) hadn't heard of any of it happening

I find it odd that in all the articles and discussions I've seen about this, the Opium Wars are never talked about. Of course violence is never justification for more violence, but seeing as Hong Kong's very existence is based on the worst of human exploitation, it's hard to imagine that it's ever going to have a calm future.

I can't help but think that for us Europeans it touches the nerve where we know at some level that all our chickens will come home to roost like this one day?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com