How to get whole Hong Kong permanently leased to the UK?

I KNOW that HK is undefensible.
So I don't see with who do you argue here?

Here, let me remind you what you actually said:

Well, UK export in PRC for 2009. was about 10 billions USD.
Let's say that UK companies earn another 10 billions in China. That's 20 billions.

GDP of Hong Kong in 2010 was about 300 billions USD in 2010.
If UK used only 1% of that money for defence needs, that's 3 billions. For defence of HK is enough 1,5 billions, the rest can be spent on other UK military projects....

Oh really? So you know Hong Kong is indefensible and yet at the same time you think 'For defence of HK is enough 1,5 billions'? So which is it? Indefensible or 'enough'? You are back peddling furiously, but do remember that what you said is a matter of public record just the page before. This is totally incoherent, and it is unfortunate that you cannot see that.


And that 1% was extra to the allready existing British Forces there.

The existing BFOH won't be able to stop the Guangzhou Military Region. But that's besides the point, since long before they get a chance to test the hypothesis of whether you can stop a shock army with a tricycle, Hong Kong will be dying of thirst.

But even THAT's irrelevant, because YOU claim that 'For defence of HK is enough 1,5 billions', you are going to need to provide some sort of justification. As for using the other half... the UK hadn't taken money from the HK revenue for a long time (you do realise it, don't you? That the GDP of HK and HKG's revenue are two different things?). You can imagine how well that'd go down with HK.

Also, it would be very good for chinese economy if RN SSNs sink just about evry ship that sails into Shangai/Tientsin etc.
So, numbers aren't evreything.

REALLY? LOL! You are actually advocating unrestricted submarine warfare? Yeah, that'd go down frightfully well when they find out that 80% of those ships are Korean, Japanese and American-owned. Chest-beating aside, that simply isn't a viable strategy, and people who spent more than a few second thinking about it realised that.

UK could also sell/give all kinds of weapons to the Taiwan and/or recognise the Taiwan if China attacks HK.

MWAHAHA! Me UK! ME STRONG!

Give it a rest. The USA treads lightly when it comes to Taiwanese arms sales. The UK ain't touching that one with a barge pole. And.. give weapons? Where's the budget coming from? Your looting of the HK treasury?

But this is irrelevant and wrongheaded anyway. The UK can be a sourpuss and recognise Taiwan if China attacks HK, I am sure that'll be a lot of consolation to all the poor schmuck who died in a pointless war.


UK can give HLK to the Taiwan. I doubt that Taiwan would miss such opportunity.

Sure, the Taiwanese can't wait to have an indefensible connected to China by land, where they can lose money and soldiers defending the indefensible. In the mean time, they can declare war on Japan, too. I mean, they're obviously trying to bump their collecting heads against the wall anyway, might as well go the whole hog, eh?


After all, China had the same numerical superiority since 1949 and they didn't attack HK.

For political considerations. They did not take back Macau when Portugal offered it back in the 70s, either. There is little doubt that they could if they wanted to. You may or may not recall that little thing called the 'Korean War'. Whipping BFOH would be a walk in the park for them.


Bur my post was about selling of weapons to the ROC/Taiwan.

No it wasn't:

Well, UK export in PRC for 2009. was about 10 billions USD.
Let's say that UK companies earn another 10 billions in China. That's 20 billions.

GDP of Hong Kong in 2010 was about 300 billions USD in 2010.
If UK used only 1% of that money for defence needs, that's 3 billions. For defence of HK is enough 1,5 billions, the rest can be spent on other UK military projects....

This was in it. I'll keep reposting it for as long as it takes for you to admit you thought this was actually a viable strategy.


Selling of weapons to the Taiwan could be a very good business...
Upholder class submarines, Harrier and Eurofighter jets, Merlin helicopters...
And you could also get money from China for NOT selling weapons to Taiwan.:cool:

You'd have to ask the Germans and the Italians to sell the Typhoon, and being as they are sane, they won't agree. As for everything else... good luck. The last time a European nation sold anything of value to Taiwan was the French frigates, and that was over a decade ago. I suggest you find out why as opposed to labouring under the curious delusion that you just have to open a diplomatic screen with Taiwan and sell it a unit for gold.
 
The chinese have SSN since 1974, SSK since the 50s. Even navally, the RN would be massively outnumbered by the PLAN if it came to blows; you seem to have this annoying fascination with white/european empires being turned into colonialist mary sues. The government didn't have the money to afford East of Aden defences, and 3 billion gets you fairly little.

It's irrelevant anyway, unrestricted submarine warfare would have to come in two flavours... in the open seas, where you piss off everybody (and is bloody difficult to do with only 6 SSNs, anyway, which will now also be tasked to waste their time torpedoing ships instead of doing patrols)... or you just sit outside Chinese waters and catch ships there, where you focus on pissing off the Koreans, Japanese and Americans. Which one results in sunk RN subs and the fall of whichever idiotic government it was that ordered it is a matter of debate, but the outcome is in no doubt.

Once again, Maggie bleedin' Thatcher signed the Joint Declaration, two years after Falklands. Do people honestly think she'd sign HK away if she saw any practicable way of not doing so?
 

abc123

Banned
The chinese have SSN since 1974, SSK since the 50s. Even navally, the RN would be massively outnumbered by the PLAN if it came to blows; you seem to have this annoying fascination with white/european empires being turned into colonialist mary sues. The government didn't have the money to afford East of Aden defences, and 3 billion gets you fairly little.

Maybe it is fairly little, but in 40 years it's 120 billions.

That's about 4 frigates each year. 10 F-22 Raptor. 300 Challenger II. etc...

No, I don't have such fascination with white/european empires, I have it with British Empire.
:D
 

abc123

Banned
Here, let me remind you what you actually said:



Oh really? So you know Hong Kong is indefensible and yet at the same time you think 'For defence of HK is enough 1,5 billions'? So which is it? Indefensible or 'enough'? You are back peddling furiously, but do remember that what you said is a matter of public record just the page before. This is totally incoherent, and it is unfortunate that you cannot see that.

Indeed it is enough 1,5 billion because as I said HK is undefensible.
All the money that USA has and all the military might of USA will not save HK if China decides to attack.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Maybe it is fairly little, but in 40 years it's 120 billions.

That's about 4 frigates each year. 10 F-22 Raptor. 300 Challenger II. etc...

No, I don't have such fascination with white/european empires, I have it with British Empire.
:D

This, there, hurts. You don't do procurement over 40 years. For one, the shit you bought 10 years ago will need a refit at about that point, you have to pay for running costs. Procurement budgets are usually half or less of the military budget, and it requires fuel and shit like that.

Also, the GDP of Hong Kong in 1960 was not 300 billion. It was about 1 billion. It has also more than tripled since it became a region of the People's Republic of China. 10 million USD, in 1960, doesn't even pay for a SSN.

War =/= a goddamn game of Victoria, and economic data is not static.

Also: Portugal?
 
Last edited:

abc123

Banned
This, there, hurts. You don't do procurement over 40 years. For one, the shit you bought 10 years ago will need a refit at about that point, you have to pay for running costs. Procurement budgets are usually half or less of the military budget, and it requires fuel and shit like that.

Also, the GDP of Hong Kong in 1960 was not 300 billion. It was about 1 billion. It has also more than tripled since it became a region of the People's Republic of China. 10 million USD, in 1960, doesn't even pay for a SSN.

War =/= a goddamn game of Victoria, and economic data is not static.

Also: Portugal?

I know all of that.
I agree, this isn't some game, and some things I have oversimplified.
And I'm aware that Btitain couldn't keep HK.
They simply were too weak to do that.
All what I wanted in this thread is to hear your opinions about possibility that UK maybe could get permanent lease/ownership over HK.
I said it myself that it's a mission impossible after WW2.
 
Top