In Perpetuity: The War for Hong Kong

[takerma]

Better tactic by Brits would be to declare that they are transferring few of their nuclear attack subs to the theater and that in case of invasion they will commence unrestricted sub warfare against Chinese military and trade vessels. I hope China is ready to have all of its international trade stop.

Transferring troops there is just creating more casualties. Gurkhas will provide the martyrs if the time comes, no need to throw more men into the grinder.

Chinese ASW of the time is non existent, UK only issue will be running out of torps.

Might be politically difficult, I actually wonder has this approach been considered in case of Argentina and Falklands?

 

[joelee77]

I think most people are forgetting that Hong Kong isn't just an island; it's shielded on the landward side by the New Territories, much of which is mountainous and wooded. The initial British defense was there in WWII, and I imagine any later defense plans involved fighting there and not on Hong Kong Island itself.

 

[EternalCynic]

I think most people are forgetting that Hong Kong isn't just an island; it's shielded on the landward side by the New Territories, much of which is mountainous and wooded. The initial British defense was there in WWII, and I imagine any later defense plans involved fighting there and not on Hong Kong Island itself.

Hong Kong is now a much larger and much more modern city. Any Chinese operation would resemble the 2014 Russian takeover of Crimea where plainclothes armed men paralyze the city's main infrastructure points while their supporters mobilize on the streets. The local police force, already compromised with sleeper cells simply crumbles when ordered to confront them (they know which way the wind is blowing and don't wish to be executed by a revolutionary people's tribunal). No amount of beefed up military presence can respond to that without turning Hong Kong into Nanking 2.0.

As a matter of fact, that's exactly the sort of warfare Mao advocated, and which Deng had practiced for decades.

 

[Jeb Bush]

Better tactic by Brits would be to declare that they are transferring few of their nuclear attack subs to the theater and that in case of invasion they will commence unrestricted sub warfare against Chinese military and trade vessels. I hope China is ready to have all of its international trade stop.

Transferring troops there is just creating more casualties. Gurkhas will provide the martyrs if the time comes, no need to throw more men into the grinder.

Chinese ASW of the time is non existent, UK only issue will be running out of torps.

Might be politically difficult, I actually wonder has this approach been considered in case of Argentina and Falklands?

I am sure Japan, the United States, and Taiwan would be pleased to see their investement and buisness shut down because Britain is too proud to give up their last colony.

If Britain tries to shut down international trade it won't be China they should be worried about, their own allies will have a very stern conversation with them.

Hong Kong is not the Falklands, this is not some tiny island near Antarctica.

 

[Puzzle]

I am sure Japan, the United States, and Taiwan would be pleased to see their investement and buisness shut down because Britain is too proud to give up their last colony.

While I agree that public opinion would be against the British, no one wants the boat rocked, why should Britain give up territory? If the referendum states that most people on Hong Kong prefer the status quo why shouldn't the British try to keep it? Nations are inherently artificial and governments should gain their power through the consent of the governed, if the people there don't want to be part of China then they shouldn't have to be. Now the PRC would probably take it anyways and you can make an argument that Britain should just accept it rather than cause so much destruction, but I don't think that just because the British are far away and a different ethnicity they have less of a right to own Hong Kong.

 

[ChineseDrone#48295857]

While I agree that public opinion would be against the British, no one wants the boat rocked, why should Britain give up territory? If the referendum states that most people on Hong Kong prefer the status quo why shouldn't the British try to keep it? Nations are inherently artificial and governments should gain their power through the consent of the governed, if the people there don't want to be part of China then they shouldn't have to be. Now the PRC would probably take it anyways and you can make an argument that Britain should just accept it rather than cause so much destruction, but I don't think that just because the British are far away and a different ethnicity they have less of a right to own Hong Kong.

Because Britain's lease--you know, the only reason they own HK in the first place--is up? I mean yeah they could just return the New Territories and keep the central city but that's about as viable as someone trying to declare the independance of Manhattan (not even NY. Just Manhattan)

Britain has literally no leg to stand on here--is it really ready to blow up the world economy in what's basically a giant tantrum?

 

[joelee77]

Because Britain's lease--you know, the only reason they own HK in the first place--is up? I mean yeah they could just return the New Territories and keep the central city but that's about as viable as someone trying to declare the independance of Manhattan (not even NY. Just Manhattan)

Britain has literally no leg to stand on here--is it really ready to blow up the world economy in what's basically a giant tantrum?

Or simple human decency and desire for Hong Kong's inhabitants to not have to live under Communism?

I have an uncle whose family moved back from Vietnam, where they'd become successful accountants, back to China after the Communist Revolution because they believed it would be a better place. Everything was taken away from them there. So they fled to Hong Kong, and when the handover came my uncle left his head accountant job and the life he'd rebuilt, and is now working in a grocery store in the US, so that his family wouldn't have to go through that again.

He certainly wouldn't have seen it as a giant tantrum.

 

[Jeb Bush]

Or simple human decency and desire for Hong Kong's inhabitants to not have to live under Communism?

I have an uncle whose family moved back from Vietnam, where they'd become successful accountants, back to China after the Communist Revolution because they believed it would be a better place. Everything was taken away from them there. So they fled to Hong Kong, and when the handover came my uncle left his head accountant job and the life he'd rebuilt, and is now working in a grocery store in the US, so that his family wouldn't have to go through that again.

He certainly wouldn't have seen it as a giant tantrum.

Apart from the whole Communist hysteria which seems to never have died, the biggest threat to US foreign policy was the USSR. China is at this time allied with the United States against what they precieve as a Soviet encroachment on SE Asia. Like I said, no one will support the UK in a colonial war. Simple as that. They are on their own.

 

[ChineseDrone#48295857]

Or simple human decency and desire for Hong Kong's inhabitants to not have to live under Communism?

I have an uncle whose family moved back from Vietnam, where they'd become successful accountants, back to China after the Communist Revolution because they believed it would be a better place. Everything was taken away from them there. So they fled to Hong Kong, and when the handover came my uncle left his head accountant job and the life he'd rebuilt, and is now working in a grocery store in the US, so that his family wouldn't have to go through that again.

He certainly wouldn't have seen it as a giant tantrum.

I mean yeah, from a moral perspective it could be argued that Britain is in the right here. Problem is that no nations actually base their foreign policy off of pure morality.

International law clearly dictates that China is in the right here. National interest from pretty much every other interested party (The US, Japan, Taiwan) is going to lead to them backing the Chinese, not the British. By starting to indiscriminately sink Chinese ships at sea, the British would both be violating freedom of the seas and killing a bunch of innocent civilians, neither of which are usually considered kosher, just to hold on to a territory that, the moment the lease on Hong Kong ends, it no longer actually owns, and would be pissing off every important nation in the region it has close ties to in the process.

I mean yeah you can argue that it's wrong to evict a poor guy from his apartment if he can't pay rent... but what cop in his right mind would let him stay?

 

[theg*ddam*hoi2fan]

'I would like to offer this work as a tribute to Her Britannic Majesty Elizabeth II, to the people of Her Crown Colony of Hong Kong, and perdition to their enemies'

- James Clavell, Noble House

This one looks interesting. I'll be following...

 

[guinazacity]

Looks very interesting, subscribed.

but i would be lying if i said i don't want to see britain getting a good beating.

 

[sloreck]

In 1984 China has essentially zero ability to deliver a nuke to the UK. The UK, on the other hand is not so limited. If an open referendum has showed the folks in HK want to remain British, then international opinion will be more in favor of the UK. This is not the same as the Crimea where, for better or worse, the majority wanted to be part of Russia not the Ukraine.

In 1984 the Chinese economy is not what it is today on the world scale - cutting off China from the world economy will hurt some, but not like now. The reality is China needs world trade and investment way more than the world needs Chinese markets. While China wants HK "back", it also wants Taiwan back but prefers not to try and take it by force. making noise about HK, yes, cutting off power/water or actually attacking is working against their interest. Even if they succeed in getting HK back, the fallout will be that China is a "bad guy" and investments etc in to China, acceptance of Chinese products without killing tariffs & so forth will not happen anywhere like OTL. Getting HK back, even with no damage but stomping on Chinese economic growth is not a smart trade.

 

[RousseauX]

Better tactic by Brits would be to declare that they are transferring few of their nuclear attack subs to the theater and that in case of invasion they will commence unrestricted sub warfare against Chinese military and trade vessels. I hope China is ready to have all of its international trade stop.

Transferring troops there is just creating more casualties. Gurkhas will provide the martyrs if the time comes, no need to throw more men into the grinder.

Chinese ASW of the time is non existent, UK only issue will be running out of torps.

Might be politically difficult, I actually wonder has this approach been considered in case of Argentina and Falklands?

This policy lasts for around a week before the UK sinks a ship full of civilians and look awful on TV and ceases sinking civilian shipping.

Unrestricted submarine warfare is not accepted means of war post-1945 and practically has to pander to public opinion. The early 80s was also a time when china wasnt nearly as important as it is today.

 

[RousseauX]

Or simple human decency and desire for Hong Kong's inhabitants to not have to live under Communism?

I have an uncle whose family moved back from Vietnam, where they'd become successful accountants, back to China after the Communist Revolution because they believed it would be a better place. Everything was taken away from them there. So they fled to Hong Kong, and when the handover came my uncle left his head accountant job and the life he'd rebuilt, and is now working in a grocery store in the US, so that his family wouldn't have to go through that again.

He certainly wouldn't have seen it as a giant tantrum.

The problem is that you are confusing the Prc of 1967 with the PRC of post 1997. The former was a terrible place to live in and you want to run away from it. The latter really isn't a bad place for a middle class professional to be in. Your uncle made the wrong decision imo.

 

[RousseauX]

In 1984 China has essentially zero ability to deliver a nuke to the UK. The UK, on the other hand is not so limited. If an open referendum has showed the folks in HK want to remain British, then international opinion will be more in favor of the UK. This is not the same as the Crimea where, for better or worse, the majority wanted to be part of Russia not the Ukraine.

In 1984 the Chinese economy is not what it is today on the world scale - cutting off China from the world economy will hurt some, but not like now. The reality is China needs world trade and investment way more than the world needs Chinese markets. While China wants HK "back", it also wants Taiwan back but prefers not to try and take it by force. making noise about HK, yes, cutting off power/water or actually attacking is working against their interest. Even if they succeed in getting HK back, the fallout will be that China is a "bad guy" and investments etc in to China, acceptance of Chinese products without killing tariffs & so forth will not happen anywhere like OTL. Getting HK back, even with no damage but stomping on Chinese economic growth is not a smart trade.

The referendum will never be held because the tanks rolling in as soon as the British declare one will be held.

You are also way too charitable to business interests in the west. If there's one thing tianenman showed is that big businesses dont really give a shit about the morality of the Chinese government, they just want to make money. As long as china delivers the cheap labor capital will go into China.

 

[deathscompanion1]

In 1984 China has essentially zero ability to deliver a nuke to the UK. The UK, on the other hand is not so limited. If an open referendum has showed the folks in HK want to remain British, then international opinion will be more in favor of the UK. This is not the same as the Crimea where, for better or worse, the majority wanted to be part of Russia not the Ukraine.

In 1984 the Chinese economy is not what it is today on the world scale - cutting off China from the world economy will hurt some, but not like now. The reality is China needs world trade and investment way more than the world needs Chinese markets. While China wants HK "back", it also wants Taiwan back but prefers not to try and take it by force. making noise about HK, yes, cutting off power/water or actually attacking is working against their interest. Even if they succeed in getting HK back, the fallout will be that China is a "bad guy" and investments etc in to China, acceptance of Chinese products without killing tariffs & so forth will not happen anywhere like OTL. Getting HK back, even with no damage but stomping on Chinese economic growth is not a smart trade.

If Britain starts using nuclear weapons it will be remembered on even terms with the Third Reich in terms of death toll. Fortunately someone would either A. Go to the Queen and get Thatcher locked in a padded room or B. Do the same just going to the commons first.


Of course killing millions of people wasn't on the agenda so nukes don't come into it.

Secondly the Chinese decided the risk was worth it because in a few months years they would be able to open up again whilst the British wouldn't be back in Hong Kong.

 

[RousseauX]

While I agree that public opinion would be against the British, no one wants the boat rocked, why should Britain give up territory? If the referendum states that most people on Hong Kong prefer the status quo why shouldn't the British try to keep it? Nations are inherently artificial and governments should gain their power through the consent of the governed, if the people there don't want to be part of China then they shouldn't have to be. Now the PRC would probably take it anyways and you can make an argument that Britain should just accept it rather than cause so much destruction, but I don't think that just because the British are far away and a different ethnicity they have less of a right to own Hong Kong.

I'm sure you also 100% support the Russian annexation of crimea.

 

[RousseauX]

In 1984 China has essentially zero ability to deliver a nuke to the UK. The UK, on the other hand is not so limited. If an open referendum has showed the folks in HK want to remain British, then international opinion will be more in favor of the UK.

So what are you gonna nuke?

Because I can't see international opinion standing for the British nuking Beijing and kill a few million people regardless of what % votes to stay British in Hong Kong. So that presumably means you nuke the army group north of Hk, which means radiation drifts south into Hk itself.

Now what?

 

[Avrorrange]

The problem is that you are confusing the Prc of 1967 with the PRC of post 1997. The former was a terrible place to live in and you want to run away from it. The latter really isn't a bad place for a middle class professional to be in. Your uncle made the wrong decision imo.

Actually,it turned out to be a right decision considering recent events.What good is money without safety AND FREEDOM?Not to mention better social security.

I mean yeah, from a moral perspective it could be argued that Britain is in the right here. Problem is that no nations actually base their foreign policy off of pure morality.

International law clearly dictates that China is in the right here. National interest from pretty much every other interested party (The US, Japan, Taiwan) is going to lead to them backing the Chinese, not the British. By starting to indiscriminately sink Chinese ships at sea, the British would both be violating freedom of the seas and killing a bunch of innocent civilians, neither of which are usually considered kosher, just to hold on to a territory that, the moment the lease on Hong Kong ends, it no longer actually owns, and would be pissing off every important nation in the region it has close ties to in the process.

I mean yeah you can argue that it's wrong to evict a poor guy from his apartment if he can't pay rent... but what cop in his right mind would let him stay?

Self-determination for the win!

 

[Cahaya Purnama]

Will be watching this TL