WI the UK handed Hong Kong over to Taiwan?

[SenatorChickpea]

More to the point, even if we grant that the PRC won't invade Hong Kong the moment Britain unilaterally extends the lease- a highly doubtful proposition- as soon as 1997 comes around, the PLA will simply occupy the New Territories as it is legally allowed to do. It will then turn off Hong Kong's water and power.

Of course, given that there are no circumstances under which even Britain's allies would support its violation of international law by tearing up the Treaty of Tientsin, the PLA would simply occupy the city. Britain can't abandon the treaty without throwing every single one of its other international commitments into serious question. It would panic the stock market (already spooked by an entirely avoidable war in Asia's financial capital, sparked by Britain), embarrass and anger British allies, delight British enemies, and probably cause the immediate fall of the government once the public is told that they're risking a nuclear war over a completely indefensible city with very few white people in it.

By 1949, Britain cannot hold Hong Kong, or turn it over to Taiwan.

 

[Monk78]

The huge size of the Chinese armed forces and the fact that BRITAIN CAN'T WIN.

Can the British bluff the PLA in 1989 send a couple of SSN and a SSBN in the pacific , deploy the paras in Hong Kong and a few squadrons of aircraft. And dare the Chinese to do their worse , Chinese armed forces at that time are technologically primitive and yes they will surely win in a prolonged conflict but is something China can ill afford at that time ( prolonged conflict)
If nothing else it will be the most honorable and glorious last stands in western military history far eclipsing the Spartans.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

It won't be a prolonged conflict. The Chinese, even in 1989, have vast local superiority- and, again, all the fighting would be taking place directly on Hong Kong's supply lines. You can't keep water and power running if it you're fighting a battle on the vital infrastructure.

The nuclear subs won't work as a bluff, because any battle will be over the New Territories- territories that are legally due to return to China in 1997. If Britain extends the lease unilaterally, the Chinese have an ironclad casus belli. That puts Britain in the position of having to threaten a nuclear strike in defence of illegally seized territory- which absolutely no one else will support, and no British leader would actually do.

Once the New Territories are Chinese, the rest of Hong Kong follows immediately.

 

[Die Oulike Bloutongskink]

Can the British bluff the PLA in 1989 send a couple of SSN and a SSBN in the pacific , deploy the paras in Hong Kong and a few squadrons of aircraft. And dare the Chinese to do their worse , Chinese armed forces at that time are technologically primitive and yes they will surely win in a prolonged conflict but is something China can ill afford at that time ( prolonged conflict)
If nothing else it will be the most honorable and glorious last stands in western military history far eclipsing the Spartans.

The hell? Armed forces waged war not for superficial stuff like "glorious last stand" but due to decisions made by the political elites over geopolitical and economy considerations. What would be the benefit for Britain to send troops into a territory that it will be obliged partly to return to China? A country that was seen by that point as a convenient partner during the Cold War and with a supply line that is also coincidentally the supply line that feeds the territory in question?

If you're an average British voter in 1989, would you be willing to vote for a government that will send a nuclear armed sub fleet, the primary deterrent against the Soviet Union of your country (regardless on how Mikhail has improved the relationship between Britain and USSR) over a colony or a violent quashing of demonstrations, that would threaten to jeopardise the trade with a 1 billion country and which is also a nuclear armed country? This is not Falklands where the Atlantic ocean separated the islands and Argentina and no matter how backward the PLA was at that point, a Hong Kong that could not sustain itself is basically a lost cause. Unless Britain are willing to nuke Guangzhou, the PLA could always threaten to hold HK hostage through arti.

Most British voters would not be willing to feed three millions (plus 2 mil in New Territories) Chinese that would be cut off from;

a) the largest market, whether on finance, manufucturing (HK still has factories in 1989) or service of the territory

b) the source of food, water and electricity

and crucially

c) the flow of money from the largest financial partner and investment target to the HK tycoons

Unless you could brainwash the British voters and the Hong Kong tycoons to accept the consequences, no plausible armed attack nor show of force would be tabled for Hong Kong by 1989 by any sane British government. The point is that HK could not survive without trade with China, unlike the Falklands with Argentina.

 

[Die Oulike Bloutongskink]

China couldn't project power past their borders until recently

There's a difference between not having a blue water navy with a competent expeditionary force (of which China still has not proven its experience in modern era) and rolling over to Hong Kong which lies literally on a peninsula. This is not a repeat of the Sino-Vietnamese war but a looming threat of major invasion on a city state by the largest army in the world. If Britain is willing to escalate their armed presence for the sake of Hong Kong, it will only galvanise the internal opposition in China and potentially in HK as well from the tycoons as they've built their wealth from trading with China.

 

[Die Oulike Bloutongskink]

In any case, handing HK to ROC is a no-no since 1950 as has been said by multiple posters unless you butterfly the course of the Chinese Civil War. But then it won't be "Taiwan" per se but just China.

 

[marathag]

There's a difference between not having a blue water navy with a competent expeditionary force (of which China still has not proven its experience in modern era) and rolling over to Hong Kong which lies literally on a peninsula. This is not a repeat of the Sino-Vietnamese war but a looming threat of major invasion on a city state by the largest army in the world. If Britain is willing to escalate their armed presence for the sake of Hong Kong, it will only galvanise the internal opposition in China and potentially in HK as well from the tycoons as they've built their wealth from trading with China.

OK, There is a declared War over this. The PLAN has nothing that can stop British Subs, and the UK is out of range of Chinese ICBMs until the DF-31 of 2006

 

[Dan1988]

Can the British bluff the PLA in 1989 send a couple of SSN and a SSBN in the pacific , deploy the paras in Hong Kong and a few squadrons of aircraft.

No need - just turn off the water, sewage, and electricity supply, and Hong Kong immediately surrenders to China. Britain will then take the humiliation and hand it over. Britain is not going to defend Hong Kong, nor - ultimately - would it want to. HK is not the Falklands.

 

[Die Oulike Bloutongskink]

OK, There is a declared War over this. The PLAN has nothing that can stop British Subs, and the UK is out of range of Chinese ICBMs until the DF-31 of 2006

Umm.... okay.. so there's a war over HK in 1989? The RNSS are certainly well above their Chinese counterparts and furthermore they have not retired the Valiant and Resolution class as well, plus the UK is not targetable directly by any Chinese missiles. But if there is an actual shooting war over this then HK as we know it is simply lost as nothing can stop the PLA juggernaut from entering HK aside from tactical nuclear strikes in Guangzhou at this point and there will be no British PM that is willing to do that over HK in 1989.

 

[Die Oulike Bloutongskink]

No need - just turn off the water, sewage, and electricity supply, and Hong Kong immediately surrenders to China. Britain will then take the humiliation and hand it over. Britain is not going to defend Hong Kong, nor - ultimately - would it want to. HK is not the Falklands.

Indeed, regardless of who may control China by that point in this ATL, Hong Kong is ultimately dependant in its livelihood to China. Heck the sole reason of Hong Kong to reach its economic stature was because it was a gateway of trade and investment to the Mao/Deng era PRC with closed economy and I suspect HK would not do as well as it was OTL in a KMT ruled China that practiced open market considering that the civil war brought many skilled and educated people that were escaping from the advancing communists. Remove China from the equation and HK is doomed.

Unless the British taxpayers in 1989 are willing to shore up the bill to indefinitely support 5 million Chinese and 100.000 South Asians in HK 😄. Most of the farms are not there anymore since NT was already developed so they can't even be self sufficient in the worst case scenario.

 

[Veiovis]

If nothing else it will be the most honorable and glorious last stands in western military history far eclipsing the Spartans.

There is no "honour" or "glory" in sending thousands of your own men to die and turning turning a city of millions into a blasted hellscape just to uphold some long lost colonial nostalgia. Your viewpoint on this is legitimatly disgusting.

 

[Monk78]

There is no "honour" or "glory" in sending thousands of your own men to die and turning turning a city of millions into a blasted hellscape just to uphold some long lost colonial nostalgia. Your viewpoint on this is legitimatly disgusting.

ofcourse there isnt anything glorious about it that bit of my post was entirely tongue in cheek.

But since this is a place where we debate all possible scenarios do we really think such a show of force by UK would result in a nuclear war? Chinese are not that dumb to lose all support in the world esp at this time.
Most likely as stated above by others PRC will cut off supplies and all trade possibly even a quarantine around HK. Then its upto the british if they want to escalate it further by using their SSN to sink any PLAN ships. I'm sure they will back down, no one will support them on this not even US.
This will not however automatically result in a nuclear conflict. BUT its interesting to speculate how it will turn out [purely in military terms] if a limited shooting war erupts between UK and PRC over this , no matter how unlikely it might be.

 

[Monk78]

Umm.... okay.. so there's a war over HK in 1989? The RNSS are certainly well above their Chinese counterparts and furthermore they have not retired the Valiant and Resolution class as well, plus the UK is not targetable directly by any Chinese missiles. But if there is an actual shooting war over this then HK as we know it is simply lost as nothing can stop the PLA juggernaut from entering HK aside from tactical nuclear strikes in Guangzhou at this point and there will be no British PM that is willing to do that over HK in 1989.

why does PLA need nuclear strikes ?

 

[Monk78]

Let me add I wasn't trying to offend anyone with that remark about "glorious last stand" I'm sorry if feeling were hurt by it

 

[Die Oulike Bloutongskink]

why does PLA need nuclear strikes ?

Then how do you stop all the combined forces of the PLA from streamrolling into the New Territories in the case of an actual shooting war? Britain does not have any significant air or ground force near HK that could stop the onslaught in 1989. HK was AFAIK bordered by the garrison of the 124th Division that at that time was undergoing a restructuration that culminated in its upgrade as an amphibious mechanised division in OTL early 2000, they're a "spearhead" division that was tasked to protect eastern Guangzhou and if needed to support the deployment in the south like in Vietnam. They may be obsolete and outclassed in equipment but in combination with artillery and tanks they'll enter NT without significant problems and any attempt to militarise the border between HK and China to prevent this in 1989 will be answered by escalation from the PRC side.

You need nukes to prevent the PLA from entering the the New Territories in 1989 in a case of an actual shooting war; HK is not Taiwan with hundreds of nautical miles to separate it from China and Britain lacked any asset that could mount significant initial resistance aside from submarine launched tactical nukes.

 

[Monk78]

Then how do you stop all the combined forces of the PLA from streamrolling into the New Territories in the case of an actual shooting war? Britain does not have any significant air or ground force near HK that could stop the onslaught in 1989. HK was AFAIK bordered by the garrison of the 124th Division that at that time was undergoing a restructuration that culminated in its upgrade as an amphibious mechanised division in OTL early 2000, they're a "spearhead" division that was tasked to protect eastern Guangzhou and if needed to support the deployment in the south like in Vietnam. They may be obsolete and outclassed in equipment but in combination with artillery and tanks they'll enter NT without significant problems and any attempt to militarise the border between HK and China to prevent this in 1989 will be answered by escalation from the PRC side.

You need nukes to prevent the PLA from entering the the New Territories in 1989 in a case of an actual shooting war; HK is not Taiwan with hundreds of nautical miles to separate it from China and Britain lacked any asset that could mount significant initial resistance aside from submarine launched tactical nukes.

I misunderstood I thought you were saying PLA will use nukes

 

[Cymry-Korean]

As usual when this topic comes up, for some reason the logistical impossibility of Britain holding Hong Kong is just brushed over.

Britain wasn't keeping the enclave, full-stop.

 

[Fernan3451]

As usual when this topic comes up, for some reason the logistical impossibility of Britain holding Hong Kong is just brushed over.

Britain wasn't keeping the enclave, full-stop.

The idea here is to have the ROC acquire Hong Kong, so maybe the Nationalists keeping mainland China can make this scenario possible.

 

[dcharles]

As usual when this topic comes up, for some reason the logistical impossibility of Britain holding Hong Kong is just brushed over.

Britain wasn't keeping the enclave, full-stop.

I think that's clear. But Britain posturing about giving it to Taiwan--not that they would, in the end--it could lead to very interesting butterflies.

 

[Cymry-Korean]

The idea here is to have the ROC acquire Hong Kong, so maybe the Nationalists keeping mainland China can make this scenario possible.

The title says "Taiwan".