The Hong Kong Thread
- Thread starter 1241Penguin
- 205 comments
- 13,198 views
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Perhaps. Or maybe it's a Hobson's choice. Or possibly a trade-off. But either way, Hong Kongers stand to lose s few rights to a repressive regime that has the strong upper hand. But the majority of Chinese probably feel the ability to buy foreign real estate is worth curtailment of some intangible rights. It's easier to ignore a tank rolling nearby when you're driving a BMW.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
No, there are some things it is probably better not to learn about. For if you did, and it became morally incumbent to do something about it that you could not possibly accomplish, then you would be in an untenable position.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
When the UK was threatened by Mad Cow disease, it incinerated practically every cow in the Kingdom. Perhaps China feels existentially challenged by a population of religionists that cannot be integrated into its culture. They are sovereign. You cannot march in to a powerful sovereign nation conducting what it deems to be vital internal national interests, investigate them, and declare them guilty of a heinous crime punishable by you and your friends.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
It is complicated, but most of these accusation come from whistleblowers. From my experience whistleblowers are not always reliable without real evidence. I dont count anecdotal expriences as evidence. Personally I would like to find out more about these camps, if they are as cruel as they are?
A few years ago I saw this docu about camps that treats gamingaddiction among the youth in China. A lot of the patients there seem to exaggerate their experience as cruel and violation of their rights. Although not comparable, I just want to point out the unreliable narrator again. That said they could have heavily edited or directed the material in the docu.
I was not referring to military or legal pressure. Boycots of chinese goods could be a good tool to pressure China.
- 3,131
- Hong Kong
- Hybrid_Tifoso
The Chief Executive has finally said (some of) the words that need to be spoken: the extradition bill amendment will be officially withdrawn.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-49575381
None of the remaining 4 demands have been met though.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-49575381
None of the remaining 4 demands have been met though.
- 13,736
- Adelaide
- Neomone
No, only an authoritarian government. You can see similar things evolving in other authoritarian states, now that the technology to allow such things is becoming widely available. China just happens to be on the cutting edge with this one.
Sure you can. It's called "war". It's happened before, and it will happen again.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
As useful and simple a way to solve conflict as war undoubtedly is, a US war with China could be a real problem. To simply march our land army across their borders in an invasion would probably mean we'd never see them again. The preferred solution of nuclear bombing would have worked nicely up until very recently when China wisely saw fit to arm its ICBMs with their nuclear warheads - ready for immediate launch - instead of leaving them safely separated. So the problem now is to knock their ICBMs offline. The technology exists to do this. So yes, you are right, it's only a matter of time. Hopefully a very long time!
- 1,840
- United States
If you actually think America's nuclear capabilities would be made inoperable by an EMP strike then you are reading to many fiction novels.
Not to mention that the number of Subs with nuclear missiles the U.S. has deployed at any one time around the world in undisclosed locations and each has the ability alone to wipe out most countries alone.
And no I do not think that this country is the only one with these types of safeguards over the nuclear capabilities. An actual all out world war 3 would probably spell the end of this planet as we now know it. Some one somewhere would be the first one to push the nuclear button and then it would be over as all nations "defended" themselves with counter strikes.
This is why it is so worrisome that small rogue nations acquire these weapons because they may just be the ones that do not care about the final results and actually push the damn button.
- 13,736
- Adelaide
- Neomone
No, you just have to be willing to accept the repercussions of attacking them. Those repercussions may be limited if you can cripple their ability to strike back, or they may not.
And no, given the current state of nuclear technology there is no feasible method to prevent a superpower from launching a counterstrike. I doubt the US could disable the North Korean nukes with an absolute guarantee that they couldn't counterstrike, and NK is about as far from a superpower as you can get.
Small nations are the ones that are the most likely to face an existential threat in the face of an attacking superpower, and may rationally decide that if they're going to be wiped off the face of the earth then they might as well take their murderers with them.
Defensive nuclear weapons are not worrisome. What's worrisome is that there are countries that would legitimately attack a nuclear power, thereby potentially forcing their hand. If someone invades your home, any ensuing violence is at their instigation.
- 3,131
- Hong Kong
- Hybrid_Tifoso
For the first time in over 50 years and since Hong Kong’s return to Chinese rule, the Emergency Regulations Ordinance has been invoked by the Chief Executive, and the first law that comes into effect under it bans people from concealing their faces in any way at demonstrations, legal or illegal. Police would also be granted the authority to ask anyone to take off their masks in public.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-49931598
Another local news source also says that exemptions apply when the person concerned with concealing his face was carrying out duties relevant to his occupation at such demonstrations, or was doing so for religious or already-existing health reasons.
From what I can gather, people are more concerned with the emergency law’s invocation setting a precedent for even more nefarious laws, such as banning instant messaging apps, confiscating private property arbitrarily or prohibiting the operation of the press in the imminent future, or the ramifications of the anti-mask law for photojournalists that work at-the-scene and consequently, the caught protestors, than the impact of the anti-mask law on the protestors themselves. Attempts have been made by people to stop the law from being implemented shortly after its announcement yesterday, but the High Court (the second-highest court in Hong Kong in terms of authority) ruled against granting an interim injunction earlier today, so it’s likely that the anti-mask law will stay for a while, or at least until a verdict has been reached from the judicial review submitted.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-49931598
Another local news source also says that exemptions apply when the person concerned with concealing his face was carrying out duties relevant to his occupation at such demonstrations, or was doing so for religious or already-existing health reasons.
From what I can gather, people are more concerned with the emergency law’s invocation setting a precedent for even more nefarious laws, such as banning instant messaging apps, confiscating private property arbitrarily or prohibiting the operation of the press in the imminent future, or the ramifications of the anti-mask law for photojournalists that work at-the-scene and consequently, the caught protestors, than the impact of the anti-mask law on the protestors themselves. Attempts have been made by people to stop the law from being implemented shortly after its announcement yesterday, but the High Court (the second-highest court in Hong Kong in terms of authority) ruled against granting an interim injunction earlier today, so it’s likely that the anti-mask law will stay for a while, or at least until a verdict has been reached from the judicial review submitted.
- 318
- Hungary
What do you call "defensive nuclear weapon"? Like what the US dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Because a nuclear weapon can be used both offensively and defensively regardless of the weapon itself. I'm against all nuclear weapons, but of course those who has more should disassemble them first. No nation should allowed to keep their nuclear weapons because of their potential danger.
- 13,736
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Defensive in the sense that their purpose is to dissuade attackers. I'd argue that a truly defensive nuclear weapon is one that isn't intended to be used, as it serves it's purpose simply by existing as a threat. The nuclear stockpiles that a nation like North Korea can feasibly generate are insufficient for a meaningful first strike (an offensive attack), but they are sufficient to provide a deterrent (a defensive role).
If it comes to the point that North Korea is required to actually use their nuclear weapons, I'd argue that they've already lost and that all they're doing is reinforcing that there are consequences the next time there's a regime the US decides it just can't tolerate. There are only a few nations that can conceivably use nuclear weapons offensively and expect a net positive outcome. The most dangerous actors are non-nation state militants, as they don't necessarily have a specific location that can be retaliated against and so could (if they had access to them) use nuclear weapons relatively freely. Fortunately, most nuclear nations are aware of this danger, and the technology required to build your own nuclear weapon is beyond what rebels and guerillas can muster.
The Hiroshima and Nagasaki nukes were definitely not defensive; they were an offensive strike to demonstrate overwhelming force at the end of a war where both sides had inflicted astounding amounts of damage and death. You can get into "the best defense is a good offense" if you want, but I think common sense dictates that the US and Japan were overtly attacking each other.
It would be preferable if nuclear weapons didn't exist, but they do. It was pretty inevitable, given that humans like to figure things out. Given that, and given that there are a couple of major players who both have massive nuclear arsenals and are known for their expansionist policies, it seems like the correct strategic move for countries who feel like they might be threatened (Iran, North Korea, etc.) is to have their own nuclear weapons so that at least they can credibly present a Mutually Assured Destruction scenario. It's exactly the same rationale that leads Israel to having nuclear weapons, just on the other side of the fence.
I don't see there being a real move towards serious disarmament on all sides until the US and Russia quit with the nation building BS and start actually paying more than lip service to the sovereignty of foreign nations and governments. And every other state that pushes into foreign territory with expansionist goals I suppose, but if the big boys started leading by example I suspect it would go a long way. There's already enough contested territory in the world to make things uncomfortable enough for the next 50 years without invasions of explicitly sovereign soil on top of that.
- 4,551
- Moscow
- Rage_Racer_VOLK
- RageRacer48
Excuse me if I hurt anyone's feelings, but these "protestors" look more like bandits to me.
Destroying private property, damaging metro stations, paralysing the work of the MTR, attacking journalists and taking them hostage like terrorists (in the Hong Kong airport) - what is this for? For freedom? You break into an electronics store and rob it, now the communist China is defeated. Really?
What do they want? They don't like that extradition bill? You mean, they don't want to get extradited if they murder someone in the mainland China?
Lately, they seem to forget what do they even "protest" for, all they're doing is breaking traffic lights, street cameras, burning metro stations and other vandalism. The Hong Kongers will be the ones paying for this damage, not Beijing.
Now that's really going to cause the PRC govenment to back down.
Check the device you're posting this with and see where it's made.
Destroying private property, damaging metro stations, paralysing the work of the MTR, attacking journalists and taking them hostage like terrorists (in the Hong Kong airport) - what is this for? For freedom? You break into an electronics store and rob it, now the communist China is defeated. Really?
What do they want? They don't like that extradition bill? You mean, they don't want to get extradited if they murder someone in the mainland China?
Lately, they seem to forget what do they even "protest" for, all they're doing is breaking traffic lights, street cameras, burning metro stations and other vandalism. The Hong Kongers will be the ones paying for this damage, not Beijing.
Now that's really going to cause the PRC govenment to back down.
Wouldn't it mean to boycott almost any electronics around you?
Check the device you're posting this with and see where it's made.
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
Democracy?Excuse me if I hurt anyone's feelings, but these "protestors" look more like bandits to me.
Destroying private property, damaging metro stations, paralysing the work of the MTR, attacking journalists and taking them hostage like terrorists (in the Hong Kong airport) - what is this for? For freedom? You break into an electronics store and rob it, now the communist China is defeated. Really?
What do they want? They don't like that extradition bill? You mean, they don't want to get extradited if they murder someone in the mainland China?
Lately, they seem to forget what do they even "protest" for, all they're doing is breaking traffic lights, street cameras, burning metro stations and other vandalism. The Hong Kongers will be the ones paying for this damage, not Beijing.
Now that's really going to cause the PRC govenment to back down.
Wouldn't it mean to boycott almost any electronics around you?
Check the device you're posting this with and see where it's made.
It's the one thing they don't have that basically every one else has, even your nonsense country has an election even though it's probably rigged.
- 318
- Hungary
This is more clear, thank you, although I would argue that states like North Korea or Iran are a bit too paranoid when it comes to the US, which isn't really surprising because we are talking about dictatorships here. All of the western nations know that the age of conquest is over, it is all about the money nowadays.
When it comes to the China situation, I have mixed feelings. I know that the people in Hong Kong want democratic rights, but they are only a small part of China, which means they have little power to do it. They reached their short term goal, but with violence (and I know that the Chinese government is also prone to use that) won't lead anywhere, if they want to make a breach on the Chinese system of things they need to look further and think big.
- 4,551
- Moscow
- Rage_Racer_VOLK
- RageRacer48
What's wrong with democracy in Hong Kong? From what I heard, it's one of the freest places in Asia.
The funniest thing is that direct elections in Hong Kong are impossible untill 2047, under the conditions of the agreement for transfer to China. The British government insisted on this point so the Chinese people coming from the mainland wouldn't vote anything wrong. Back when HK was a colony, there were no elections. There was a governor assigned from London, regardless if the Hong Kongers like him or not. The currently active election system in HK was invented by the Brits, and if it was changed to a more "democratic" one, that would be a violation of the transfer agreement... by China.
Whether if my country is nonsense and how rigged its elections are, I have something to say about it, but I don't want to derail from the topic. It's a subject of a separate discussion, in a different thread.
Did you just call the United Kingdom an authoritarian state?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technol...ry-11-people-in-Britain-says-CCTV-survey.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_Kingdom
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
A whole lot of Whataboutism without an actual point.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
What are you talking about? Dude I am from chinese origin. Did you even read the post I was reacting to?
- 13,736
- Adelaide
- Neomone
I disagree. Iraq and Afghanistan are the most recent examples on the US side, Crimea on the Russian side. But you're mostly right, the Cold War is over, and you're not really allowed to explicitly plant your flag and claim foreign soil any more. But you can very much overthrow the rulers and install a puppet government. Or at least one that is well aware that it's in their immediate interests not to cross you politically.
That's the modern equivalent of conquest and colonialism, and it seems to come with enough of the same problems that I'm not sure that they're as different as people might think.
I did not. But I will say that many of the western countries seem to be leaning more towards authoritarianism recently.
Remember that authoritarianism is a spectrum, it's not "1984" or nothing. One can see examples of authoritarianism in many things, such as the UK's surveillance, the aggressively divided politics of the US, or the concentration camps, sorry, detention centres in Australia. It is apparently the political style of the generation.
- 318
- Hungary
Iraq was doomed from the beginning when Great Britain and France divided up the Middle East between themselves and they did not care about any ethnic or cultural borders. Afghanistan was something that the US caused itself by distributing weapons to the taliban then when they turned against the US, the US wanted to solve the issue by sending more troops, which was bad of course and it was all about the oil. The taliban weren't in the government in Afghanistan in the first place though. Crimea is more than a puppet state, because Russian forces were involved in the civil war, although unofficially, so it could seen as a Russian conquest, but I don't think that Russia wouldn't do that if Ukraine had nukes. Also installing a puppet government in the case of North Korea would be a much better thing (or a complete assimilation into South Korea), but that is a whole other topic. (In the case of Iran it would be debatable, because of the Sunni-Shia conflict, which is very complicated.)
To turn back to the original topic, Great Britain should be blamed here a little bit, because she torn out that city from it's mother nation during the opium wars, although this also sheds light to the authorian side of the Chinese government, that they thought that they could rule Hong Kong as they rule the rest of the country. Could the Chinese government solve this issue peacefully or do they show that they are still pretty much a dictatorship but with a capitalist economy.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
The owner of the NBA team Houston Rockets has gone off the reservation and bitten the hand that feeds him.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...uston-rockets-regrettable-pro-democracy-tweet
