its sad. when Sun Yat-sen the father of modern China take on the Qing dynasty. Hong Kong was the base. It wasn't part of China and a lot of Chinese who is educated under the British rule understand what Sun try to achieve. a modern and free country. Hong Kong have been a base for a lot of progressive Chinese.
Now that Hong Kong is fully back into China and the 50 years of no changes (for Hong Kong) promised by Deng Xiaoping is gone with Xi, basically a emperor for life. There is no hope for China to turn into a democratic country.
Taiwan is the last place for the progressive Chinese. After Chiang's family, Taiwan have progressed to be the most democratic and open minded country. It elected a first female president in Taiwan, allowed gay marriage...etc. While American left Taiwan to have a business relationship with China (CCP) for more than 40 years.
I fear Taiwan will soon be conquered by China, not by force but suppression and economic ties. After Taiwan is gone, there is no more place for any open minded and progressive Chinese.
Some think that if the US extended their protection to Taiwan, Beijing would not attempt to take Taiwan.
Let's just assume for a moment that the US will fight off attacks by China to take Taiwan. And that US successfully ward off an attack. What next? What is there to prevent China from trying again and again and again? Will the US be prepared to ward off attacks after attacks after attacks? This is unlikely to happen.
With this, lets again assume that China eventually successfully takes Taiwan. What next? They would have taken over an island with a large number of people who resents their rule. There will be a persistent resistance group as long as Beijing continues her ways and Beijing is aware of this and is trying to shape the education of the younger generations so that the resentment does not cross generations.
Even if all these were to take place and all hope seems to be lost. There is a glimmer of hope. A totalitarian state has one major fault. There is no effective feedback mechanism and to assume that this one man can make the right call, the right decision all the time is a stretch. At some point, be it internal infighting, or a policy misstep creating intense misery amongst the people, there will be discontent and if the history of China is any indication, the discontent can trigger uprisings and eventually a change of regime.
The only way the regime can be changed is from the inside.
> Some think that if the US extended their protection to Taiwan, Beijing would not attempt to take Taiwan.
> What next? What is there to prevent China from trying again and again and again?
> The only way the regime can be changed is from the inside.
Worth noting that the Chinese Army “may not be willing to fight” (‘pay the bill’ for the aggressive stance of the Foreign Ministry). [1]
If the Chinese Army did not score decisive victories early on, they may be the one to give up, pushing back pressure from the top, instead of trying again and again.
1) China won't attack Taiwan until it can be assured a swift victory.
2) China will reach that state within our lifetimes.
WWII was won, in part, by US manufacturing prowess. China has that advantage. It's military is currently behind in equipment, but if it chose to, it could build a blue water navy or whatever else it wants in record time. It also has the political ability to engage in major projects like these (see respective COVID19 responses).
I suspect Chinese military leadership is far more competent than US or EU. The cream of the crop in the West doesn't go into the military (see Afghanistan for an good example of how US armed forces are managed).
I also think we will see major disruptions in military from autonomous and semi-autonomous machines which will really reduce the US lead. DJI is headquartered in China, as are many of the other players here. If heave machines like carriers are obsoleted, the US advantage might turn into an expensive liability.
Carriers are already obsolete in a superpower war. Both sides possess weapons that can destroy them utterly from a great distance, and their location cannot be kept secret. Carriers won't last a day.
China's hypersonic missiles have shorter range than an F35 launched from a carrier with midair refuel drone.
The only issue is that we'd want our carriers closer in practice. Close to the action means faster response times. If we are willing to destroy Chinese satellites, then China's kill chain becomes much harder.
I'm not convinced that a drone or spyplane can reliably penetrate the defensive line of destroyers + cruisers + E2 Hawkeyes.
And satellites aren't even that reliable either, it may be possible to hide a carrier between satellite flyovers in practice.
A drone could not penetrate a defensive line of destroyers, cruisers, and E2 Hawkeyes.
However, a destroyer costs $870 million. I can build a drone for around $870 which has decent range, and sufficient firepower to do real damage if attacking with sufficient precision (e.g. placing a small explosive charge directly within a barrel).
That means I can launch a million drones for the cost of one destroyer. I'm pretty sure that a line of destroyers, cruisers, and E2 Hawkeyes wouldn't be able to destroy a fleet of a million drones. If they could, the cost of destroying each drone would likely be greater than the cost of the drone.
You can also launch 870 cruise missiles for the cost of one destroyer from a greater range with greater destruction.
Actually, this is wrong. That is the cost of the missiles, not the cost of the launch platform, nor the cost of the personnel, nor the cost of the logistics.
CRAM bullets cost cheaper than your drone, and those CRAMs are on each Destroyer. I think our cruisers have 2 CRAMs on them (but I forget exactly)
These CRAMs can aim-bot and destroy subsonic cruise missiles (500mph), and even supersonic cruise missiles (1000mph). That's why China has spent billions developing hypersonic missiles (2500+mph) to dodge our CRAMs and missile defenses.
How fast is your drone flying? Does it pull enough lateral Gs to dodge CRAM shots or avoid the Patriot defense missiles?
The "city-version" has shorter range, because we need the bullets to self-destroy themselves before they land on someone's property. So the Israeli "Iron Dome" is in fact, inferior, to the defense system on these Destroyers / Cruisers that surround the Carrier.
Tel Aviv's Iron Dome also has a much more difficult job: defending a population center rather than just a few ships. There will naturally be "holes" in the Iron Dome (just areas of the city that aren't as well defended).
In contrast: we can position our ships to maximize the chance of interception, and minimize the chance of our CRAM's failing.
-----------------
The worry about China's drones is their stealth spydrones which will try to triangulate the position of the carrier strike group. The drone then sends the coordinates to a hypersonic missile.
I'm not convinced that the stealth systems on those drones are sufficient to "hide" from radar, probably only good enough to prevent things like CRAM/Patriots from locking on. Without the ability to lock on, we don't have an ability to kill those drones from Destroyers / Cruisers.
That's where the Carrier comes in. The E2 Hawkeye has an aerial radar system and can get "eyes in the sky", making our targeting superior (maybe then our Patriots can hit). We can also launch fighters (F22 is probably sufficient) to close the distance and lock on / destroy the target... or even engage in a dogfight (radar-drones wouldn't have much dogfighting ability).
--------
How is China launching a million drones anyway? Their carriers aren't like ours. We have 4x catapults and 2x runways per carrier, I'm pretty sure China's carriers are only 1x runway. How many minutes does it take per launch?
If its an air battle you want, the 4x catapults + 2x runways the Supercarriers push will get more planes into the air than anything in the Chinese Navy... and we have something like 10 carriers fielded right now.
We're talking about Taiwan. China sets them up in the fields in a few of the rural communities near Xiamen. They simultaneously lift off from the fields. They fly at ~25mph. They take perhaps three hours to clear the water between Taiwan and China. There's a million of them. They're slow, but fairly agile.
Looking at the video, it looks like the C-RAM system is shooting perhaps dozens of rounds per second. Shooting down a million drones would take many hours of continuous shooting, assuming every bullet hit, which it wouldn't.
And a Patriot missile is $2-3 million.
I think the future of warfare is likely to be cheap, small, but smart and precision.
* A small drone flies into a gun barrel and explodes.
* A small drone flies into a jet air intake, and explodes, spraying material designed to damage the engine as it passes through
* A small drone deposits a chemical weapon in a ship's HVAC intake
* A small drone sprays corrosive paint on a camera, on a jet window, other surface we look through
* A small drone launches a single bullet to kill a mechanic
... and so on.
I think a lot of this goes like rock-paper-scissors, where a million $1000 drones overwhelms a $1 billion ship. On the other hand, a hundred thousand $10,000 drones could probably make quick work of a million $1000 drones. And so on.
As long as the ship is traveling 25mph away from a 25mph drone, its shooting them down with machine guns (and bullets are very, very cheap). A flock of drones flying at 25mph isn't a weapon, they're sitting ducks. Fully and completely ineffective at ever dealing damage to these warships.
Like, 25mph means that these drones are going to be within effective range of the machine guns for 10 minutes when the ship is standing still. And these AEGIS systems on these destroyers have 300km+ effective radar range.
Unless you have very expensive equipment on those drones: they'll be flying in blind and getting sniped. Either stealth (which prevents the CRAM from locking on), or superior radar (to see the ships before the ships see it), or a combination thereof.
And again: if they're not standing still: the ships can basically run around in circles and the drones would never catch up.
1) China doesn't need to destroy US ships; it merely needs to keep them distracted long enough to take control of Taiwan. If China moves quickly, the Taiwanese leadership are deported to Beijing, and there are boots on the ground, it's a done deal. Once that's done, it will be like Crimea. There's no way the US is getting drawn into a land war in Asia.
2) Ten minutes, at a dozen shots a minute, means a gun firing at 10 RPS can take out 6,000 drones. That's 0.6% of a flock.
3) You can't run circles around a flock of millions of drones, no matter how fast you go. A flock can cover a lot of space. The best you can do is run away, which would take US forces out-of-commission.
4) The Taiwan Straight is simply not that large. It's not hard for China to be aware of everything that happens there, even with a fleet of small, cheap AUVs. Heck, they could drop a few hundred thousand of these as well, if they wanted to.
5) It's equally not hard for China to communicate with a flock of drones. A directional spread spectrum link isn't easy to jam. At that range, even an optical link is practical, and not something where we have countermeasures.
6) A million drones can effectively blanket the whole Taiwan straight.
7) In terms of stealth, I'm not sure how technology will progress, but I'm pretty sure that building drones indistinguishable from birds on radar just wouldn't be that hard. I'm also pretty sure a flock of drones could be made to emulate other forms of craft, on radar.
8) I'm also pretty sure China wouldn't telegraph what they're doing. It's not like we can prepare countermeasures. I gave one example of a disruptive technology; there are dozens of others. To be honest, I have no idea how AEGIS would deal with a million targets, nor what having that many targets would do to its ability to track things like Chinese landing craft, unless the US were explicitly prepared for this particular threat.
Also, the C-RAM price-per-round is about $30. With a $1000 drone, things are cost-neutral if about 3% of rounds hit. At 10 kilometers, it would take rounds a little under 10 seconds to arrive. Even modestly chaotic trajectories would dodge most rounds.
Frankly: the discussion point of "suicide drones" is pretty ignorant.
25mph drones will not hold back a warship. They can't effectively close range at 10km out, let alone at 5km, 1km, or shorter. As I stated earlier: warships are literally faster than that.
The "meta" under discussion, by serious people (including Chinese investments / Chinese saber rattling) is the missile. 500mph cruise missiles, 1000mph supersonic missiles, and 3000mph hypersonic missiles.
If you're going to "suicide drone", you do it at 3000mph to impress people. You don't do it at 25mph. Even at 500mph and 1000mph, the methodology is so clearly ineffective that China has spent billions making 3000mph missiles instead.
The minute you start thinking about how these drones are going to take off, refuel, get their payloads (etc. etc.), is the minute you realize how impractical the whole proposal is. What kind of launch platform will these drones take off in? What's the effective range of a drone?
US Destroyers have tomahawk cruise missiles that can reliably hit targets 2000km away, and these missiles fly at 500mph+. How long does it take for your 25mph drone to cover the 2000km range that these Destroyers are at defending Taiwan?
By the time your drones get there, the Destroyers have already launched all their missiles and have gone home.
------
How do you even find the warships in the first place? You keep saying "hundreds of drones", but drones flying at 10km high can only see 300km out.
Secondly: if you fly "like a bird" at say 1000meters, you can only see 100km out before the horizon blocks you. It'd be impossible to track down the warships firing from 2000km away.
At these ranges, the E2 Hawkeye of the Carrier will see your drones, and an appropriate response will be dispatched. Most likely, the warships will just avoid the drones. Hiding behind the horizon.
What kind of drone are you using to even try to tavel 2000km over water? I'm pretty sure that your typical $1000 drone simply don't have the range or speed to even get to the warships.
> There's no way the US is getting drawn into a land war in Asia.
Classic blunder or not, the US gets drawn into land wars in Asia fairly regularly (especially in the 21st century, where we’ve spent most of it involved in two at once.) 1950-1953 Korea, 1955-1973 Vietnam, 1991 Iraq, 2001-2021 Afghanistan, 2003-2011 Iraq II: Elecric Boogaloo, 2014-? Iraq III: Now with Syria, too.
I either agree or think your predictions make sense, but I think your premises that lead to them are a little bit suspect.
China doesn't have the same manufacturing prowess that the US did because of its location. In World War II, the US was essentially an untouchable supply chain with access to both oceans. It could fight Japan and supply Russia through the west if necessary, and it could fight Germany and supply England and Russia through the eat too.
In China's case, the main issue is that while the factories are certainly humming right along, they need to import food, oil, and other raw materials. Where do those come from? Certainly Russia, despite its blustering, isn't going to do too much to help China because that gives the U.S. an easy excuse to attack Russia in the east. Expect Russia to sit this one out and maybe screw around in a inconsequential way in Europe at best.
Will China then get resources from neighbors? Sure. Except now they have to transport all of these raw materials to the east coast of China where all the factories are. Lots of lead times here.
Meanwhile, the US can simply purchase the same materials from untouched supply chains in Europe and South America.
> it could build a blue water navy or whatever else it wants in record time.
I very much doubt this. And this has to happen years (decades?) before a war breaks out. China would have to build these ships in docks on the shore, which would be vulnerable to any number of U.S. bombing campaigns from strategic locations (Guam, Japan, carrier fleet, etc.). Not to say why wouldn't the U.S. also build hypersonic missiles?
> It also has the political ability to engage in major projects like these (see respective COVID19 responses).
Sure, that's always the general strength of the authoritarian regime. The ability to issue dictates. But that's also the great weakness, because you can go down a very wrong path and you won't know until its too late. Japan experienced this in World War II.
But the U.S. (and allies) would undoubtedly be united in a response to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. The center-left, center, and entire right wing of the US for sure would be. So I'm not sure I'd look at the U.S.'s COVID-19 response and generalize from that.
> I suspect Chinese military leadership is far more competent than US or EU. The cream of the crop in the West doesn't go into the military (see Afghanistan for an good example of how US armed forces are managed).
What do you base this on? If nothing else, the United States and European Union (NATO allies) have been engaging in actual joint operations all over the world for the past 20-some years.
And the U.S. fought a different kind of war in Afghanistan than it would the one it might have to fight against China in the Pacific. First, the U.S. occupied the country just fine for 20 years, and then got tired of it. The U.S. also operated with very strict rules of engagement. Like, shoot at US soldiers then throw your Ak-47 in the weeds and say it wasn't you and nobody could do anything since you didn't have your weapon on you. Iraq looks to be a better example but neither should be relied upon as a good case.
> I also think we will see major disruptions in military from autonomous and semi-autonomous machines which will really reduce the US lead. DJI is headquartered in China, as are many of the other players here.
Who cares about DJI?
> If heave machines like carriers are obsoleted, the US advantage might turn into an expensive liability.
Weren't you saying that China would build a blue-water navy in record time? What would they do with this obsolete navy?
But the U.S. doesn't need to keep its carrier groups within range of any Chinese action to cause lots of problems for China. A naval blockade, they can go sink ships in ports that are friendly to China but aren't in China, etc.
> The Chinese military also has more manpower.
True that quantity does have a quality all of its own, but it seems like a bottle neck to me. Are they going to load up boat after boat and sail soldiers to Taiwan? Seems like a pretty expensive offensive and will Chinese moral handle losing soldiers in boats going to attack Taiwan? Lots of uncertainties.
Anyway, my point here was just to provide some counterpoints to some of yours here. Frankly, this is all really stupid.
> Not to say why wouldn't the U.S. also build hypersonic missiles?
China isn't even building missile-defense cruisers (equivalent to the AEGIS system on US-ships). Our tomahawks (cheaper, subsonic cruise missiles) would obliterate them at much cheaper prices.
Why fly at 3000mph (hypersonic) when 500mph is already too fast for their defenses?
There's no reason to build hypersonic missiles until China (or Russia) demonstrates missile-defense capabilities. Even then: the methodology of "launch 20 missiles simultaneously to overwhelm their defense system" seems a lot cheaper than using developing or using hypersonic missiles.
Cheap subsonic cruise missiles are all you need unless your opponent can shoot them down. China needs Hypersonic because of AEGIS (ie: we've reliably demonstrated that we can shoot down missiles flying at 500mph). China hasn't done that, and doesn't seem to have any plans to obtain this technology yet.
"The center-left, center, and entire right wing of the US for sure would be."
I doubt that. I am an American and wouldn't support war with China over Taiwan. I don't know a single person who has ever said anything suggesting they think we should commit the country to war to protect Taiwan.
Coming off the failed Afghanistan war I expect war would be extremely unpopular. Especially with an enemy so much more capable than assorted Afghan militia.
I really don't want another war. At the same time, I don't want the world that would result from China taking Taiwan, either.
What's wrong with that world? 1) We didn't keep our promises. 2) Another 23 million people oppressed by force against their will. Even if it isn't our job to defend them, it still doesn't sit well to see it happen. 3) We can't get chips (much less important than the other two).
Where does that leave me? Not wanting war, but not wanting the alternative? There are a fair number of people with that perspective. If it comes to it, what will we decide? I don't know, even for myself.
War is tough and horrible. Any person can see that. There are many complex reasons why the larger Afghan army could not stand up to the Taliban, and while the situation is not comparable at all to the Chinese military, my point is that around the world, there are military units that aren't prepared or willing to fight the wars that their politicians wage.
I do wager that China's PLA would win a war that involves Taiwan, just due to sheer numbers and resources, but that the experience would be so bitter that the PLA would lose morale in various respects. This is partly because they don't actually have real war experience in the modern era.
Even armies with real war experience can get bitter. Armies without real war experience that suddenly get thrown into the fire, I'd wager that they would get even more bitter. PTSD and suicides would only be par for the course, the real issue would be inexperienced soldiers starting to question "what are we really doing and why am I killing people, do I really believe in what I'm doing?" I wager it would create cracks in what is currently a fairly unified country in China.
The local big player is Japan. It would be hard to intervene because of its current constitution but I don't see them letting PRC push its border so close. Moreover Okinawa was historically a vassal state of both Chinese empires and Japan, so it's possible China greed could extend there as well.
> Let's just assume for a moment that the US will fight off attacks by China to take Taiwan. And that US successfully ward off an attack. What next? What is there to prevent China from trying again and again and again? Will the US be prepared to ward off attacks after attacks after attacks? This is unlikely to happen.
America did this in Korea and it split the country in half.
> With this, lets again assume that China eventually successfully takes Taiwan. What next? They would have taken over an island with a large number of people who resents their rule. There will be a persistent resistance group as long as Beijing continues her ways and Beijing is aware of this and is trying to shape the education of the younger generations so that the resentment does not cross generations.
Also, brainwashing via complete control of the media, disappearing dissidents... They're doing it to the Falun Gong and the Muslims and others and they'll have no problem doing it to more.
> Even if all these were to take place and all hope seems to be lost. There is a glimmer of hope. A totalitarian state has one major fault. There is no effective feedback mechanism and to assume that this one man can make the right call, the right decision all the time is a stretch. At some point, be it internal infighting, or a policy misstep creating intense misery amongst the people, there will be discontent and if the history of China is any indication, the discontent can trigger uprisings and eventually a change of regime.
Also possible for there to be enough bureaucratic momentum that those within it have enough skin in the game to want to install a new head. But once China's growth starts to slow down I wouldn't be surprised at the CCP losing the Mandate of Heaven and the Ouroboros eating its tail again.
> America did this in Korea and it split the country in half.
That is not even close to what happened. Korea was divided at the end of WWII into Soviet and US occupation zones after the Japanese surrender. Prior to that, it had been occupied by Japan.
I agree that once the growth slows China will start to see cracks in its society. This, I submit, is the reason why Beijing is doubling down on the nationalist path. Cast the West as the enemy and China as the victim of oppression to drum up nationalist sentiments.
The social compact I believe that exists in China is that the people put up with the curbs either out of ignorance of the lacks of curbs or because of the promise of a better life which comes along with increased job wages as long as they toe the party line.
The moment the bargain is not held up for the increased wages, the compact starts to get eroded. Turmoil in China if it happens will have a widespread and largely unknown consequences. Unknown because too many pieces are intricately linked to the stable functioning of China.
For one, I hope to be able to witness this one day.
From a tactical point a view it looks a minor issue, except of course for the people of Taiwan. I cannot imagine what somebody in Taiwan, born and raised in a democracy, might be thinking when looking at what is happening in Hong Kong
From the Strategic point of view, you have to look at a map to see what that would mean. China would take over Taiwan, and immediately expand its sea island building around its borders. Cut off the Philippines and Japan across the South China Sea. From Taiwan a fighter jet can be over Japan in 10 min. Australia with its rich mineral resources and empty spaces would be next...
That the US, Australia, Japan together not make it clear to China invading Taiwan would mean a price not worth paying, will prove to be the Strategic blunder of this Century.
I don't know where this absurd idea came from that "China invading Taiwan" means "Australia/Japan would be next!".
As far as the PRC is concerned, Taiwan is a part of China. They wouldn't be invading another nations, they would simply be reclaiming sovereignty over a renegade province.
That is something entirely different from invading a Western ally. One thing has absolutely no bearing on the other.
Have a look at a map, and see the distance from Yonaguni ( Japan ) to Taiwan and the distance Yonaguni to mainland Japan. You think China will do what they are doing in Hong Kong, Xinjiang, South China Sea and suddenly...Come to their senses and stop, specially if unchallenged for previous actions?
Are you in the diplomatic corps? Are you certain that US, Australia, and Japan are not communicating to China? Not all diplomatic exchanges are made public. For example, it is clear that the US is currently talking with the Taliban leadership. What are they saying? We have no idea, but it is taking place. I suspect the same is true for the above.
There will be political unrest as soon as the populace realise that the easy victory they were promised is not materialising and in fact tens of thousands of sons -- only-children who represent the future, pride and prosperity of their parents -- will not be returning home.
> I fear Taiwan will soon be conquered by China, not by force but suppression and economic ties.
A majority in Taiwan (two-thirds) are against unification, and that's hardended further after what's happened in HongKong. This is especially so among young people, who mostly also identify as being exclusively Taiwanese. Support for unification mostly comes from KMT, who are older and identify as Taiwanese and Chinese. As that generation fades away, these ratios will tilt even further.
For most young Taiwanese, Mainland China has nothing to offer for them to want unification.
>It elected a first female president in Taiwan, allowed gay marriage...etc
It's a trap to equate "progressive" social change with democracy. It's perfectly possible to have a socially liberal society that's also very authoritarian. In fact the Western world is going in that direction.
The rule of law is a better example of an artifact of democracy.
Singapore does not significantly differ in its authoritarianism from the PRC. They are however much richer, much smaller, and decided to follow a "capitalist" model, so they get less hate in our political discourse.
That is the most ridiculous hyperbole I have ever heard.
Yes, Singapore does have strict limitations on freedom of speech, but at the same time have separation of powers, free elections and a national identity separate to the PAP.
Singapor only has "Free Elections™" where the opposition is strictly controlled and not allowed to win more than a token number of seats. See also: Nicaragua, Venezuala, etc...
> That is the most ridiculous hyperbole I have ever heard.
>Singapor only has "Free Elections™" where the opposition is strictly controlled and not allowed to win more than a token number of seats.
Through limitations on campaigning, gerrymandering and defamation suits. Not ideal, but no threats, no bullets, no bribing the electoral commission. A far cry from China where they crush entire populations with police brutality.
(In regards to my original comment, SG's elections are free in the sense that all citizens can vote without fear of backlash, but they are not fair because the PAP rig things in their favour)
You'll be startled to know that Sun Yat-sen was a favorite of USSR and Comintern, better than CCP and Mao. And Mao has been the propaganda department head of KMT...
Thinking of politics as some random personal preference, what a showing of naivate...
A question out of curiosity: would you prefer DDR to be crushed militarily as well, instead of just giving up the ghost in 1989?
As a fellow European, I can see that communists are somehow still considered better than the Nazis, and part of the difference might be that their gulags were never conquered by an external force and photos of their skeletal prisoners never made it to the media. They mostly dismantled them themselves once Stalin was dead and the regimes behind the Iron Curtain turned from outright murderous to just oppressive.
> would you prefer DDR to be crushed militarily as well, instead of just giving up the ghost in 1989?
Why are you assuming I wouldn't have prefered the Nazis to have "given up the ghost" as well? Are there any signs of the CCP "giving up the ghost" anytime soon? Given the choices that actually existed, I prefer, as the White Rose put it in one of their leaflets, an end with terror rather than terror without end. Human mortality is a given either way, the dignity that comes with agency and intellectual integrity is what the struggle is about. I don't ask for how long someone lived, but as who they lived.. or as Hannah Arendt put it:
> Once upon a time, there was a happy time when people were free to choose; better to die dead than to be a slave, better to die standing than to live on one's knees. Once upon a time there was a wicked time when imbecile intellectuals declared that life was the highest of goods. Today the terrible time has come, when it is proved every day that death begins its reign of terror exactly when life has become the highest good; that he who prefers to live on his knees dies on his knees; that no one is easier to murder than a slave. We the living have to learn that one cannot even live on one's knees, that one does not become immortal by chasing life, and that when one no longer wants to die for anything, one dies even though one has done nothing.
-- Hannah Arendt via DeepL
> As a fellow European, I can see that communists are somehow still considered better than the Nazis
That's still like saying something with a lethal dose of 50g is better food than something with a lethal dose of 5g. I don't see the point of even ranking them.
HK was sold to Britain as part of the corrupted and weak China's humiliation.
What do you want to say?
Are you trying to depict the image that HK has been forcefully claimed by China?
Please stop this type of propaganda behavior. I don't like CCP, but that does not make HK not part of China.
We Chinese eventually will get rid of CCP, but we don't want the great nation get split. Just like any patriot in US would not want this great nation get split.
Who cares what it was / wasn't part of. The majority of people in HK don't want to be part of China. That's all that matters.
> We Chinese eventually will get rid of CCP, but we don't want the great nation get split.
Dude, what? HK hasn't been part of China for years. What possible justification could you have for re-integrating it. This isn't about preventing a split, this is about undoing a split, and destroying a democracy in the process.
For someone who is anti-CCP, you don't seem to empathize with the people in HK who tasted democracy and have had it ripped away.
You can wipe it away like that, but it is the entire point of Chinese leadership since a long time, even opposing parties, that what once was China will be China again. So the 'who cares' is the vital point in why they are doing this; they care very much, not about the pieces of land or the people, but just the simple fact that they consider it China because it was taken from them (and they always said they will get it back) no matter who say they own it now (Taiwan is not uniformly recognised as a state). And I believe many (majority?) on the mainland agree with this, even if they don't agree with the CCP.
You now get why it is pointless to argue with the Chinese. And Hong Kong wasn't returned to China. It was Handed over. You can also tell most of their assumption about China were taught when they were young. It is always hard to break those assumptions.
Most part of Hong Kong doesn't belong to China for close to 150 years. And you can read why they want Taiwan with so called unification. Taiwan wasn't even part of so called China for most of human history.
They also claims to be Anti-CCP. But have done absolutely nothing against CCP. But because their love of China they must save China first ( helping CCP ) before they somehow get rid of CCP. Oh the irony.
Dude your comment is pure racism without self awareness. And a showing of ignorance beyond saving!
> You now get why it is pointless to argue with the Chinese
I suppose you say similar things in private, just swap Chinese with black, Mexican, Japanese etc.
It was OK to say this type of statement on “Chinese”, because, of cuz, even US president did this.
> And Hong Kong wasn't returned to China. It was Handed over.
Don't play the word on me...
The treaty was signed long time ago. And was the results of foticful invasion.
Returned or handed over, that's for Chinese, UK, and HK people to decide. You as a random (probably racism inclined as well) has no privilege to apply one word or another! And you are probably the least qualified as well, based on the amount of ignorance demonstrated in such a small number of words.
> You can also tell most of their assumption about China were taught when they were young.
WTF we Chinese told you things about China, and all those are what we were taught?!
First, is there anything wrong with that? You are boasting racism statements, which I assume was also taught in school? Is that OK?
And outside of class, we Chinese cannot learn the truth about China? For God's sake, CCP are not omnipotent entity who can control people's mind...
Or you are simply stating that Chinese are not capable of independent thinking, because we are just Chinese? (Of cuz, I am placing a racist trap for you, but likely that's what you are thinking right now...).
> It is always hard to break those assumptions.
Assumption?
I see things with my own eyes, and hear words with my own ears, and read books with my own mind.
You, someone, who randomly punce on Chinese topics, based on 300 years+ colonists education and indoctrination, and plagued by a racism bigot president, who should lead the nation on the positive and good, instead base his whole presidency on demonizing Chinese and China, are free from assumptions!?
You, are having a assumed righteous mindset, which couldn't be farther from the truth...
> Most part of Hong Kong doesn't belong to China for close to 150 years.
You failed to mentioned HK was abducted.
And UK applied brutal colonial ruling, and harsh indoctrination in all levels of the society.
Oh, of cuz, for someone who was decent from the people, who genocide the indigenous people, forgetting the source, omitting the root, is always the standard practice of demonizing the people with strong cultural roots...
> And you can read why they want Taiwan with so called unification.
What? Shed some light on the facts then.
> Taiwan wasn't even part of so called China for most of human history.
LMAO national states were not a thing for the most of human history, so what? Let's dissolve and ask UN to rule the world. I'll be very happy, if the head of the Mafia, would be willing to relinquish the supremacy...
> They also claims to be Anti-CCP.
Why? Why? Why do you relate to CCP? To paint a picture of hideous valin through association, right?
I am not surprised such ploy is well learned by the observers of the US mainstream media...
> But have done absolutely nothing against CCP.
When I was preaching the Chinese citizens rights and the need to stand strong against the bully and unfairness of the CCP officials, you would be calling me a CCP sponsored propagandist.
You are anti CCP, but only superficially in the name.
> But because their love of China they must save China first ( helping CCP ) before they somehow get rid of CCP.
What? Why save China needs to helping CCP? Are you suggesting that CCP is the only medium through which one can help improve China? I thought you are anti CCP, and want me to be one as well...
> Oh the irony.
Yep, your whole post is an irony. One that someone who does not have a clear mind, even muddier writing, delivered an outrageous irony of human ignorance...
> The majority of people in HK don't want to be part of China.
Where is your evidence?
I have friends live and working in HK. Certainly the silent majority doesn't care much. Like any normal people, they prefer better life and rewarding career, than being full time protester.
The 2016 US election already showed that the silent majority rarely aligned with the mainstream rhetoric.
> > The majority of people in HK don't want to be part of China.
The pro-democracy camp, who overwhemingly supported the anti-extradition (anti-CCP) protests in 2019, had a landslide victory during the District Council Election in 2019 [1].
CCP, realizing that fair elections could threaten its rule in Hong Kong, later imposed the National Security Law and arrested lots of opposition members [2].
And then many HKers voted with their feet, literally not being part of China, to show their distrust of the future of Hong Kong under CCP rule [3].
[1] is for local district election. It's ridiculous to say that these elected personels are pro democracy, as if pro democracy is conflicting with CCP. CCP sanctions the democracy state of HK. That's part of deal of the treaty. This is one thing.
Additional, these elected officials are for local executive branches. They actually have no say in how the fundamental political structure ought to do or what to do in the place.
In the typical NYT fashion, they link two groups of people together without formal evidences.
[2] And the national security law. As a common practice all over the world, the law does not change anything in how the HK political system working. I am not sure why any patriotic citizens in HK would find national security law impairs their activity to uphold the democracy in HK. I mean the law literally has nothing to say about how power structure should be. It only states that no one share impair China's sovereignty over HK.
Lastly, stop painting the HK protests as some grandiose ideology fight. It's just young people are not getting the opportunity for flourishing. It's no different than "occupying wall street" it was just that China happen to be the favorite punching bag of disfunctional government to offset their incompetence.
This "great" nation was built on the corpse of several smaller nations a d ethnic groups. Theire reservations are a Disneyland of death by funny dances and deserve to be protected?
This great nation was not built on the corpse of smaller nation.
Since the Zhou dynasty, which derived from tribal era, China was already a unified entity. The process of creating Zhou was certainly not involving any other nations.
Qin dynasty, China have already been a unified country, under unified laws, economic rules, and mixed culture. With a great deal of characteristics of modern nations.
Qin's unification process is standard warfare between feudal lords. Very much like what happened in the long history of Europe.
Once China was unified this way. The cycle of division and unification have never ceased.
Your statement is at best inaccurate. At worst just random imagination.
Well, no, China's unification was a cultural and ethnicity blanding. It was never a genocide.
First I already debunked the notion that China conquered small nations to form its heritage. No China got it's heritage long ago through tribal merger.
And the US history of founding is patently different, and vastly more brutal and immoral...
Now that Hong Kong is fully back into China and the 50 years of no changes (for Hong Kong) promised by Deng Xiaoping is gone with Xi, basically a emperor for life. There is no hope for China to turn into a democratic country.
Taiwan is the last place for the progressive Chinese. After Chiang's family, Taiwan have progressed to be the most democratic and open minded country. It elected a first female president in Taiwan, allowed gay marriage...etc. While American left Taiwan to have a business relationship with China (CCP) for more than 40 years.
I fear Taiwan will soon be conquered by China, not by force but suppression and economic ties. After Taiwan is gone, there is no more place for any open minded and progressive Chinese.