How to get whole Hong Kong permanently leased to the UK?
- Thread starter abc123
- Start date
Typo
Banned
Because there is nothing in this scenario which really changes the matter of arms trade between the RoC and Taiwan from OTL. They would just buy their weapons from America like everyone else and like they do OTL.
Typo
Banned
Errr....you do realize that the Chinese Civil War was after the LoN no longer existed right?
the Long March was in the 1930s, with uprisings in the coastal cities prior to that
Typo
Banned
Except back then the Communists basically wasn't significant, certainly not enough to somehow effect a mandate on Canton, but I was referring to the war in 1945-1949
abc123
Banned
USA currently witholds some major Taiwanese orders for weapons because they don't want to piss off China.
Typo
Banned
Like what? And why would the UK circumvent such orders? For that matter, why can the UK provide those weapons the US arn't willing to?USA currently witholds some major Taiwanese orders for weapons because they don't want to piss off China.
Well, UK export in PRC for 2009. was about 10 billions USD.
Let's say that UK companies earn another 10 billions in China. That's 20 billions.
GDP of Hong Kong in 2010 was about 300 billions USD in 2010.
If UK used only 1% of that money for defence needs, that's 3 billions. For defence of HK is enough 1,5 billions, the rest can be spent on other UK military projects....
Selling of weapons to the Taiwan could be a very good business...
Upholder class submarines, Harrier and Eurofighter jets, Merlin helicopters...
And you could also get money from China for NOT selling weapons to Taiwan.
Oh please, you speak as though a national defence infrastructure can come out of nowhere after you magically set the defence budget to 1% and the manpower pool begins to fill up. In order to produce a defence force that won't defeat the PLA to laugh themselves to death - though that's a viable concept - it has to be of at least a certain size. Let's call it three brigade plus another of reserves. 20,000 plus 5,000 or so various support and personnel - and that is only viable if you more or less completely give up on defending over 70% of the territory and take up a defence line to the north of Kowloon. The so-called HK Volunteer Defence Corps was regimental size and optimised at catching people trying to sneak across the border, so they are basically useless. That means you have to train 25,000 person in combat trades. From scratch. And equip them all. Also from scratch. No APCs and lorries and rifles lying about over a 20-year stretch of investment.
Meanwhile maintaining all of these training ranges, arsenals and barracking facilities in what is the equivalent of London is costing billions in lost revenue (there is no way you can house all of the above in the existing British Forces Overseas HK bases).
Now you've created something that is going to cost billions... and this is before you have any form of air support that does not qualify as 'total joke' or naval forces more than a dinky frigate (RN and RAF assets at that time consists of an LST, a couple of patrol boats, some signals unit and a few helos IIRC) ...
Throw those in, expand the military air bases, fleet bases, divert RN and RAF units to HK. Hilariously compete with one of the world's busier airport for air space.
Congratulations, now you have created a force that's comprehensively outgunned by the PLA in-theatre (say hello to the 42nd Group Army, it's based just north of HK!) It'll be just like the Cold War again! Facing off against the 3rd Shock Army in Germany! Except you'd be even more hideously outnumbered and outgunned. It costs a bundle, requires the UK to station a significant chunk of its naval and air force assets in a place that's completely covered under Chinese artillery fire (what, you want to build hardened arty parks, underground air bases, a defensive line of bunkers etc? No problem! More real estate costs, more money! I mean, it isn't as if the economy is a real concern, is it?).
And then the Chinese turn off the taps.
Your move.
Yeah, Chiang is really going to sign HK away because he managed to chase the communists 5,000 miles all over China, cause 75% casualties and made them hole up in the middle of nowhere.
And then the PRC forms and then asks politely for HK - the whole of it - back. Back to square one. I have said this before and I will say it again. HK Island and bits of the Kowloon Peninsula was ceded in perpetuity, for all the good it did. (Hint: Not Much Good)
You seriously think Thatcher would sign HK away if she had anything other than an extremely lousy hand?
Point taken, but no need to be so aggressively dismissive, alright? That applies to your replies to other people as well, mind. It's just a friendly discussion after all.
(I apologize in advance if that's not your intent and I've misunderstood you. )Anyway, I certainly don't expect the Brits to build up desalination technology that could quench the thirst of all Hongkongers with the wave of a magic wand in such a scenario. What I would envision when PRC decides to turn off the tap, is that the Brits would start to import water from just about everywhere (Taiwan, SE Asia, Korea, Japan the closest suppliers) while developing the desalination technology at the same time, the problem would be to convince Hongkongers and investors that the economy won't be affected too much with the hike in water prices for the next few years.
Point taken, but no need to be so aggressively dismissive, alright? That applies to your replies to other people as well, mind. It's just a friendly discussion after all.
Anyway, I certainly don't expect the Brits to build up desalination technology that could quench the thirst of all Hongkongers with the wave of a magic wand in such a scenario. What I would envision when PRC decides to turn off the tap, is that the Brits would start to import water from just about everywhere (Taiwan, SE Asia, Korea, Japan the closest suppliers) while developing the desalination technology at the same time, the problem would be to convince Hongkongers and investors that the economy won't be affected too much with the hike in water prices for the next few years.
And YOU don't need to be so defensive. A bit of cut and thrust never hurts anybody, and come on, if you make a claim whcih happens to be at least an order of magnitude insufficient, won't you expect to be ribbed a bit?
Well, anyway, I am afraid this won't work either. Think about your timeline. Once the PRC turns off the tap, some 70% of the potable water supply is gone, just like that. Do you want to think about transporting, say, 400,000 m^3 of water per day (rough estimation of actual amount of water needed to survive and not for industrial use, washing, etc)? That's just transportation, you then have to distribute it, somehow. All of this you have to do in months while instutiting very severe water rationing (as HK went through in the 60s, and it was nowhere NEAR as bad as this would be - they were looking at IIRC 20-30% shrotfall). Long before the logistics can be arranged... the place'll be rioting and the economy in the sink.
And that's if you can find enough water to transport, load it, etc.
And if you've somehow managed all of this and not cause a run on the pound in the meantime, congratulations. There won't be mass die-outs from thirst. But you've pretty much shut down all the water-intensive industry, washing, watering, restaurant water use, street cleaning, etc.
No, water price hike will be the LEAST of your worries.
And YOU don't need to be so defensive. A bit of cut and thrust never hurts anybody, and come on, if you make a claim whcih happens to be at least an order of magnitude insufficient, won't you expect to be ribbed a bit?
Fair enough. I still think you could have worded it better, still, I guess I'm a sensitive wank, after all.
OK, guess it's all shot down, there. No complaints, happy now? lol
From an earlier post, I did say a pre-requisite for this TL to work was for ROC with some foreign help to hold onto at least Guangdong province, where the Dong River, which provides the majority of HK's water supply, lies.
That's just nowhere near enough information. You can't say this sort of things in a vacuum. A HK that defied Chinese wishes and a HK whose loss was viewed as a historical artifact like, say, Mongolia is going to be very different, and we're talking about a PoD taht could be anything from 1850 to 1970. Hell, even a different Sino-British Joint Declaration was going to have severe effects - fact - HK leases are usually 15-20 years terms, and it'll be difficult if you change the 1984 JD. People get antsy and property price plummets.
If you assume somthing nebulous like 'everything the same, except China not in charge'... Well, frankly that belongs to the ASB forum.
Fair enough. I still think you could have worded it better, still, I guess I'm a sensitive wank, after all.
OK, guess it's all shot down, there. No complaints, happy now? lol
From an earlier post, I did say a pre-requisite for this TL to work was for ROC with some foreign help to hold onto at least Guangdong province, where the Dong River, which provides the majority of HK's water supply, lies.
It's a bit off topic, so I won't go into details, suffices it to say that it would be very difficult to achieve such an equilibrium - the RoC holding on to any part of the mainland is hard to imagine if the PRC is strong enough. If the RoC is strong enough than likely the UK won't have switched recognition to the PRC in '51 and instead still recognise this RoC... and a RoC strong enough to stop the PRC short in its track is one that'll be able to gently but firmly insist the return of HK, all of it.
Now, it's not absolutely impossible that the balance of power would shift enough that by the time the topic comes up the RoC would be in no position to annoy the British, and so not press for the return of HK... just barely conceivable. But then one has to imagine a world where the RoC has to rely on the UK - and not, say, the USA or even the USSR - more or less solely, or they'd just run to the US instead.
See what I mean by hard to pull off?
What you might want to think about is some of the earlier proposals the UK did try to put forth, up to and including have HK flying the Chinese flag but having part of its affairs run by the British.
Good point. Even if China doesn't fall into PRC hands, the ROC will someday grow the balls to constantly badger the UK to give back HK, so yeah, I agree the UK holding HK perpetually is gonna be a bit hard for post-1900 PODs. The lease deadline of 1997 lingers. The Weihai swap proposal made by Frederick Lugard is the only one I can think of.
A solution is to move this discussion to the pre-1900 section, so to explore any pre-1900 PODs.
Something like the Federated Malay States?
abc123
Banned
I KNOW that HK is undefensible.
So I don't see with who do you argue here?
And that 1% was extra to the allready existing British Forces there.
Also, it would be very good for chinese economy if RN SSNs sink just about evry ship that sails into Shangai/Tientsin etc.
So, numbers aren't evreything.
UK could also sell/give all kinds of weapons to the Taiwan and/or recognise the Taiwan if China attacks HK.
UK can give HLK to the Taiwan. I doubt that Taiwan would miss such opportunity.
After all, China had the same numerical superiority since 1949 and they didn't attack HK.
Bur my post was about selling of weapons to the ROC/Taiwan.
Last edited:
archaeogeek
Banned
The chinese have SSN since 1974, SSK since the 50s. Even navally, the RN would be massively outnumbered by the PLAN if it came to blows; you seem to have this annoying fascination with white/european empires being turned into colonialist mary sues. The government didn't have the money to afford East of Aden defences, and 3 billion gets you fairly little.