I’m not saying that the outcome would be the protesters would not be successful, in saying that the government would roll in the tanks immediately and without hesitation.
I do not actually agree with the premise that, in this modern day, governments can no longer be overthrown. Civil wars are not won on the basis of "who started with more guns?".
Basically, the US president is in the constant implicit position of being able to hold the entire US hostage from a flying doom fortress† like some kind of supervillain. The only people who can really stop a “crazy president” scenario are people either high up in the Secret Service or the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who would 1. Have the authorization to be in the president’s presence during DEFCON 1, and then 2. Have the personal trust/authority to tell the president’s bodyguards to buzz off for a minute.
† The “doom fortress” part applies more to the subs than to AF1, but if you treat the two as a unit, it works.
But that is kind of besides the point. A lot of people are arguing "they may have overwhelming force, so roll over and give them what they want." No thanks?
The more interesting scenario to consider, IMHO, is a civil war between a controlling but “not the US” majority, and a resisting minority. For example: what would happen if there were a modern Red Scare, but one with a basis in reality—i.e., if somehow >50% of the US (including our political leaders) were subverted by China, became believers not just in Communism but in the CCP’s propaganda about Communism necessitating political unification and erasure of separate cultural identity, and so the belief that the US should volunteer to be annexed+absorbed by China?
If the majority of the US believed that... what should the rest of us do, at that point, to stop this from happening? Is the correct answer just “the US is a democratic nation, so if the majority of the population wants the US to stop being a democracy, that’s the ‘democratic choice’, and if you believe in the ‘power of democracy’, you should support it”?
The US is not a democracy and you have just outlined why. Small autonomous regions were created to limit external influence and allow people to live their lives in peace. A lot of stuff now happens on the national level that was never meant to happen on the national level.
The United States is a democracy. Democracy does not mean only direct democracy. Representative democracy, democratic republics, and federalism are forms of government compatible with democracy.
https://reason.com/2018/01/17/the-united-states-is-both-a-re...
The first link implies that somewhat, but I would guess we need a historian to map the meaning over time.
It's made for TV but I thought it did a surprisingly good job. I don't know whether you actually could chase and collide with the plane normally designated Air Force One in an EC-135, but certainly I'd bet on military pilots to give it their best shot if their commander explained the consequences otherwise.
† Presumably, doctrine for a “Looking Glass” mission would have AF1 plan flight paths that bring them near still-executive-controlled surface missile batteries. Unsure if anything before a modern 5G craft could bring those batteries directly under its targeting control, though, rather than relying on the pilot making contact with living hands on the ground.
Of course not. But the Beijing government is not going to be overthrown from Hong Kong. Hong Kong is very small and very far away from Beijing.
And the whole situation, Hong Kongers protesting the removal of some of their 'special' rights isn't exactly winning sympathy among mainlanders.
Hong Kong can't much influence whether Tianjin is ruled from Beijing or not. But it can influence whether Hong Kong is ruled from Beijing! Being far away makes it hard for Hong Kong to reach Beijing, and it also makes it hard for Beijing to reach Hong Kong.
The U.S. failed in Vietnam and has struggled in Afghanistan since 2001 against insurgents with little more than rifles.
After Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq it literally boggles my mind that anyone still believes that.
In fact Afghanistan twice, the Mujaheddin defeated the Soviets the same way.
“You have the watches, but we have the time”
Just like it worked out for the US in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq?
Not quite a tank, but it is an armored military vehicle.
Thereby ruining the very thing they want to control and profit from.
That's the thing that the "They'll just send in the army, LOL" folks don't seem to get: bombed out cities and a population under armed guard aren't very economically productive and, on top of that, you need to station military units there to keep a lid on things which is also costly.
As this vox article states correctly, Hong Kong used to make up 1/5th of their entire GDP. But with expansion and growth in cities across the country, it is now but a minor component of their economy. In the grand scheme of things it isn't a large enough chunk of their economy that they couldn't afford to lose it. Especially not if the balancing act is, bomb this one city and regain political stability vs massive instability for the greater entity.
[0]https://www.vox.com/2014/9/28/6857567/hong-kong-used-to-be-1...
For Beijing, the destruction of some parts of one urban may be exactly the price they're willing to pay to maintain their grip.
The response from the international community has been crickets chirping.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/muslims-...
Also, "the world" is too homogeneous a group to predict it would all simultaneously go after China for some single incident.
Who is in the world? What would their motivations be for "reacting" to China? And more importantly, what counter-motivations exist that could sway them from doing so?
If you take all this into account, you'll find the group willing to go "against" China for anything is actually very small.
Edit- Added section responding to the "world" comment.
So basically, they could say "No", but really there's nothing they can do
"China has now assembled its largest-ever active force of People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops and other anti-riot personnel and equipment in Hong Kong."
"the reinforcement includes elements of the People’s Armed Police (PAP), a mainland paramilitary anti-riot and internal security force under a separate command from the PLA"
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-china-army-hongkong-milita...