20 000 thousand person is more than enough to make extreme damage to a 5-10 million city, if they receive supply from a bigger country.
Check whats happened in Syria, the anti Assad forces has few 10 000 man , but it is more than enough to kill 100 000 thousand of civilians .
If HK has weaker connection with China (or it is independent ) , then it can be an option for the Capitol.
But as a starter China has control above the sea around HK, so it is not possible .
Again, the residents of HK are very lucky : )
Russia size and her nuclear arsenal didn't prevented the USA from support Georgia / Ukraine just to cause trouble and so on.
If HK was an independent country, I agree, that is an option for USA. However, the reality is that it isn't, so it's not really applicable.
Your Syria numbers are way off, but I get what you mean, but as above, the nature is totally different. Long story short, not happening.
These protestors can't even pick a leader and somehow they're a fighting force? When the guns come out these protestors will be scurrying back into their holes. It's easy to face the police when you know they're not going to use deadly force. Which country would dare to ship weapons to these protestors which would be an act of war? Is this like how these protestors think they can violently attack people who simply disagree with them while whining the police are being too mean to them? Like China can't easily place a blockade on Hong Kong?
The lack of leadership is clearly a designed strategy. By not having any clear leadership, it prevents any negotiated settlement or political compromise and allowing unrest to continue indefinitely.
With regards to the weapons aspect. I think the bigger issue is that doing that would really create a huge conflagration and immolate the entire region's economy, not just HK, and even if no other countries were dragged into an armed conflict.
The protesters definitely choose very cowardly methods. As you said, police have only used "deadly" force on a few occasions, and even then the level of lethality is debatable since no one has been killed and multiple shots have never been fired at a "victim". Again, this is part of the strategy on the part of the opposition leadership. It is a win-win situation for them. If police were to kill someone, their propaganda engines would go full tilt in bestowing martyrhood to the dead (they have already done so even when police have no direct connection to the deaths, or even just make up victims). Any regular police retaliation is characterized as "brutality" or "excessive force". They take videos of police punching or tackling subjects as "proof" of this, as if those people were just strolling through the park or handing sandwiches out to the homeless.
When you read military forums, you always hear how training makes a difference. I read comments to articles on Hong Kong and I see a lot of commenters talk as if these violent protestors are equivalent to special forces. Have you seen the videos of these protestors fighting? It's a bunch of whimpy nerds rioting. I'll give you the one thing alone they do which why they will lose. Give them an assault rifle but they will still find it necessary to carry an umbrella in the other hand. Yeah they don't need training and they'll beat the PLA?
I think HK tends to cultivate "wimpiness" in general. There are no local sports stars to look up to, there is no military to join, the history has been deliberately surppressed since British times. That's why its so important for the western media to play them up so heroically, I think the hope is that at least if they are not physically strong, they can grow enough backbone to continue radical action when needed.
Yes think civil war because everyone knows the West ain't going to help but give lip service. These protestors start killing people just for disagreeing with them and that's what's going to happen if they had weapons and somehow people think China has to stay out of China. These protestors are encouraging war between China and the West. And their side is about peace? These Hong Kongers believe in children's fairy tales where they think their white knights, the West, will come to save the damsels (themselves) in distress. Does the damsel have oil? Is the damsel holding unique strategic territory that gives the US control over the region? What have Hong Kongers done for the world that they think others countries' soldiers dying for them is worth saving them? Are Hong Kongers notorious for their humanitarian efforts around the world? The US just abandoned the Kurds who helped them fight ISIS and leave them to be slaughtered by other US allies. And somehow these arrogant Hong Kongers think the West should send in their soldiers to die for Hong Kongers that have done nothing for anyone but themselves? Let's not forget the possibility of nuclear war. I'm sure they're okay with the US nuking China for them. What about all the US cities burning in a nuclear fire? All those lives lost just because Hong Kongers think they're that important. Of course the reality is that's not going to happen but Hong Kongers think it will and they don't have one thought about the consequences. Yeah, civil war... please, and then China will have an excuse... What is the US going to do? Go to war...?
The core issue is that "democracy" and "freedom" are no longer concepts in the current geopolitical landscape, rather they are more like religious dogma used by America and allies to implement their neo-colonialist doctrine. You mentioned yourself that there is a belief that a democratically elected government would automatically align itself with American interests. Even when the proof to the contrary is huge (Putin's Russia), this is dismissed as some kind of aberration. The extent to which people will worship this religion is limitless.
- Here is an article which headlines "Trump's policy is literally blood for oil". Trump's policy? Was this not the policy of multiple presidents? Are we imagining that Obama had Libya's best interests at heart when he decapitated the government?
Two articles, 2 different years. Same writer, same topic. Democracy good (does not actually explain how it would help solve HK's non-political issues), China bad. On top of this, he mentions "insidious mainlandization" in one article, and "Mandarin in the streets" in the other. This level of xenophobia would be highly controversial in Western countries, but ignored when it comes to China. These feelings are fine because they shows great piety.
Survey reveals widening rift between generations of Hongkongers over anti-government protests
- Some 42 per cent of young Hongkongers surveyed frequently or occasionally argued with their parents over past few months, ‘current affairs’ being the major provocation
- Youngsters ranked freedoms as the most important core value, while their parents considered social stability above all
my comment:
those "aged between 18 and 29" will be aged 46 -- 58 in 2047 (don't nitpick someone might be 59 or something),
those "aged between 54 and 73" will be aged 82 -- 101 in 2047
Hong Kong and China were not great places when those people aged 54 and 73 were 18 and 29.
You mentioned Xinjiang camps, but that's a strawman argument.
Why should older people support the younger people destroying everything they built because they don't like the government?
Many older folks did not like the colonial government, but they still went out to make a good life and strong city.
Many of the younger people argue that they don't need a good economy as long as they have "freedom", so they are okay with trashing the university campus or burning subway stations.
The older people actually remember what it was like to be poor. Cleanliness was not great in old Hong Kong. Did you see this link before?
There used to be rat disposal bins on lamp posts, that is one of the most disgusting things I ever heard of. Older people don't want the economy to go backwards like that.