[Spooky23]

Not really. Civil disobedience is the only historically effective way to defeat a modern state.

With open warfare, the historical playbook for putting down this sort of thing is clear. Roll in the tanks, and infantry from Mongolia or whatever. Sometimes the revolt get put down immediately, sometimes you end up with guerrilla warfare.

[guscost]

> the only historically effective ... modern state

What a contorted argument. I assume that the British empire wasn’t a modern state, and that history is less than one century long (and full of holes).

[Spooky23]

History is more than a century long, but a modern state by military standards has been a thing since around the time of the civil war when rifles replaced muskets and industrialization became a thing. That's the point where unlike in the Napoleonic era, you can't win decisive victory on the battlefield, things depend on political will, manpower and economic function.

Using your example of the British Empire, India didn't win independence through combat, civil disobedience made it politically untenable for the British to continue. That had far-ranging effects on what was left of the colonies.

One of the arguments core to an advocate of the 2nd amendment with respect to this issue is that a citizen militia, equipped with small arms, would be capable of deterring a government from taking some action. It's an increasingly absurd position.

[kiliantics]

I think you have an absurd understanding of history if you believe all of this decolonisation happened nonviolently. Almost every independence movement relied on the threat of violence. You are using the civil war itself as the starting point, a brutally violent regime change. Ireland gained its independence from Britain in no insignificant way thanks to violent means. Most African nations gained their independence through violence. And even India was not just freed through a barefoot bespectacled man walking around singing kumbaya. Simplifying it to mere acts of civil disobedience is grossly misrepresenting how complex the situation was.

[arisAlexis]

It's inevitable that we will end up in Hitler, continue boys :)

[mschuster91]

> Civil disobedience is the only historically effective way to defeat a modern state

No. Ordinary civil disobedience will do utterly nothing. You need a certain amount of violence - just look at France, only after the riots were utterly massive the government caved. The alternative is a massive general strike, which has fallen out of favor in modern times as many jobs are easily replaceable and people are afraid of getting fired.

[verttii]

There will be nothing like guerilla warfare in Hong Kong though. Literally no one has any military experience there, and nobody owns a weapon either. It's just not Singapore.

Meanwhile, the Chinese PLA certainly doesn't suffer from any manpower shortages to contain the situation when they eventually want to.

[chewz]

> There will be nothing like guerilla warfare in Hong Kong though. Literally no one has any military experience there, and nobody owns a weapon either.

You don't need guns. Making car bombs and IEDs requires only determination and some practice. PLA as any modern army is poorly equiped to combat urban guerilla. Such a dense maze like Hong-Kong had never been experienced by any army.

Loss of face for China would be collosal if any sort of prolonged and effective resistance happend after intervention.

But I hope it won't be necessary.

[verttii]

The people in HK have no training in any form of warfare, guerilla or not. They're just not mentally nor physically equipped to conduct any sort of warfare, especially against a superior power like China.

I doubt China ultimately cares about loss of face.

[chewz]

> The people in HK have no training in any form of warfare, guerilla or not.

In a population of 8 milion you will find more then enough smart, determined, intelligent people who can learn quickly enough and innovate.

The only thing that China is afraid of is the loss of face :-)

[narrator]

The way our country (USA) solidifies its dominance in a country like Iraq or the nations of Latin America is mass assassinations of intelligentsia blamed on unknown terrorists or death squads.

China's style in Xinjiang is more bottom up and comprehensive with internment camps and mass surveillance.

You could say our style reflects our individualistic understanding of society while China's style represents a more Marxist collectivist view.

[kortilla]

Oh really? How did that work out the last go around: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests