← "Having a go" | Return to Main Page | "Scenes from a property bubble, Hong Kong style" → | TrackBack (0)
June 30, 2006
UK considered China nuclear attack to defend the Big Lychee from the Commies back in 1961. 20 years later Maggie decided to defend the Falklands without bombing Buenos Aires. And ironically 30 years later Mother England was busy creating new forms of quasi-citizenship to avoid a "flood" of Hong Kongers leaving the place pre-handover. That's tough love.
Could it be a case of picking on someone your own size?posted by Simon on 06.30.06 at 01:10 PM in the Hong Kong category.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Send a manual trackback ping to this post.
45 years later the empire may begin considering nuking edingburgh :)
South China Morning Post always digs up old pointless peices of news in desperate support of its Bejing brown nosing. In case you all forgot tomorrow is July the first and any attempt to distract Hong Kongers from China reality like recent Bejing "breaking News" ban and other usual such control measures is always supported by the brothers in red. It's all sooooo predictable.posted by: JJ on 06.30.06 at 03:05 PM [permalink]
There were also people in the United States government who proposed that Cuba should be invaded and possibly nuked during the cold war.
But neither China nor Cuba were nuked/invaded. Why? Because there is no single person who as absolute power in either the US or England. I'm not sure what the intentions of running this article were, but if one intension was to make the people of China think that England is an eternal boogie-man, it could seriously backfire by show just how good the system is because they didn't do anything of the sort. If for example Mao decided to nuke someone, no one could have ever stopped him as he was an absolute power.posted by: Darin on 06.30.06 at 05:12 PM [permalink]
JJ: I appreciate your sentiments, but the link is to a UK paper, and the UK press are also over this story.posted by: Simon on 06.30.06 at 07:35 PM [permalink]
The article is in SCMP too. Since I didn't get to see UK papers, I assumed it was an article from another newspaper, SCMP very seldom has anything original. It is interesting how the news paper always selects "important" stuff (1961!)for their headlines.posted by: JJ on 06.30.06 at 07:51 PM [permalink]
Whoops, I was made the assumption that the article was from a Chinese news paper as well. My mistake.posted by: Darin on 06.30.06 at 10:27 PM [permalink]
You gotta give the Brits credit. Thatcher even tried to "renegotiate" the 99 year lease that was signed under gunpoint.
Compare this with the article from The Bulletin (link in name below) last year that described how China's nukes have been on ice (unfueled, no warhead) from the get go:
"In a strange way, Beijing placed more faith in Washington and Moscow than in its own military officers."
Darin, the 3 times nuclear weapons have been used in wars (actual nukes in Japan, and depleted uranium munitions in Iarq and the Balkans) are all from the same supposed non-authoritarian country.posted by: bobby fletcher on 07.02.06 at 02:55 AM [permalink]
I thought that this link is available to all leading newspapers and why the Uk press are over this story. When nuclear weapons has been used in Japan then nobody said anything why there was a quietness!posted by: Neel Willson on 07.03.06 at 01:10 PM [permalink]
"When nuclear weapons has been used in Japan then nobody said anything why there was a quietness"
because that hiroshima was nuked was not a classified secret that we did not know already?posted by: sun bin on 07.03.06 at 03:23 PM [permalink]
why to go nuclear guys? CAn't we sort things with peace and quietness. When everybody knew about it then why UK press is after this. Do they think that something is there that shouldnot be published?posted by: Daniel Brown on 07.05.06 at 07:27 PM [permalink]
France will win the Zee World Cup. I will bet my Arc Triomphe on it...posted by: Jacques Chirac on 07.07.06 at 02:08 PM [permalink]
posted by: Janet on 07.12.06 at 03:56 PM [permalink]
posted by: Cassie on 07.12.06 at 04:49 PM [permalink]
posted by: Scott on 07.12.06 at 04:52 PM [permalink]
posted by: Luke on 07.12.06 at 04:57 PM [permalink]