The Bomb vs Pants Debate

Sixty-one years ago, on October 16, 1964, China detonated its first atomic bomb at Lop Nur in Xinjiang. The shockwave rippled far beyond the desert test site. 

Suddenly, the PRC had joined an exclusive club—the fifth nuclear power after the US, USSR, Britain, and France. What made this achievement even more remarkable was the context: just five years earlier, in June 1959, the Soviets had pulled the plug on their assistance, walking away mid-project. China finished the job alone, calling it the "596 Project" to commemorate that moment of betrayal turned determination.

That first bomb test, followed by the successful test of a nuclear-armed missile in 1966 and the launch of the Dongfanghong-1 satellite in 1970, became immortalized as China's "Two Bombs, One Satellite" achievement. But back in 1963, when the project was still racing toward completion, not everyone was convinced it was worth it.

On December 18, 1963, Vice Premier and Foreign Minister Chen Yi faced Japanese journalists in Beijing and delivered what would become a controversial line. Responding to mockery about China's poverty, he declared: "The imperialists, revisionists, and reactionaries have atomic bombs and nuclear weapons—are they so remarkable? They bully us like this, they mock our poverty, saying we can't afford it. Even if I have to pawn my pants, I will still build nuclear weapons".

Marshal Chen Yi's words were meant to rally Chinese resolve during the final stretch. But when that quote reached Hong Kong, it landed badly with Louis Cha, the owner of Ming Pao newspaper.  

The Great Pants Debate

Just twelve days later, on October 30, 1963, Cha published a scathing editorial titled "We Want Pants, Not Nuclear Weapons." His argument was blunt: he expressed outrage that a Chinese Communist leader would suggest sacrificing the people's basic necessities for nuclear weapons, arguing that any government placing military power before people's livelihood was fundamentally flawed. 

Cha continued his assault, questioning whether Chen Yi understood that a country whose people lacked basic clothing could never become strong even with atomic bombs, and that such a government would never be stable. His clincher was particularly cutting—he pointed to Britain's nuclear arsenal during the 1956 Suez Crisis, noting that when the Soviets threatened to bomb London, the British still withdrew. Cha dismissed China's nuclear ambitions, arguing that even with another decade of effort, the country could never match Britain's nuclear achievements at the time of the Suez Crisis. He concluded sarcastically that a few pocket-sized atomic bombs would be useless, and that the people would be better served by having more pants to wear. 

The editorial sparked a war of words that lasted over a year. Patriotic newspapers fired back vigorously, and Cha kept writing rebuttals. Looking back, this wasn't purely about current affairs commentary—there was a commercial calculation at play. Ming Pao had only launched in 1959 and needed to build its readership. Nobody reads bland consensus opinions. Since most Hong Kong people at the time leaned patriotic, Cha took the contrarian position. The resulting firestorm helped Ming Pao establish its reputation for provocative commentary.

History's Verdict

The passage of time has a way of settling arguments that seemed heated at the moment. Fast forward sixty-one years, and we can now reach a relatively objective verdict on the "nuclear weapons versus pants" debate. 

First reality check: Without nuclear weapons, pants become utterly useless. Cha dismissed China's "pocket-sized atomic bombs" as pointless. But returning to the historical moment—1949, New China was established but was still in the "recovering" phase of national independence.  

China was also facing enemies on all sides. The US remained hostile after being fought to a stalemate in Korea and was itching for revenge. Meanwhile, the Sino-Soviet split meant that the USSR—a bordering superpower with massive military strength—posed an enormous threat. Caught between the two military superpowers, nuclear weapons became China's essential insurance policy.

Decades later, Libya serves as a perfect cautionary tale. Gaddafi's regime clashed with the United States and vigorously pursued nuclear weapons. However, eventually he settled for a private negotiation with Washington, agreeing to halt nuclear development in exchange for America backing off. But when the Arab Spring erupted years later, CIA-backed anti-government forces overthrew Gaddafi in 2011. He died in a gutter. Dead men don't need pants.

That so-called democratic movement didn't bring peace to Libya. Fourteen years later, the country remains trapped in a devastating civil war, as two opposing governments split the country apart. Yet the world has already looked away—even the news stopped reporting. Such is the consequence of Libya's nuclear abandonment.

No Nukes, No Development

Second reality check: Without nuclear weapons, economic development itself becomes impossible.  

Consider Japan. The Japanese economy flourished spectacularly in the 1980s, but in 1985, under American coercion, Tokyo signed the Plaza Accord in New York. Japan committed to substantial yen appreciation and reduced competitiveness against American goods. Result? Forty years of economic decline. 

Why did Japan accept such a humiliating and unequal economic treaty? Simple—as a defeated WWII nation, Japan not only cannot possess nuclear weapons but also has its military development controlled by the United States, with massive US troop deployments throughout the country. 

When a nation lacks military independence, it has no choice but to sign whatever agreements others demand. Without nuclear weapons, even economic development is held in others' hands.

Third reality check: You can have both nuclear weapons AND pants. Cha fundamentally underestimated China back then, assuming the Communist Party would only blindly expand its military without understanding economic development. He confidently asserted that even with continued effort, the CCP certainly could not match Britain's nuclear achievements. 

Sixty-one years later, that prediction looks absurd. China's military power far exceeds Britain's, and economically, China has left Britain in the dust. China has emerged as a new great power, possessing not only formidable military strength but also economic volume that—measured by actual production quantities using purchasing power parity—surpassed the United States in 2014. Under CCP leadership, China not only possesses nuclear weapons but has also clothed Chinese people in pants and allowed them to live comfortable lives with adequate food and clothing.

Today, sixty-one years after that desert test in Xinjiang, looking back at China's atomic bomb achievement, we recognize this as a genuine milestone in China's development. China's possession of "Two Bombs, One Satellite" elevated it into the ranks of military powers, enabling it to protect its national security and create the essential conditions for economic development. 

The bombs came first. Prosperity followed. That's not an accident—it's cause and effect.

Lo Wing-hung

Bastille Commentary

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

In a series of blistering statements,The Hong Kong Office for Safeguarding National Security (OSNS) has drawn a red line in the sand for anyone trying to weaponize the city’s recent misfortunes. The message is crystal clear and ominous: If you use disaster to sow chaos in Hong Kong, they will hunt you down—no matter where on Earth you try to hide.

On December 3, an OSNS spokesperson doubled down. While the HKSAR government and local citizens were racing to save lives following the tragedy at Wang Fuk Court in Tai Po, a shadow game was already in play. The office accuses a "small group of external hostile forces" of looting a burning house. Under the guise of petitioning for the people, these actors are dusting off the old playbooks from the "extradition bill protests". They are activating agents, sabotaging relief efforts, and desperately trying to reignite the "Black Riots" memories. The verdict? Their actions are despicable enough to be universally condemned.

To drive the point home, the OSNS fired off three consecutive warning shots to overseas antagonists and anti-China disruptors:

First, we solemnly warn hostile foreign forces and anti-China disrupters that their actions of creating chaos and disorder in Hong Kong are intolerable.

Second, we solemnly warn hostile foreign forces and anti-China disrupters that their actions of adding fuel to the fire will inevitably bring disastrous consequences to themselves.

Third, we solemnly warn hostile foreign forces and anti-China disrupters that the long arm of the law will catch up with them.

The OSNS is keeping receipts. Every word and every action used to disrupt Hong Kong goes on the permanent record, and culprits will be pursued for life. "Anyone who breaks the law," the office warns, there is no sanctuary. Whether you are hiding across the ocean or taking refuge in Taiwan, severe legal punishment is inevitable.

Why is the OSNS speaking up now? Read between the lines, and you see three strategic pivots.

First, this isn’t hypothetical; they believe the foreign interference is already happening. Second, the crosshairs are locked on external forces, with a pointed finger specifically at those hiding in Taiwan. And third, it’s a preemptive strike against anyone overseas dreaming of stirring up another color revolution. The warning is blunt: Distance is not a defense.

Opportunists, Grifters, and Organized Lies

Take a look at the chatter exploding across the internet, and the opposing voices generally fall into distinct camps.

First, you have the fair critics. There is plenty of commentary that, while critical of the SAR government, remains objective. These observers stick to the facts disclosed by official investigations rather than drifting into malicious fantasy. This is a natural, human reaction to a "disaster of the century." And the smart money says the SAR government will take this advice to heart and improve.

Then come the fame vampires. When disaster struck, the opportunists came out of the woodwork. Look at "internet celebrity" Kenny, arrested on December 3 after cursing the Tai Po fire victims online for having "heavy sins." It was a blatant, tasteless grab for traffic, and it landed him in handcuffs for sedition. Then there are the exiled influencers abroad, wantonly bashing the SAR government while coincidentally begging people to subscribe to their Patreon accounts. The hustle is obvious: They are monetizing misery to please their financiers.

Finally, there is the organized sedition. Beyond the grifters, we are seeing waves of calculated propaganda. These aren't just complaints; they are fabrications designed to smear the SAR government and attack the Central system. Rumor mills are churning out wild stories linking material suppliers to the families of Central leaders—plots that are total fiction. It’s as if they believe overthrowing the Central government provides immunity from fire physics. Do massive fires not happen in Western democracies? The logic is broken, but in the heat of a disaster, it’s a potent recipe for inciting public rage.

Sniper Attacks From The Shadows

The temperature on these seditious campaigns was rising fast until the Police National Security Department stepped in. Once they acted, the local noise quieted down—but the overseas attacks only intensified. It raises a suspicious question: Is there a coordinated machine working behind the scenes to sustain sniper attacks against the SAR government? The narrative is set in stone: Whatever the government does is wrong. Before a single investigator has arrived on the scene, the instigators are already screaming for heads to roll.

Here is the bottom line. The OSNS isn’t pointing fingers at external forces for sport; they are firing warning shots because they see the smoke rising. We need to be sharper than ever. Don't let external opposing forces play you for a fool, twisting a tragic fire into a tool for subverting the local government—or even the Central government itself.

Lo Wing-hung