China is not an irrational actor. They know that the most effective way to take Taiwan is slowly, through soft power and political subterfuge.

There is no need or advantage to a full frontal assault.

> There is no need or advantage to a full frontal assault.

Perhaps, but in the last year China did build these:

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/03/stairway-to-tai...

Unless China has some very interesting new anti-drone tech, those look like nice big targets.

Rational or not, they're building warships and an invasion fleet, along with the ability to stifle any US attempt to stop them. This is not the action of someone hoping for a slow victory.

The person at the top of the chain was asking why everyone is preparing for war. This behavior from China is why. It predates any of the Greenland Trump idiocy, too.

There are undoubtedly elements within the state that advocate for war, just like the elements within our state that do the same. So far, chinas political leadership is shrewd enough to mollify them and still maintain power.

The downside of autocracy is ...autocracy. the upside is that you have a consistent hand at the helm, making predictions of behaviour simpler and more rational than the rotating cast of leadership we present.

China has consistently chosen soft power over military action. I suspect they will continue to do so.

They're exactly as rational as any other group of humans.

They've repeatedly stated that they'll use force to take Taiwan if necessary.

They are building the military power to make the full frontal assault.

I don't get why there's so much "oh, China's different" talk on here or on other online forums. I often wonder how much of that is organic versus something their propaganda/agitation ministries puts on.

The Europeans didn't think it was a bluff.

But more generally, when the foundation of your country's morality is "all men are created equal" you really have given up the space to object to others doing what you do.

If honour is a thing.

I don't think Trump is bluffing. However Americans in general are opposed to taking Greenland, and so if Trump does anything I expect Americans/Congress to raise up. Europe should be concerned because this will take months to play out.

Nobody said bluff but you, and honour is long gone.

That just leaves the facts. Which do you think is more credible and likely?