Here is one thing the article did not mention, and one wonders why.

China's one-child policy has been going on now for so long that many of the "bare branches" (single young men) the article identifies as potential violent troublemakers are the only children of families who do not want to see them butchered in a massive war with India or the US. This may very well temper China's aggressiveness if other nations show a willingness to push back as China becomes more assertive.

No family wants to see their children butchered in any war. Chinese literature from different eras make this rather clear. Yet China has initiated many wars in its long history. As it is, cynically, I cannot even categorically rule out that China's political leaders today may still contemplate sending select groups of "bare branches" to die in wars as a way to reduce the sociopolitical pressure these "bare branches" might put on China domestically.

quote:

No family wants to see their children butchered in any war.

Of course not. But in days gone by when families routinely had seven children, several would likely go off to fight (and often die) for the king, and that wouldn't crush the family economically. In China, a male only-child who dies at 22 potentially destroys a parent's future. Even authoritarian leaders are likely to temper their behavior under these pressures. But that's an assertion on my part. We'll just have to wait and see.

But it remains a fact that this is not an age when families have "expendable" children. More so for China than for India, whose population is still accelerating upward. If I were Xi, I think I would have to factor that into my planning about how India is likely to behave as I continue to stake out my Chinese imperialist claims.