[jldugger]

> It'd be like if we went to the moon, but kept it under wraps. Like, why bother?

Much of the point of space programs is to prove we can drop bombs back on earth with precision. I don't know how fusion reactors are a threat in that fashion.

[jasongill]

I think you have it backwards - the space program was born from the missile programs. It was more of a case of "ok, we have pushed the limits of the missile program, what can we do next?"

During the space race and Cold War, Russia and the US used surveillance to determine each other's weapons capability & capacity (and still do). There's no need for the space program to remind the enemy of what they already know.

The space program was a pissing contest, effectively, and while there was surely some military undertones, the point of our space programs was not as a deterrent - it was a show of might.

[natechols]

Some people claim the real goals of fusion power research have always been in support of fusion weapons development - specifically, by providing an experimental system for studying controlled fusion reactions (since uncontrolled fusion reactions are banned by treaty), and by providing a jobs program for fusion experts. I do not know enough about the practical obstacles to fusion power to judge the accuracy of this claim for myself, but there's no doubt that it's a dual-use technology, and some projects seem suspiciously like dead ends if commercial electricity generation is the real goal.

[creato]

> but there's no doubt that it's a dual-use technology

I do in fact doubt this. We've been building fusion weapons for 50 years very successfully, progress in fusion power plants is negligible in comparison. If fusion power plants are a dual use technology for weapons, they must be a very inefficient way to get there.

[natechols]

But we haven't actually tested those weapons in decades. Ensuring that the stockpile doesn't go bad is a huge money suck for the DOE, and it's been a key factor driving supercomputer improvements. You're right that it's very inefficient, but that has to be balanced against the political cost of setting off thermonuclear explosions regularly.

[roenxi]

If China can gain a massive energy advantage over their competitors they don't even need special weapons. If they can get a 10% per-capita energy advantage over the Americans then they win direct wars automatically by virtue of having a 3-4x manpower advantage. Economic engines win wars quite consistently.

[natechols]

There are a huge number of assumptions buried in that initial "If". China could just as easily blow several dozen billion dollars with no more to show for it than anyone else.

[onepointsixC]

China is extremely dependent on energy imports, averaging roughly 10 million bpd. Most of that oil comes far away from the Middle East traversing long shipping lanes which are close to many regional rivals which could easily disrupt said lanes. And that's not even bringing up the USN. Having a credible domestic answer to their energy needs would be covering what is currently a clear and present Achilles heel.

[anigbrowl]

It's the equivalent of an economic bomb.