[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.