[ncmncm]

The arguments do not compete. Each adds to the case, and the strength of the argument is the sum of all, less any valid counters.

It is very clear that the sum is strongly positive, even with increasing uncertainty in the later points. The case is solid even if one or two sub-arguments turned out to have holes.

Huge decommissioning costs are always neglected in any argument promoting nukes.

As thoroughly bad as the argument is for building nukes, and even for continuing to operate existing nukes, the value proposition for Tokamak fusion is thousands of times worse. The only plausible explanation for continued work on them is as a jobs program for hot-neutron physicists, to maintain a population available to draw upon for weapons projects. Nothing else could make a lick of sense. Spending on Tokamak is thus deeply irresponsible.

[jpgvm]

You could have made the same argument for investing in solar a few decades ago.

Spending money on fusion research will unlock humanities next energy supply for when/where solar isn't viable.

Fusion power has been hampered by the way it's been approached )massive slow moving projects) but is inevitably going to come to fruition given enough time and money and when it does it will likely displace most other energy sources.

[ncmncm]

I will go on record here:

There will never be so much as one single, solitary erg of competitive commercial energy production from any Tokamak plant, ever. Every cent spent on Tokamak is stolen from more viable energy research--which might reasonably even include some non-Tokamak, aneutronic fusion, after solar, wind, and geo capacity are fully built out. Thus, each person-day of work on Tokamak takes our species a day farther away from any desirable goal.