[epistasis]

Military reactors are different from civilian reactors in at least two ways: 1) military fuel would not be allowed in civilian hands, and 2) military reactors have essentially an infinite budget, and have few economic constraints.

The challenges of using military reactors in other settings go far beyond questions of "political will"

[tomatotomato37]

I've also heard anecdotal accounts that military reactors are still maintenance nightmares, and their lack of public nuclear accidents is less due to doctrine and more to the fact that these reactors spend their life in a classified military environment floating in international water; AKA easy to cover up

[jwie]

The lack of accidents is due to a lack of accidents. Part of it is training, part of it safety interlocks. There are near misses but nothing that would really scare anyone who knew how these things work.

The Russian reactors on the other hand… let’s just say a lot of those guys die of cancer.

They aren’t maintenance nightmares for technical reasons. More for regulatory reasons. Still, they always manage to get underway on time.

[jwie]

The unlimited budget and the fuel comes from political will so I don’t understand your point.

[epistasis]

The economic concerns and weapons concerns may have political aspects, but the bigger part are the material differences.

Usually when people say "political will" it's about making a choice without serious other constraints. There are incredible constraints on pricing and danger that go beyond politics when it comes to military style reactors.