Ha, no, I also mentioned elsewhere that I really like the ITER shutoff design that allows for multiple different circuit-breakers to basically turn the whole thing off for any number of more dangerous scenarios.

What I’m mostly worried about, for immobile energy sources that can be “weaponized” (used broadly to mean being harm to others), is:

• The ability for a small group of coordinated bad actors with the right knowledge to weaponize it, in this case presumably by somehow keeping the reaction and tritium replenishment (or equivalent) going despite the mechanisms in place to prevent that. I consider this a more likely scenario than people might realize, because my view is that the tech to “hack” any defensive tech structure exists simultaneously with the creation of that defensive tech structure, effectively converting all of those scenarios into like these condottieri-style waiting games with only one ultimate absorption point: the defender slips up and fails to maintain all the necessary resources to defend against hacking attackers. I do think that an inside job is more likely to succeed for sabotage.

• The fact that this neutron radiation is deadly to humans, and also eats away at the very structures that are designed to keep it safely isolated. That’s like putting deadly acid in a jar and hoping that you’re still going to be around later to replace it. And what weirds me out is that all the formal safety/risk papers don’t even mention the fact that the neutron radiation from the fusion reaction itself can be weaponized, instead focusing only on like uranium production or whatever to make bombs (in what they categorize as like three different ways, that sound to me like Sneaky Mode 1, Sneaky Mode 2, Grunt Rush).

• If there’s even a possibility that it can be weaponized, then people need to consider strategic defensive and war-related crap, too. And I’m going to guess that’s going to mean a lot of annoying-as-fuck games of chicken and wasteful positioning. Also, my guess is that it’s going to be rare that “best for us in terms of energy infrastructure” is going to perfectly line up with “best for us if we’re fighting,” which means that whatever we do won’t be optimal, and at worst, we’ll just be missing two birds with one stone.

Haha, and yeah, I did hit the high hyperbole note with the “doom for all” rhetoric - you’re right about that and I don’t have any good excuses for that bit!