For more:https://news.cgtn.com/news/2024-06-13/China-s-artificial-sun-project-advances-in-nuclear-fusion-control-1uphJd7xDsk/p.htmlChina's new-generation "a...
Yes it's propaganda and it is a heck a lot better than a multi billion arms sale presser that puts out in it's media.
Why would it lead to immediate nuclear war? Are there any pieces from American/Russian think tanks advocating for the death of billions if nuclear fusion is achieved in a commercial setting that I'm not aware of?
Almost all global power is built around oil, gas and coal. No petrodollar means no US power worldwide.
Are there any pieces from American/Russian think tanks advocating for the death of billions if nuclear fusion is achieved in a commercial setting that I'm not aware of?
As soon as they believe the technology is real they will be. But it'll be more subtle than that, they're not going to outright say it's because of fusion energy they're going to say it's because the chinese are sneaky evil orientals and communism must be stopped.
While I think that war is possible as a last ditch attempt to stop a geopolitical dominance shift, it's a huge leap to say that "immediate nuclear war" is incoming.
There is literally nothing to be gained from nuclear holocaust. I think it is extremely unlikely that the US will launch nuclear first strikes in response to something so relatively trivial as losing global relevance. The USSR completely collapsed, and they didn't set off any nukes either.
A conventional war (this is not necessarily a total war) does not automatically mean nuclear first strikes either. America does not respond to losing wars with nuclear first strikes. This is proven by historical example. They have been taking Ls left and right without setting off any nukes. The only time they have used nuclear weapons in an act of war was in Japan, and that was when they were winning.
propaganda and it is a heck a lot better than a multi billion arms sale presser that 
puts out in it's media.
Why would it lead to immediate nuclear war? Are there any pieces from American/Russian think tanks advocating for the death of billions if nuclear fusion is achieved in a commercial setting that I'm not aware of?
Almost all global power is built around oil, gas and coal. No petrodollar means no US power worldwide.
As soon as they believe the technology is real they will be. But it'll be more subtle than that, they're not going to outright say it's because of fusion energy they're going to say it's because the chinese are sneaky evil orientals and communism must be stopped.
While I think that war is possible as a last ditch attempt to stop a geopolitical dominance shift, it's a huge leap to say that "immediate nuclear war" is incoming.
Why? You acknowledge war is the last ditch they'd undertake and that means nuclear war if it's between the US and China, which it would be.
There is literally nothing to be gained from nuclear holocaust. I think it is extremely unlikely that the US will launch nuclear first strikes in response to something so relatively trivial as losing global relevance. The USSR completely collapsed, and they didn't set off any nukes either.
A conventional war (this is not necessarily a total war) does not automatically mean nuclear first strikes either. America does not respond to losing wars with nuclear first strikes. This is proven by historical example. They have been taking Ls left and right without setting off any nukes. The only time they have used nuclear weapons in an act of war was in Japan, and that was when they were winning.