As you say, fusion technology inherently has less need for strict regulation. Less harmful waste. Less runaway reaction. Less arms proliferation.
This potentially creates room for fusion that never existed for fission:
- innovation and entrepreneurial pressure. Best case, we get SpaceX efficiency fusion innovators versus SLS pork barrel subsidy patients.
- insurability. Fusion energy production might become privately insurable.
- political support. If the political buyin required is mainly limited to capex, that's a very big advantage versus fission.
As for short to medium term political motivation, one might hope fusion energy research is to benefit from the tension between Russian and western leadership.
On the political motivations: one can hope. My view of things at this point is that those with power in the global playing field want to maintain it. Both Russia and the US supply the world with a lot of oil. This grants a lot of political power. If you make oil obsolete then you remove your lever.
This sounds like a great thing for humanity, but humanity's interests are not properly represented by the existing political power structures.
This potentially creates room for fusion that never existed for fission:
- innovation and entrepreneurial pressure. Best case, we get SpaceX efficiency fusion innovators versus SLS pork barrel subsidy patients.
- insurability. Fusion energy production might become privately insurable.
- political support. If the political buyin required is mainly limited to capex, that's a very big advantage versus fission.
As for short to medium term political motivation, one might hope fusion energy research is to benefit from the tension between Russian and western leadership.