168 



We felt that in the balance there was an advantage for joining 

 on an international basis and that these benefits were not only do- 

 mestic but would perhaps provide a sounder long-term develop- 

 ment — not that the total involvement would cost less, but the cost 

 per partner could be less than should any partner go it alone. 



We also concluded that there seemed to be a window for trying 

 to establish large-scale collaboration. The reason for that is if you 

 consider the status of the Joint European Torus, the Tokamak at 

 Princeton, and the JT-60 in Japan, it is quite apparent that there 

 is work to be done with these large machines, and there is going to 

 be several years of planning very likely before the next major ex- 

 perimental effort reaches the point where actual construction 

 would begin. 



So it seems as though that we have 2 or 3 years here where the 

 essential planning could be carried out before major commitments 

 were made for what various people have called The Next Step— The 

 Fusion Engineering Reactor and so on. 



The conclusion that goes with that, however, is that we came to 

 the understanding that it isn't going to happen overnight. Large- 

 scale international collaboration will not come about quickly. 



There are a variety of reasons for that. In the first place, the at- 

 titudes of the three areas that we considered are quite different. 

 The motivation in Japan is driven by the lack of energy resources 

 and the fact that fusion development has an approved status which 

 is a little bit different from that in either the United States or in 

 Europe. In fact, the Japanese attitude is very straightforward, that, 

 yes, some level of collaboration might make sense as long as it 

 didn't interfere with their approved program. That is, their ap- 

 proved program had priority and it was very clear that that deci- 

 sion had been taken, and it represented their first consideration. 



In Europe, we encountered what I considered a very interesting 

 demonstration of international collaboration already. The Europe- 

 an Community had raised the money and established the team and 

 provided the infrastructure for building the Joint European Torus, 

 which seems to have been not only a technical success but certain- 

 ly an administrative and diplomatic success. 



I think in Europe it is fair to say that the attitudes vary from 

 country to country. I think that the British attitude, you might 

 say, was softened somewhat by the fact that the North Sea oil ap- 

 pears to be of some duration, perhaps 10 years, perhaps 15. 



I think in Germany there was more of a scientific curiosity, a 

 desire to regain a position of leadership in this science and technol- 

 ogy. 



In France, I think the attitude again was slightly different, in 

 that with the armlock which they seem to have on the breeder re- 

 actor, it wasn't clear that fusion had quite the priority, but still 

 there was a feeling of wanting to be in the lead in this develop- 

 ment. 



So it is going to require a reconciliation of some of these atti- 

 tudes as well as the detailed programmatic plans in order to deter- 

 mine what is real collaboration. I think it is one thing to arrive at 

 an understanding at, say, the highest political level that collabora- 

 tion is desirable. I think it is quite another thing to arrive at a 

 roadmap which has been put together by people who understand in 



