612 



One can sympathize with program technical leaders who would much 

 prefer to be fully supported by the U.S. domestic budget in a 

 comprehensive research and development program including major new 

 machines at appropriate intervals. That prospect is certainly a more 

 pleasant one than contemplating heavy cuts in the base program in 

 order to provide funds for a major new machine within current budget 

 limits, or surrendering substantial elements of technology and of 

 management control in the next major machine to international partners 

 in a joint venture, or, most likely, both. If the increased funding 

 can be obtained, then the MFAC recommendations certainly lead to a 

 very strong U.S. position in fusion and are probably the actions of 

 choice. However, if U.S. fusion program budget levels are to remain 

 at current levels, or to diminish slightly as suggested by recent 

 Congressional actions on the FY 1985 budget, then the options appear 

 to be to reduce the base program substantially to accomodate TFCX (or 

 other major next-step tokamak) , to maintain the base program and delay 

 indefinitely TFCX, or to seek substantial international collaboration 

 on the next major tokamak together with some base program cuts. 



Program Administrators 



The views of U.S. government program administrators on international 

 cooperation in fusion are consolidated into the Comprehensive Program 

 Management Plan (CPMP) for magnetic fusion, prepared by the U.S. 

 Department of Energy (1983). The CPMP states current U.S. policy with 

 respect to leadership in magnetic fusion in the following terms: 



The Department's intent is to maintain a leadership role for the 

 United States in the area of magnetic fusion energy research and 

 development . 



The term, "a leadership role," pointedly indicates that the United 

 States is to be among the leaders and lead in some areas but not 

 others, rather than to move agressively into the world leadership 

 position in magnetic fusion — a position it has had at times in the 

 past. At least one implication of this policy for the prospects of 

 increased international cooperation, particularly for cooperation in 

 major next-generation machines, comes to mind: other nations may be 

 less enthusiastic about entering arrangements with a program that is, 

 at best, even with their own. 



The current U.S. policy on international cooperation is stated in 

 the following terms in the CPMP: 



The Department intends to maintain this position [of leadership] in 

 the two major confinement concepts and in the development of 

 critical technologies. We recognize that progress can best be made 

 through a carefully formulated and managed policy of close 

 international cooperation to share specific tasks. 



