Tsar bomba, being a test, was mostly fusion, because they didn't put in the U238 radiation casing that would have made the yield potentially 150MT, because they didn't want the insane amounts of fallout that would have produced.
Militarily deployed H-bombs are actually fusion boosted fission weapons. They are radiological weapons. That is the very ugly fact.
To make them clean would make them less powerful, as it is so easy to get another 100% or more increase in yield by just adding a casing of dirt cheap U238, that the temptation to do this has been irresistible.
"The power companies have said they're not interested"
Would they be interested if the government no longer provided insurance and protection from liability in the event of nuclear disasters at fission plants, combined with having to pay a meaningful tax or royalty for CO2 emission, on the order of doubling the price of burning coal?
"how much money do we have to spend to change that?"
How much would private insurance for a fission plant cost? Without knowing that, the real economics of fission power forever remains in the realm of political manipulation.
You are moving the goal posts. We are talking about Europe!
Do you assert that nearly all of the 1-1.5 million migrants and refugees who entered Europe over the past few years from Africa and the mid-East were processed through normal border crossings, had passports and/or applied for asylum on the spot, and received visas or other official government approval before entering the EU?
YES or NO?
It's occurred to me that there is some cognitive dissonance going on:
When articles come up about H1B visas, it seems that a majority complain that it should be limited because they believe the evil tech. and software corporations just want more H1Bs so they can fire US born workers and replace them with cheaper workers.
But when the kind of people being considered to allow into the country are Mexicans who have nothing of value in Mexico so try (and do) come into the USA illegally, or random refugees, migrants, etc. from some extremely poor and/or war-torn nation, then it is considered racist to propose any sort of restrictions on their entry.
Let's just apply the same standards from now on to all potential immigrants: If you object to letting in an arbitrary number of H1B visa applicants, you are a racist!
The risk you are hypothesising is worrisome, and I agree that it's plausible.
We are at a point now where it's impossible (thanks to the efforts of some people) to even have realistic discussions about serious adult topics. We have been getting conditioned to accept certain assumptions that are never questioned. The result of which is that the boundaries of the debate are constrained so that no meaningful ideas ever see the light of day. Worse, people are really not very creative. 99.9% of the time, all the debate about whatever topic, is just regurgitating the same tired ideas, and the same false input data. Some assumptions and manipulations of public consciousness about the immigration issues:
1. It's "racist" to not let certain people into your country.
2. There is no need to select immigrants according to the likelihood that they will contribute to the economy.
3. Illegal aliens are "undocumented immigrants." No they are not, they are in the country illegally. Therefore they are not immigrants. They are illegal aliens!
How many of the people arguing for letting anyone into the country, and for giving undocumented/illegal aliens the same access to social services, voting privileges, etc. as citizens or permanent residents always leave their front door unlocked?
Here's what the government should do with all its domestic spying data: Find all the people who advocate letting anyone into the country and giving social benefits to illegal aliens, and fine them in geometrically increasing amounts weekly until they remove all the locks from their dwellings.
You see, the USA (or any nation) is the collective property (estate) of the people in that nation. The people are like a family. Therefore, we have a collective interest to ensure that the people who enter the country are going to preserve and/or increase the value of that estate, and not be the sort of family members that cause harm to other members of the family. This is the same thing we do when we decide who may enter and live with us in our private homes.
If we apply the same logic used about illegal aliens and refugees to the decision about whether or not to lock our doors, the conclusion is:
1. If you lock your door to keep out bad people, you are greedy and selfish for not giving other people a chance to have your stuff. So you should unlock your home.
2. If a random someone comes into your unlocked home and starts making a meal for themselves, and putting their feet up on the table while watching the (sport you don't like) game on your TV, and you call the cops to have them removed, if they happen to be brown or black then you are a racist.
Here's one documentary that mentions that if they make it across the border, they are "in": https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
When you see footage of thousands of refugees, do you think they all went through a checkpoint and had their passports stamped? It is not like that.
If true, then it would be trivial for ISIS or other lunatic fringe groups to simply infiltrate the refugee flows. In fact ISIS said they would do just that. Why should we not take them at their word?
Whether or not sending terrorists in as migrants is the smartest approach, I can't say. But to say that they will be "watched, suspected, and scrutinized" is nonsense.
Some programming languages manage to absorb change, but withstand progress. -- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982