I said that because nuclear weapons are restricted when anyone wants to build anything nuclear in space it gets put on the back burner because no one wants to piss of other countries (who are understandably afraid of it being a covert weapon.)
I didn’t create a strawman, you did by claiming I did and then arguing against that. You did by claiming it’s talked about in the “space community,” whatever that means, when we’re talking about actual space infrastructure in the implementation phase.
It is simply not the case that nuclear weapons being restricted means anything nuclear in space gets put onto back burner. And there is no serious opposition from the poliferation from despite your strawman that there is and your strawman that it is forbidden by the outer space treaty. This is not a strawman on my part, I am directly addressing the argument you actually made in your comment, even if I was wrong it would not be a strongman, and I resent the fact that you would say "no you" when it is obviously false.
Space community here is just a throwaway phrase I used for the various entities involved in Space, space agencies like nasa and the esa, research agencies like darpa, and the huge groups of contractors around them. For instance the latest award of funding that I'm aware of from the US is that General Atomics was awarded $22 million in April of this year for nuclear thermal propulsion research (and theoretically to demonstrate it on orbit by 2025, I'm fairly skeptical that they will meet that goal): https://www.ga.com/general-atomics-awarded-darpa-contract-to...
I didn’t create a strawman, you did by claiming I did and then arguing against that. You did by claiming it’s talked about in the “space community,” whatever that means, when we’re talking about actual space infrastructure in the implementation phase.