1. No. The current bulk of research focuses on this pathway because d-t is both energetically favorable, and occurs at lower temps than other energetically favorable pathways. Tritium is a key component of fusion as it is currently studied in many, but not all cases and is the most likely first reaction. If you had said that the bulk of current research focuses on d-t, I’d agree, but it’s definotely not “nuclear fusion as we know it.” D-3He is a thing, not to mention stellar fusion which we certainly won’t create in a power plant, but we do know about it.

2. No, although the kinds of reactors being dreamed of in the “short” long term do fit this bill. Again, the much more difficult to manage (not to mention fuel) D-3He reaction is aneutronic, and doesn’t require a breeding blanket. Another difficult reaction would be p-7Li, although the fuel would be easier to come by. I’m not claiming that we’re remotely capable of harnessing these reactions, but it’s important to point out that they exist. A high neutron flux, and the need for Trtium are not inherent to fusion in general.

3. A bigger issue would be sputtering from the neutrons and He infiltration of the vessel. Othereise, assuming d-t fusion... this is accurate.

4. We can already breed tritium, and plutonium... this is a reality we have to live with. Fusion won’t change that either way. We can also engineer plagues, and a lot of other nasty things, and every year it all becomes easier to do “out of the garage” so to speak. If we’re going to survive, we need a better solution than unspilling the milk. Maybe embracing fission energy and greatly raising quality of life around the globe would be a good first step?

5. Agreed, although it is worth mentioning that there are ways to harness energy without a turbine, they are also complex. Fusion won’t save us, it won’t save our kids or grandkids. We need fission, solar, and wind, and peobsbly a century or more of research into aneutronic fusion if we want to survive well.