It would seem to me that uranium-based nuclear power itself would never have been developed or commercialized (indeed as a byproduct of the military use first b

It would seem to me that uranium-based nuclear power itself would never have been developed or commercialized (indeed as a byproduct of the military use first being developed) without massive government investment. I don't see this argument as a specific counterpoint to Thorium-based nuclear power. That said, I am not particularly informed as to the benefits or drawbacks of Thorium -- I'm just observing that the counter-arguments don't seem to be particularly specific to Thorium and could have easily been applied to Uranium-based nuclear power had this been 1932 instead of 2012.