Slow down a bit.

First: it took many years for the Ulam-Teller design to be discovered. Teller came up with the idea of a fusion bomb in 1942. The actual Ulam-Teller design was invented in March 1951, basically 9 years later. In this 9 years, for at least 2 years, people were searching frantically for a workable design. It's very easy to say, after the fact, that "X-Rays thermal transport would have been discovered as well" because we know this is what worked in the end. But before the fact, nobody was looking for X-Ray implosion.

Second: During WW2, plutonium was considered superior to uranium because it was cheaper to manufacture. U-235 was being manufactured via a very expensive separation process. But U-233 can be bred in a thorium reactor just like Plutonium is bred in a uranium reactor. They both come with their challenges (U-232 for U-233, Pu-240 for Pu-239), but in a scenario where the Manhattan project did not figure the implosion design in a hurry, the US would have shifted the resources to U-233. Here's a quote from wikipedia [1]

> A declassified 1966 memo from the US nuclear program stated that uranium-233 has been shown to be highly satisfactory as a weapons material, though it was only superior to plutonium in rare circumstances. It was claimed that if the existing weapons were based on uranium-233 instead of plutonium-239, Livermore would not be interested in switching to plutonium.

Now, I have no doubts that fission boosting would have been discovered. But with fission boosting, bombs would have gotten to the 1 MT yield, and that is plenty destructive for all war scenarios.

Crucially, such a weapon did not need to use any type of implosion.

In a scenario where the US does not develop the implosion knowledge because it can build a 1 MT weapon without, then it is not at all a given that someone else would have looked for an implosion-based design of a thermonuclear weapon. We would still have had the layer-cake design, but that is not a game changer, and it's not clear that the extra yield was worth the extra complexity.

Now, in today's world: Most of US's nukes have yields around 100 kT [2]. They are thermonuclear but the same effect can be achieved with (boosted) fission bombs. The largest current US nuke, the B83, has a yield of 1.2 MT, but the US is looking to retire it, and replace it with B61, with a maximum yield of 400 kT.

My point is that a superpower can service all its deterrence needs with nuclear weapons with yields that are achievable with boosted fission.

Why did we then go and build thermonuclear monster bombs in the 50's and 60's? Because at the time the ICBM precision was limited, and you needed something with a mile-sized fireball to make up for the lack of precision. But the ICBM technology advanced at an incredible pace. If we had been 10 years late coming with the design for a thermonuclear bomb, it would not have been needed at all.

Yet another thing is this: the destructive power of a nuke does not grow linearly with its yield. Ten bombs with a 100 kT yield are more destructive than on single bomb with a 1 MT yield. Oppenheimer knew that, and advised the US to focus on more rather than bigger. He was not listened to, and the US build both more and bigger. But we do know that you can devastate the world with 100 kT bombs, just as much as you can devastate it with 1 MT bombs.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-233#Weapon_material

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W76