B. W. you are a funny guy but you seem better at trolling than actually debating this kind of stuff. Your first link is not talking about performing an actual fusion with helium-3. This is only about heating the plasma. Your second link is not relevant, this is only claims. Your third link indeed confirms the difficulty, which are physical and not avoidable, to perform a helium-3 deuterium fusion.
About the MIT experiment in your first link, they used deuterium and hydrogen plasma with only traces of helium-3, this is not suitable for efficient fusion, check this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium_fusion
They even said it, it wasn't their goal: "To be able to create such energetic ions in a non-activated device—not doing a huge amount of fusion—is beneficial, because we can study how ions with energies comparable to fusion reaction products behave, how well they would be confined."
Clearly, they didn't try to make an efficient fusion from this experiment. Suggesting that Helium-3 + Deuterium is better than Deuterium + Tritium while we are far from success in making the latter possible as commercial application is plain madness. The former is far much harder to perform than the latter:
As your third links said:
You are suggesting to put the cart before the horse...Helium-3 fusion is definitely a far distance away and should best be considered as a second generation fuel, something that may be exploited after current methods for confinement have been refined to the commercial reactor level. Nevertheless, helium-3’s benefits in terms of energy conversion and radioactivity are significant, and should be further explored. Clearly mining the moon is a crazy idea; however, the technology could be developed to make it a possibility. A great deal of capital would be required to get the ball rolling, but the value of helium-3 if it could be used for energy could be great enough to justify the expenditure.