Reply #5: No, it's like...

[kristopher]

The way to do a full assessment of the technologies. None of the other technologies pose even a risk of promoting nuclear weapons proliferation - spreading nuclear energy technology ensures it. Since we are looking 100-300 years ahead with the assessment, and since there is no indication that a means of controlling the warlike nature of humans is a foreseeable part of our future; then it is a reasonable part of a proper analysis to include this risk - properly weighted for probabilities. I personally think that if nuclear were to be the energy choice of source, within the 300 year time frame considered there would be a hell of a lot more use of nuclear weapons than presumed in the paper.

Prior to the emergence of the deterrent of mutually assured destruction (MAD) we used them twice. If they reach the hands of paries where MAD isn't a factor (non-state actors for example, or a madman) then there is a significant danger of them being used.

A good place for information on the topic would be
BELFER CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
JOHN F. KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

They had a large project titled "the Nuclear Threat initiative" and produced a lot of good work. It is also an ongoing topic of their research.