Okay, allow me to translate in my own highly-biased view:
Space exploration of any kind (including satellites, probes, etc) requires energy sources that will be able to continue generating energy very far from a star. The only physical process that generates its own energy and is portable is atomic radiation. That's just the way it is.
Any probe that has ever gone past about Jupiter (or ever will) has some radioactive material on it to power the computers. Right now, they're called "RTG" for "radio-thermal generators" or some such, because people tend to come unhinged whenever anyone says the words "nuclear reactor". The fact is, we've been launching them since the Voyager missions at least, and no one has ever so much as broken a fingernail in all this time.
This being said, the argument that this is a cover to make weapons is utter and complete crap. What we use for power is a different isotope than what's used for weapons. It's just not the same stuff.
*That* being said, there are a lot of ways to make nuclear engines, some of which using nonweapons isotopes, some using weapons isotopes, some using actual nuclear weapons fired off behind a steel plate. Obviously, there are pluses and minuses to these ideas, but this is the creative stage, not the practical stage.
But the idea of "militarization of space" as a reaction to research on nuclear engines is really just annoying. Trust me, there are lots of people in the DoD who are getting paid *far* more than we are to think up ways to militarize space. They don't need to go through the academic community.
And if we ever want to get to Mars, or -- heaven forfend! -- beyond, we're going to have to suck up the idea of using nuclear power to get there, because otherwise it will never *ever* happen.Thus spake TacWar.