Disclaimer: I'm having a hard time in writing this question in a non-opinion based format. Any suggestion to improve it will be welcome.
I was thinking that most, if not all, weapons are merely some sort of energy delivery system (from clubs to ICBMs). Considering the massive energies demanded for spacefaring (relativistic speeds for even small mass drones or the "slow" few hundred miles per second for a massive sized generation ship).
This leads to a problem: A nation capable of building and putting in orbit some sort of engine with that order of magnitude energy output can easily create a doomsday device.
Considering our species' actual fractured political system and the fact that we are still wasting time making nonsense polarized discourses like left vs right, for the sake of this question, assume we are not merging in a unified planetary system nor stopping from greedily pursuing any form of domination in the next couple of centuries.
At the same time consider we are creating technologies like efficient fusion power in this century and maybe anti-matter drives in the middle of the next century. For the sake of the question assume we can double our energy capacity each decade and in a couple of centuries we can build a one million times more energetic power plants (compared with actual nuclear fission ones).
In this scenario, actual techs like making nukes and ICBM can be achieved, after a couple of centuries, at lower costs and all the science and engineering behind it become trivial. For the sake of the question consider, at the begin of sec XXIII, a group of engineering students can easily design an ICBM and a thermonuclear device and a small nation can easily build them (without a super potency help).
The question is: How can we, reaching high tech without reaching a global peace, still avoid MAD?
EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION
I can accept any answer really:
- new Anti-weapons systems,
- Strong International Organization,
- major powers cooperation (by "force", like in a game theory),
- new government dynamics and even new forms of government, etc.
I can even accept an "It cannot be done" answer if it's very well explained.
@Krateng Bad example: History of Colonization of Americas is bloodbath between European Powers, indigenous people and late between colonists themselves. IMHO we managed to get from small familiar groups to big nations (some more developed than others) for a motive. I'm not naive enough to believe in billions of people giving free hugs but your alternative is unlikely in the long run and even more cheesy.
IMHO mankind history can be described as:
bigger group centralize power,
internal power struggle erodes bigger group,
- or bigger group finds out sharing power helps solve power struggles and mitigates erosion.
Note we cannot reach this point without the last one (yeah I still hold faith in democracy). So yes I believe we can invent some sort of decentralized and high collaborative new form of government and apply it a planetary scale. But actually our science development outpaced our social development and it is going to kill us unless we reach a compromise while we catch up.