do civilian nuclear electrical generators contradict nonproliferation of nuclear weapons?

Question: "Is it possible to have a nuclear electrical generator and still be unable to build a nuclear weapon?"

The latest issue of the magazine the economist May 24th 2008 page 79, does not make the distinction, but says that
"the spread of civilian nuclear technologies brings the risk of nuclear proliferation..."

Is the economist telling the truth? If indeed the two can be kept separate, civilian vs. military nuclear capabilities, then it would seem that interfering in any nation's ability to build a civilian nuclear electrical generator would only increase demand for other sources of energy. the typical substitution effect. So market and military prices paid for oil will be higher.

So the question again is, can the two be kept separate, or specifically, can allowing civilian nuclear technology for electrical generation be consistent with preventing the spread of nuclear weapons?

Please answer or add to watchlist then later comment.
"never trust an economist", that amuses me, username nice_guy... However(and this is to everyone answering, not just you), I am looking for more of a technical answer, and not an opinion or sentiment. What would a contractor say who was paid to make nuclear weapons? If given a civilian nuclear power plant, would that make weapons production any easier? Or would it be a non-sequitur?