I used to do the "it's not a real nobel" take as well when I was young and edgy, and then I realized that Alfred Nobel was just another rich guy buying his way post-mortem prestige*, not even doing so during his life. Even if "most of the applications were civil", with the economic devastation it brought and the undeniable military uses, I'm not sure the "merchant of death" moniker was unearned.

So by now, I think that the Sveriges riksbanks pris might have "better pedigree" and that Alfred Nobel is honored by the dedication, especially given the stellar research that it is often recognizing

What economic devastation? Honest question I'm not sure what's the harm in civilian use of dynamite?

Economically, dynamite has been highly beneficial, as it can do a huge number of man hours of work in seconds.

The moral burden that Nobel's memory should bear is probably worth debating but we absolutely should take the opportunity to remind ourselves that the Nobel prize (whether the 'actual' one or this riksbanks thing) is one possible prize among many others much lesser known, and that there frequently is highly important research that never wins any notable prize at all. Examples: Freeman Dyson, Gilbert Lewis, Margaret Burbidge -- none of them won the Nobel but won other prizes for arguably equally important work. I'm not even suggesting going 'out there' and mentioning someone like Stephen Wolfram.

The way that the Nobel prize gets referred to in American media sometimes makes me feel like it is an almost religious invocation (except that they do not actually say the words "hallowed" or "blessed") -- if a Nobel laureate has said X is the case, who are you to say X is not the case, etc.