Worried about nuclear proliferation? Not much has changed in 50 years. In July 1963, signatories to a letter in New Scientist agreed with the UK's minister for science, Lord Hailsham, who said: "If we go on indefinitely experimenting with nuclear weapons, manufacturing them and stockpiling them, boasting of their potentialities, and keeping them at instant readiness, sooner or later a situation will arise, sometime, somewhere, where one will go off".
The same letter could be written today. Half a century on, no nuclear weapons have been fired in anger, but the laws of statistics and of unintended consequences are both probably awaiting their moment.
Back in the 1960s, though, many of us were still in awe, and the benefits of nuclear fission were being hailed. Not so by July 1979, when disposing of nuclear waste from power stations was the hot topic. We reported then that it was important that the waste "remain undamaged for up to 1000 years". At the end of the 20th century, we predicted, liquid nuclear waste would be converted to glass, cast into lead blocks, and buried deep underground. Whether the lead or the nuclear waste would be the most damaging to the environment, we failed to mention.
By July 2009, our concerns had shifted somewhat. Amid the recession that continues today, cost had become a key issue. The UK government was uncertain whether it could afford to renew its Trident nuclear weapons programme. The future of ballistic missile submarines is "up for grabs", we reported a government official as saying. The official was right – the debate still rages today.
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
