Home: Index
Learning
Centers
2001-03
2003-05
2004-06
2005-07
2006-08
2007-09
2008-10
2010-12
Resources
About Us
• web: www.gcdd.net
• email: gc.dd@gcdd.net
• last additions:

    2 January 2012
Hiroshima Dome The Global Collaborative on
Denuclearization Design
to achieve and sustain Zero Nuclear Weapons
1st H-Bomb Test [1952]
You are at: HOME > GC.DD=ChronFile.2009-2011.html Cite as    •  http://www.gcdd.net/GC.DD=ChronFile.2009-2011.html


CHRONOLOGY 2009

January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December

JANUARY 2009

2009.01.20    Tuesday
China issued China’s National Defense in 2008, a general and unrevealing overview of military forces and security policies. À propos denuclearization, the report inscribes declaratory policies that may continue to guide China’s posture should other nuclear weapon states broach significant reductions or serious consideration of nuclear zero. Salient excerpts:

“[China] will persist in pursuing the new security concept featuring mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality and coordination, and advocating the settlement of international disputes and hotspot issues by peaceful means.”

“China has formulated a military strategic guideline of active defense for the new period … This guideline lays stress on deterring crises and wars. … It calls for the building of a lean and effective deterrent force and the flexible use of different means of deterrence. China remains committed to the policy of no first use of nuclear weapons, pursues a self-defensive nuclear strategy, and will never enter into a nuclear arms race with any other country. ”

“The submarine force possesses … some nuclear counterattack capabilities.”

“The Second Artillery Force is a strategic force under the direct command and control of the CMC, and the core force of China for strategic deterrence. It is mainly responsible for deterring other countries from using nuclear weapons against China, and for conducting nuclear counterattacks and precision strikes with conventional missiles.

“The Second Artillery Force sticks to China’s policy of no first use of nuclear weapons, implements a self-defensive nuclear strategy, strictly follows the orders of the CMC, and takes it as its fundamental mission the protection of China from any nuclear attack. In peacetime the nuclear missile weapons of the Second Artillery Force are not aimed at any country. But if China comes under a nuclear threat, the nuclear missile force of the Second Artillery Force will go into a state of alert, and get ready for a nuclear counterattack to deter the enemy from using nuclear weapons against China. If China comes under a nuclear attack, the nuclear missile force of the Second Artillery Force will use nuclear missiles to launch a resolute counterattack against the enemy either independently or together with the nuclear forces of other services. The conventional missile force of the Second Artillery Force is charged mainly with the task of conducting medium- and long-range precision strikes against key strategic and operational targets of the enemy.”

“China holds that all nuclear-weapon states should make an unequivocal commitment to the thorough destruction of nuclear weapons, undertake to stop research into and development of new types of nuclear weapons, and reduce the role of nuclear weapons in their national security policy. The two countries possessing the largest nuclear arsenals bear special and primary responsibility for nuclear disarmament. They should earnestly comply with the relevant agreements already concluded, and further drastically reduce their nuclear arsenals in a verifiable and irreversible manner, so as to create the necessary conditions for the participation of other nuclear-weapon states in the process of nuclear disarmament.”

China has always stayed true to its commitments that it will not be the first to use nuclear weapons at any time and in any circumstances, and will unconditionally not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states or in nuclear-weapon-free zones.”

“China attaches great importance to military transparency, and makes unremitting efforts to enhance military transparency and promote mutual trust with other countries in the military sphere.”

Note the highly-qualified character-ization of China’s strategic submarine capability.

Some links below go to Chinese sites. For your convenience we have also assembled, and selectively highlighted, a version with both the English and Chinese texts, and a pdf version of the appendices.


• People’s Republic of China. State Council.
China’s National Defense in 2008.. 2009.01.20.
• 中华人民共和国国务院. 2008年中国的国防. 2009.01.20.
• 中华人民共和国国务院. Appendices. 2008年中国的国防. 附 錄. 2009.01.20.
• 中华人民共和国国务院. Appendices. 2008年中国的国防. 附 錄. [pdf] 2009.01.20.
• People’s Republic of China. State Council. 中华人民共和国国务院. 2008年中国的国防. [pdf] English and Chinese texts, with GC.DD’s selective highlighting as annotation of the English text, in a single file. [Does not include appendices.] 2009.01.20.

2009.01.30    Friday
The New York Times today called editorially for several key steps on nuclear weapons: negotiate 1991 START Treaty follow-up, reduce US and Russian weapons [‘deployed weapons’?] to 1000, dealert, ratify CTBT, resume FMCT negotiations, and abandon pursuit of the so-called ‘reliable replacement warhead’.

• Editorial “The Rules of the Game.”. The New York Times. 2009.01.30.

1st H-Bomb Test [1952]

FEBRUARY 2009

2009.02.04    Wednesday
UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband today issued a paper titled
LIFTING THE NUCLEAR SHADOW: Creating the Conditions for Abolishing Nuclear Weapons. A summary of the paper’s main points was also posted on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website.

The paper is simply worded, a summary of UK declaratory policy on nuclear disarmament. It continues the position outlined by then Foreign Secretary Margaret Becket speaking in Washington in June 2007. [See Becket remarks.] Abolition of nuclear weapons is treated as an objective, but an ‘ultimate’ goal, before which a number of daunting prerequisites must be met. The paper also paraphrases positions which illustrate the range of different views among specialists and public, enabling it to suggest complexity withut being required to resolve it. The paper’s helpfulness is in setting out three general conditions and a number of germane steps which could be taken in endeavoring to meet obstacles. The three conditions:

“There are three main sets of such conditions and six specific steps to help create them which are potentially attainable within the next few years.

+ “Condition 1: watertight means to prevent nuclear weapons from spreading to more states or to terrorists at the same time as nuclear energy is expanding;”
+ “Condition 2:  minimal arsenals and an international legal framework which puts tight, verified constraints on nuclear weapons.”
+ “Condition 3:  finding solutions to the challenges of moving from small numbers of nuclear weapons to zero in ways which enhance security.”

To see the associated steps, please go to the sources cited below. And “over the longer term” the UK calls for three more reaching conditions to be satisfied:

+  improved politial relations between key states;
+  ensuring that “limiting or banning” nuclear weapons doesn’t provoke compensatory arms racing in other weapons;
+  collective security arrangements, both to enforce ZNW and maintain international security.


[GC.DD editor’s comment:] The FCO giveth and taketh away. Yes, the aim is zero. But, the conditions pose severe obstacles. A nuclear weapon state could, if it judged it to be in its interest, hide behind the difficulties those obstacles represent. Still, they are and should be the concerns of governments and publics, so they must be addressed. It is useful to have them set out so straightforwardly. [End comment.]

And the paper concludes on a high note, in effect offering a challenge to design and negotiation:

We need to build a global coalition around not only a shared vision of a world free of nuclear weapons but also of how we are going to work together to make it happen. We need to make a clean break from current perceptions that in this field everything is a zero sum game and instead work to establish virtuous circles in which progress on non-proliferation, disarmament and political and security conditions reinforce each other, enabling breakthroughs in areas which for many years have seemed intractable. We must find common cause and move from a decade of deadlock to a decade of decisions. We face a long hard road. But the dream of those early pioneers who first tried to ban nuclear weapons can yet be made a reality.”

• United Kingdom. Foreign and Commonwealth Office. LIFTING THE NUCLEAR SHADOW: Creating the Conditions for Abolishing Nuclear Weapons. 2009.02.04.

• United Kingdom. Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Summary. 2009.02.04.

2009.02.06    Friday
An op-ed by Henry Kissinger on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament was published on this day in the International Herald Tribune. (A fuller version appeared the next day in Newsweek, with a 2009.02.16 hardcopy publication date.)

Kissinger is one of the four ‘former statesmen’ who published op-ed pieces in the Wall Street Journal, in January 2007 and January 2008, advocating steps to bring about nuclear abolition. To my knowledge the four did not publish a joint appeal in January 2009, so we may understand Kissinger’s op-ed as the third in a series. As there has been speculation that Kissinger was the least enthusiastic about abolition of the four, there has been curiosity about what his sole position might be.

In short, Kissinger supports ”ultimately’ going to zero, insists that the approach must be “step-by-step”, and applauds some modest immediate steps which are among those advocated by the four. He stresses dangers of proliferation, challenges to non-proliferation by Iran and North Korea, and the need to maintain a nuclear deterrent as along as others have nuclear weapons. Still, he reports that “we reaffirm the objective of a world without nuclear weapons.” My reading of Kissinger’s op-ed is that he is less convinced than his three compadres of the need for prompt zero. But Reader can compare the texts and be his or her own judge. GC.DD has prepared a side-by-side presentation of the two versions just published, with highlighting to show differences between the texts and some sentences judged especially salient.

• George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger, and Sam Nunn, The Wall Street Journal, “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons”. 2007.01.04.[See 2007.01.04]

• George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger, and Sam Nunn, The Wall Street Journal, “Toward A Nuclear Free World”. 2008.01.15. [See 2008.01.15]

• Henry A. Kissinger, “Containing the Fire of the Gods,”, International Herald Tribune, “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons”. 2009.02.06.

• Henry A. Kissinger, “Our Nuclear Nightmare”. Newsweek. Online 2009.02.07. Issue of 2009.02.16.

• The two versions of Kissinger’s op-ed side-by-side. 2009.02.06.

1st H-Bomb Test [1952]

MARCH 2009

2009.03.17    Tuesday
British PM Gordon Brown delivered a speech on nuclear policy promising to release “Road to 2010” proposals in the coming summer, a “credible roadmap towards disarmament by all the nuclear weapon states.” But Brown emphasises conditions to be met before reaching “the ultimate ambition of a world free from nuclear weapons.

“So in the coming months Britain—working with other countries—will be setting out a ‘Road to 2010’ Plan with detailed proposals on civil nuclear power, disarmament and non-proliferation, on fissile material security and the role and development of the International Atomic Energy Agency. We will be seeking the widest possible international engagement and consultation around this plan.

“We will also host a recognised nuclear weapons state conference on nuclear disarmament issues and confidence building measures, including the verification of disarmament.”


• British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. “Speech on nuclear energy and proliferation”. Transcript [check against delivery]. 2009.03.17.
http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page18631


Tuesday
In a major editorial The New York Times cites President Barack Obama’s campaign pledges to resume arms control negotiations with Russia and seek deep cuts—in the Times words—“in pursuit of an eventual nuclear-free world.” The editorial calls for prompt talks on START I verification rules, due to expire before year’s end, and quick Senate confirmation of Rose Gottemoeller, the designated negotiator, and other measures.

• Editorial. “Watershed Moment on Nuclear Arms.” The New York Times. 2009.03.24.

1st H-Bomb Test [1952]

APRIL 2009

2009.04.01    Wednesday
A “Joint Statement by President Dmitriy Medvedev of the Russian Federation and President Barack Obama of the United States of America” issued after their meeting on the sidelines of the G20 conference in London committed to nuclear abolition, but declared it a “long-term” goal.

We committed our two countries to achieving a nuclear free world, while recognizing that this long-term goal will require a new emphasis on arms control and conflict resolution measures, and their full implementation by all concerned nations.”

A return to negotiated control was marked, however, by their agreeing to address the forthcoming end of the START I treaty:

“We agreed to pursue new and verifiable reductions in our strategic offensive arsenals in a step-by-step process, beginning by replacing the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with a new, legally-binding treaty. We are instructing our negotiators to start talks immediately on this new treaty and to report on results achieved in working out the new agreement by July.”

• 
“Joint Statement by President Dmitriy Medvedev of the Russian Federation and President Barack Obama of the United States of America”. 2009.04.01.

2009.04.05    Sunday

US President Barack Obama declared his administration’s policy on nuclear proliferation and nuclear abolition in a speech delivered in Prague. Excerpts:

The existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War. No nuclear war was fought between the United States and the Soviet Union, but generations lived with the knowledge that their world could be erased in a single flash of light. Cities like Prague that existed for centuries, that embodied the beauty and the talent of so much of humanity, would have ceased to exist.”

“Today, the Cold War has disappeared but thousands of those weapons have not. In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up. More nations have acquired these weapons. Testing has continued. Black market trade in nuclear secrets and nuclear materials abound. The technology to build a bomb has spread. Terrorists are determined to buy, build or steal one. Our efforts to contain these dangers are centered on a global non-proliferation regime, but as more people and nations break the rules, we could reach the point where the center cannot hold.”

“ Now, understand, this matters to people everywhere. One nuclear weapon exploded in one city -– be it New York or Moscow, Islamabad or Mumbai, Tokyo or Tel Aviv, Paris or Prague –- could kill hundreds of thousands of people. And no matter where it happens, there is no end to what the consequences might be -– for our global safety, our security, our society, our economy, to our ultimate survival.”

“ Some argue that the spread of these weapons cannot be stopped, cannot be checked -– that we are destined to live in a world where more nations and more people possess the ultimate tools of destruction. Such fatalism is a deadly adversary, for if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then in some way we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable.”

“ Just as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st century. (Applause.) And as nuclear power –- as a nuclear power, as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it.”

“ So today, I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. (Applause.) I’m not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly –- perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, ‘Yes, we can.’ (Applause.)”

“ Now, let me describe to you the trajectory we need to be on. First, the United States will take concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons. To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same. Make no mistake: As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies –- including the Czech Republic. But we will begin the work of reducing our arsenal.”

•  “Remarks of President Barack Obama, Hradcany Square, Prague, Czech Republic”. 2009.04.05.


1st H-Bomb Test [1952]

MAY 2009

1st H-Bomb Test [1952]

JUNE 2009

1st H-Bomb Test [1952]

JULY 2009

1st H-Bomb Test [1952]

AUGUST 2009

1st H-Bomb Test [1952]

SEPTEMBER 2009`

2009.09.14    Sunday

The Middle Powers Initiative issued a statement to the UN Security Council calling for measures “to advance the achievement of a world free of nuclear weapons.” Excerpts:

“The Council should also reaffirm that all UN members must fulfill their disarmament obligations; express support for the Secretary- General’s October 2008 five-point proposal for nuclear disarmament; and call on all states to shape their policies in light of the objective of reaching a nuclear-weapon free world. ...

“The Council should finally consider development of its own role in achieving and sustaining the verified and enforced elimination of nuclear weapons. A first step would be to establish a subsidiary body to this end.”

•  MPI
Statement on the 24 September Security Council Summit. 2009.09.14.

1st H-Bomb Test [1952]

OCTOBER 2009



2009.10.09    Friday

“The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.” And further:

“The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations.

• 
Nobel Committee announcement. 2009.10.09.

1st H-Bomb Test [1952]

NOVEMBER 2009

1st H-Bomb Test [1952]

DECEMBER 2009

1st H-Bomb Test [1952]
2009.12.15    Tuesday

The ambitious and thoughtful Report of the International Commission on Non-proliferation and Disarmament was issued in Tokyo today: Eliminating Nuclear Threats: A Practical Agenda for Global Policymakers.

Commission website:
http://www.icnnd.org/
The Commission explains that


“What makes this report distinctive is, hopefully, its timeliness; comprehensiveness; global consultative reach; attention to pragmatic realities as well as ambitious ideals; intended accessibility to non-specialist policymakers; and strong action orientation, reflected in the short, medium, and longer term action agendas that bind together its specific policy proposals.” [Report, p. xvii]

The only complete solution to the problem of nuclear weapons is to achieve their complete elimination - to create a world in which no state possesses nuclear weapons, where there are no unsafeguarded stockpiles of the highly enriched uranium or separated plutonium on which they depend, and where we can be confident that no new nuclear threats will emerge. The problem has been a long time in the making, and its solution - beginning with all the existing nuclear-armed states renewing or pledging their commitment to elimination, and meaning what they say - will be long and complex in the delivery. Moreover, as the history of disarmament and non-prolifelration efforts over the last twenty years starkly remins us, one cannot assume that new momentum for change will be readily sustained: gains hard won can be rapidly lost. But there is now a new opportunity, matching that of the immediate post-World War II years and the early 1990s, to halt and reverse the tide once and for all.” [Report, p. 5]

• International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament. Report. Eliminating Nuclear Threats: A Practical Agenda for Global Policymakers.. 2009.12.15.


CHRONOLOGY 2010

January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December

JANUARY 2010

1st H-Bomb Test [1952]

FEBRUARY 2010


2010.02.03    Wednesday
The UK Ministry of Defense today presented to Parliament the ‘green paper’ “Adaptability and Partnership: Issues for the Strategic Defense Review” [Cm 7794].
]

•  United Kingdom. Ministry of Defense. Cm 7794. Full text. 2010.02.03.

1st H-Bomb Test [1952]

MARCH 2010

1st H-Bomb Test [1952]

APRIL 2010

2010.04.06    Tuesday
On 6 April 2010 the US Department of Defense issued the “2010 Nuclear Posture Review Report.” The NPR “outlines the Administration’s approach to promoting the President’s agenda for reducing nuclear dangers and pursuing the goal of a world without nuclear weapons ... ”

•  United States. Department of Defense. 2010 Nuclear Posture Review Report.
2010 Nuclear Posture Review Report. 2010.04.06.

2010.04.08    Thursday
In Prague, on 8 April 2010, Presidents Obama and Medvedev signed the ‘New START’ treaty, formally the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms.

•  United States. Department of State. Full text of New START treaty. Full text of Protocol. 2010.04.08.

2010.04.12-13    Monday-Tuesday
The Nuclear Security Summit convened by the United States met in Washington 12-13 April 2010. Participants

“Reaffirm the fundamental responsibility of States, consistent with their respective international obligations, to maintain effective security of all nuclear materials, which includes nuclear materials used in nuclear weapons, and nuclear facilities under their control; to prevent non-state actors from obtaining the information or technology required to use such material for malicious purposes; and emphasize the importance of robust national legislative and regulatory frameworks for nuclear security ... ”

An associated work plan sets out guidance.

•  Nuclear Security Summit. Communiqué.
•  Nuclear Security Summit. Work Plan
•  Nuclear Security Summit. Highlights of national commitments.
•  Nuclear Security Summit. White House cover page.

1st H-Bomb Test [1952]

MAY 2010

2010.05.03-28    Monday 3rd - Friday 28th
The 2010 NPT Review Conference is scheduled to meet in New York 3-28 May 2010. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) requires a review conference every five years. Participants are states adhering to the NPT, represented by their designated officials. Only Israel, Pakistan, and India have failed to adhere to the NPT; North Korea has declared itself withdrawn. This is a formal governmental conference to which states may make binding commitments.

This is a preliminary entry calling attention to sources issued prior to the opening of the Review Conference, and sites on which conference documents and the ongoing ACRONYM coverage will be posted.

•  United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs.
2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) 3-28 May 2010. Includes links to conference documents and other papers.

•  Arms Control Association. ACA 2010 RevCon resource page.

•  James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies and Mountbatten Centre for International Studies. The 2010 NPT Briefing Book.

•  James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. The 2010 NPT RevCon resource page.

•  ACRONYM Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy. The 2010 NPT RevCon index page. ACRONYM coverage will include a blog from the RevCon.


1st H-Bomb Test [1952]

JUNE 2010

1st H-Bomb Test [1952]

JULY 2010

1st H-Bomb Test [1952]

AUGUST 2010

1st H-Bomb Test [1952]

SEPTEMBER 2010

1st H-Bomb Test [1952]

OCTOBER 2010

1st H-Bomb Test [1952]

NOVEMBER 2010

1st H-Bomb Test [1952]

DECEMBER 2010

1st H-Bomb Test [1952]


CHRONOLOGY 2011

January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December

JANUARY 2011

1st H-Bomb Test [1952]

FEBRUARY 2011



2011.02.05    Saturday
The New START treaty entered into force on 5 February 2011. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov exchanged the instruments of ratification in Munich.



•  US Department of State. Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance.
“New START”. 2011.02.05. This page contains links to the treaty text and other documents, including the US and Russian unilateral statements (interpretations and conditions). To reach links to the components of the treaty (text, protocol, and three annexes go to Treaty Text [Links] or the citations below.

•  US Department of State. New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START). TEXT. Signed 2010.04.08. Ratified 2011.02.05. Entry Into Force (EIF) 2011.02.05.
•  US Department of State. New START Treaty. Annex on Inspection Activities. 2010.04.08.
•  US Department of State. New START Treaty. Annex on Notifications. 2010.04.08.
•  US Department of State. New START Treaty. Annex on Telemetric Activities. 2010.04.08.
•  US Department of State. Fact Sheet and Chronology. 2011.-02.05.
•  US Department of State. Bureau of Verification, Compliance, and Implementation. Fact Sheet. “Central Warhead and Delivery Vehicle Limits of the New START Treaty”. 2010.04.08.

1st H-Bomb Test [1952]

MARCH 2011



2011.03.11    Friday
As a consequence of an earthquake and tsunami in the early afternoon, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, on Japan’s Atlantic coast, began to lose integrity. In the hours and days that followed efforts to control a reactor and spent fuel ponds failed. Dangerous radioactive isotopes contaminated the region around the plant, and there was significant run of contaminated water into the nearby ocean.

Some states reconsidered whether to build planned nuclear plants. Nuclear regulators throughout the world focused on existing and proposed nuclear plant designs. Prior projections of reliance on nuclear to generate electricity, avoiding greenhouse gas emissions, were immediately in doubt. A series of studies documented design and response failures, but as parts of the plant remained inaccessible such studies were not the last word. Press reports suggested it might take 40 years before the plant was thoroughly decommissioned and the site abandoned.

•  On the dribble of increasingly grave reports, see for example The New York Times, Hiroko Tabuchi and Keith Bradsher, “Japan Says 2nd Reactor May Have Ruptured With Radioactive Release,” 15 March 2011.
•  Executive Summary of the “Interim Report of the Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations of Tokyo Electric Power Company,”
http://icanps.go.jp/eng/, 26 December 2011. [As of 2 January 2012 an English translation of the full Interim Report had not been posted.]
•  Hiroko Tabuchi, “Japan Panel Cites Failure in Tsunami,” The New York Times, 26 December 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/world/asia/
report-condemns-japans-response-to-nuclear-accident.html


1st H-Bomb Test [1952]

APRIL 2011

1st H-Bomb Test [1952]

MAY 2011

1st H-Bomb Test [1952]

JUNE 2011


1st H-Bomb Test [1952]

JULY 2011


1st H-Bomb Test [1952]
AUGUST 2011


1st H-Bomb Test [1952]

SEPTEMBER 2011

1st H-Bomb Test [1952]

OCTOBER 2011

1st H-Bomb Test [1952]

NOVEMBER 2011
1st H-Bomb Test [1952]

DECEMBER 2011

1st H-Bomb Test [1952]