Talk:Tsar Bomba

Removals

• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tsar_Bomba&diff=next&oldid=673573311

This stuff could be reinstated if it can be referenced.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC).

50 or 57

The original test was done in secrecy in the Soviet Union. NATO scientists measured the blast from afar, using seismic signals and other indications, and came up with 57 MT. After the Cold War, the writings of the Soviet scientists on the ground on the spot indicated a yield of 50 MT. Since they were there but we were not, their measurements are more valid. They knew how to do them, and so 50 MT is the official value. This error has been repeated several times, and the notes here in Talk get archived. And someone new steps up. 50 MT is the correct value. SkoreKeep (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Just curious about something.

According to a few "documentaries" on the Discovery and Science channels, there was a Soviet test in which the observed/measured yield was higher than what was calculated/expected.

Was this that test?

Can anyone verify this?

Also, given the climate at the time, what the Soviets released for world news distribution and consumption was propaganda in their favor.

As such, I would tend to put more credence to what "NATO scientists measured" than anything the Soviets claim their scientists "indicated."

Especially since "measured" is more accurate/precise than "indicated." 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you would. However, the nformation was in documents that the CIA paid the Russian scientists to compile, and it wasn't released until after the end of the USSR. They wereon the site; NATO was not. SkoreKeep (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Alphanumeric designation

I removed the alphanumeric designation from the lede, because I don't see any indications in the text which one of many is correct or official. When adding one, please use a ref from a really reputable source, not just from some internets, which are Chinese whispers. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

That as a pretty poor choice for a ref war; googling AN-602 will show hundreds of references to the Tsar. But I respect your request for a source, and I'll provide one. Unfortunately I'm far from my books right now, and it will be a couple of weeks before I can get back to them, so hang tight for that reference. Does it have to be an actual tree product, or will you accept something in google Books? Hmmmm? SkoreKeep (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Date issue

According to this article the bomb was manufactured before it was designed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.150.94.205 (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing this. Unfortunately this article is a target of a good deal of vandalism. Both dates were bullshit. Removed. - üser:Altenmann >t 21:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Bomb / Bomba

Bomba is not a word. This article should be moved to Tsar Bomb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.198.18.180 (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. It is, of course, Russian transliterated into the Roman alphabet. In Cyrillic, "Царь-бомба". Their words (both of them), their language. SkoreKeep (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

So when we refer to the bomb we should say "the Tsar Bomba bomb" because "Tsar Bomba" is the proper noun in the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.103.147.249 (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily. One may treat "bomba" as a loanword, just like we say "German panzers" or 4th Panzer Army. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

"Panzer" is a proper noun, not a loanword. It is not redundant to say "German Panzer tanks". Why would we use a loanword when we already have a word of our own that means exactly the same thing? We say "President Putin" and not use the Russian word for president. Unless "Bomba" is a proper noun, it should be translated into English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.59.164.73 (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course 'Tsar Bomba' is a proper noun both in Russian and in English and it is triple redundant to say "German Panzer tanks" unless you don't know what this means. In any case, your or my opinion is irrelevant; we have to look how it is named in books. And it is called so indeed, among other names. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Triple redundant, so three redundant words in the expression "German Panzer tanks", top kek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.59.81.92 (talk) 07:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tsar Bomba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.atomicforum.org/russia/tsarbomba.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Netherzone (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Revert of referenced international reaction to test removed by User:Altenmann restored

User:Altenmann reverted my referenced contribution https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tsar_Bomba&oldid=751339587 . I have reverted his revert and restored my changes on the grounds that all of the people making the statements were notable at the time, and that the reaction of people in power in the United States and abroad is important to understand how the world reacted to the nuclear test. I would hardly call the prime ministers of Norway, Canada, and the British foreign office "random politicians". After posting this I will leave a message on User_talk:Altenmann so we can discuss it here. :) --Psiĥedelisto (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I left a message on User_talk:Altenmann here. --Psiĥedelisto (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

OK I agree that to desctibe the reaction is important. But the exact rants are not important. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Great :D I also agree with the current version of the article, I agree that my original version which quoted the senators was not all that important because they don't have the foreign policy power of say, a president or secretary of state. I'll continue searching for statements from them about it in the archives. My latest edit was just some minor grammar cleanup. --Psiĥedelisto (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Cloudy observations of the Tsar

Comes Max Arosev with this chestnut: "The explosion was hot enough to induce third degree burns at distances of 100 km (62,14 mi). The flash of light was so bright that it was visible at a distance of 1,000 km (621,37 mi), despite cloudy skies. Tsar Bomba caused extensive environmental damage: the ground surface of the island was completely levelled, as were the rocks. Everything in the area was melted and blown away."

I decline on this for several reasons:

1. It is just about, if not entirely, cribbed from the CTBTO website.

2. This sort of over-blown unscientific "gee-whiz" stuff has followed the Tsar around for far too long. I have never seen any kind of scientific basis for any of these claims, or even an on-the-spot newspaper article, and I think that they're probably simple folklore. And that goes for the "windows shattered" in Finland, as well. If the effect was so unexpected, so one-of-a-kind, then credentials for each and every one should be able to allow them to stand as facts, or they should be dropped.

3. The Tsar was done in top secrecy by the politburo, but too many ears in other countries were listening. In that environment, who was going around measuring "visible at 1000 km"? How does one compare that to other similar occurrences? It sounds cool and trendy, but does anyone know of a similar factoid to be able to say, "Yeah, that really was a world buster, compared to (Tunguska, Krakatoa, ???)."?

4. I would normally give high marks to the ctbto website as reference material, but after reading this squib in the context of "Test that went wrong or caused unforseen damage" I really begin to wonder about whose POV is being expressed here. "Everything in the area was melted and blown away" is not quite the sort of analysis I'd expect from the world's expert in atomic explosion detection. Sukhoy Nos (translates as "Dry Nose") was never much of a travel destination in any case.

As a side note, use the CVT script to do your conversions. I want to know who it was that staked himself out at 621.37 miles in cloudy skies from the epicenter to get that measurement. It will also take care of that European comma, one way or the other. Also check spelling. Lastly, complete the reference.

If Mr. Arosev insists on using this, then I'm going to insist on a specific reference for each and every claim. Good luck with that. SkoreKeep (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

No response from Mr. Arosev concerning my objections to the content; removing again. SkoreKeep (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Coca Cola Peninsula

This line was seen in the "Test" section: "...flown by Major Andrei Durnovtsev. Taking off from an airfield in the Coca Cola Peninsula, the release plane was accompanied..."

I don't think that the Coca Cola Peninsula is a real place unless I am sorely mistaken here. (Especially given that the Soviets would be unlikely to name a significant geographical feature after a capitalist American soda company)

I think it's supposed to be referring to the Kola Peninsula (where Murmansk is) and is a likely nearby area that also has a military airfield.

Again, if anyone can confirm whether or not a "Coca Cola Peninsula" existed, I'd appreciate it, but I find it highly unlikely to be anything other than The Kola. (I added a note next to the location) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.134.46 (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

No, there is definitely no Coca Cola Peninsula, and the flight that tested the Tsar definitely flew out of an airbase on the Kola Peninsula. SkoreKeep (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Gender neutral language

Until recently the article used the term 'man-made' to mean artificial. Policy MOS:GNL 'Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision.' I propose that the phrase is replaced with an alternative, perhaps 'human-made' or 'artificial'. Martinlc (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I would personally argue that the "man" in "man-made" does not indicate gender, since the term is not normally read as meaning "not made by a woman." It derives from the much older use of "man" as a gender-neutral label for humans, when the terms for man and woman were respectively wereman and wifman. Bones Jones (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree it is not being used as a deliberately gendered indicator. If no gender is implied then why use a word that seems to imply it? The logic of the MOS is that another form of words should be used. Martinlc (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I took a stab at rewriting it to read: ...the most powerful nuclear weapon ever created. Its test on 30 October 1961 remains the most powerful explosive ever detonated. Thoughts? Mojoworker (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

A neat solution.Martinlc (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

It Broke the voluntary moratorium on nuclear tests?

Russian and Chinese radio stations mentioned the American underground nuclear test of a much smaller bomb carried out the day prior without mentioning the Tsar Bomba test.[27]

the US had already announced that it considered itself free to resume testing without further notice but had not resumed testing at the time of the Tsar Bomba test.)[33]

Well both cant be right at the same time. Could someone clarify this? Either the USA tested that smaller bomb befor the Tsar Bomb or they didnt.

--Eheran (talk) 12:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The log (dates are all UT):

27 Oct 61 USSR 127 aka K2, 1.2kT on rocket

27 Oct 61 USSR 128 aka K1, 1.2kT on rocket

27 Oct 61 USSR 126, 16kT barge

29 Oct 61 USA Nougat/Mink, unknown yield; probably ~20kT underground shaft

20 Oct 61 USSR 129, 0.09kT airdrop

30 Oct 61 USSR 130, aka Tsar Bomba 50MT airdrop

31 Oct 61 USSR 131, 5MT airdrop

followed by 11 more USSR tests from 1000 tons to 400 kT

So the Soviets were right on that - the US had tested five times from 15 Oct to 29 Oct. I would assume the statement was made by someone ignorant of actual testing going on, as it was probably classified. As usual, only the adversary knows about one's classified tests. It is obvious the USSR was prepared for bolting the moratorium, while the US wasn't.

I will essay the change. SkoreKeep (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The Russian Status-6 Oceanic Multipurpose System

There is a "See also" link to the article on the Status-6 Oceanic Multipurpose System in the Tsar article. The evidence for this system appears, in one report by the CIA, to be Russian disinformation. I propose to delete the link because of its ephermerality and because there is no association between it and the Tsar except for their respective scare factors. SkoreKeep (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

AN602 <-> RDS-220?

Please take look at the german version (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN602). It states that RDS-220 is wrong and AN602 is correct, the reference (1) is:

S. J. Zaloga: The Kremlin's Nuclear Sword. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington und London 2002, S. 51–52. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.105.41.117 (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Fireball size

Comes 37.131.57.110 changing the size of the fireball (presumed maximum size) from 8 km to 4.6 km in diameter. Doing a quick search, I find everyone agreeing with the old number (or in some cases 5 km) and I think that probably is a case of some copycatting. I like the new number better, since the bomb exploded at 3-4 km high and the fireball did not reach the ground, possibly also due to some flattening by shockwave reflection. I note that captioned on a picture of the fireball is the figure 4.6 km, so, without some Russian expert to contradict it, I'm happy with the change. However, it would be nice if there was a solid reference for it.

[Minutes later...] Eh, was I fooled. The incidence in the picture caption was the change made. So I have nowhere else found that figure. Perhaps 37.131.57.110 would like to come forward, then, with a reference. SkoreKeep (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted and added a reference for 5 miles (8 km) in the text and clarified the wording in the caption (changing "about 8.0 km (5 mi) in diameter" to "about 8.0 km (5 mi) wide at its maximum". Mojoworker (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll let it be, but the reference is weak. Obviously the writer wasn't there, and he is not (nor claims to be) an expert in any field, and he throws out the size along with all the other old, unsubstantiated "Gee, whiz" sort of statements about the power of the bomb blast. SkoreKeep (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this one better? Mojoworker (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Yes, better. At least it's a product of a group of people, rather than one, and in a more-or-less scientific (eh, politico-scientific) text. I don't know what would be especially better; an eyewitness with calipered eyeballs? In the scheme of things, its got to be close to correct anyway. Note he says the fireball touched the ground, while most sources deny it, particularly the photo and video evidence. An imperfect world. SkoreKeep (talk) 06:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for page protection Suggestion

This article has repeatedly been vandalized by IP and anonymous mobile editors. Requesting page protection from an administrator, please. Netherzone (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Request forwarded to WP:RFPP. Mojoworker (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected for one week. Protection can be requested again if IP disruption resumes later. Mojoworker (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Section "Analysis"

The weight and size of the Tsar Bomba limited the range and speed of the specially modified bomber carrying it and ruled out its delivery by an intercontinental ballistic missile.

The Proton (UR-500) started out as the delivery platform for the device. I don't see how a weight of 27 tons "rules out" ICBM delivery.

Much of its high-yield destructiveness was inefficiently radiated upwards into space.

As with any other air-burst device. I do not quite see the relevance? -- DevSolar2 (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)