Talk:RDS-6s

May 2013: Totally disputed

Added section title, May 2013. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This article reeks of anti-USSR sentiment. It admits the device produced fusion, yet it's somehow not a "true" fusion device. Only the Americans developed the advanced, multi-stage design (which STILL produces BOTH fusion and fission). Alvis 04:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I fully agree. The article uses weasel words and synthesis to downplay the importance of the weapon ("Despite its inability to be scaled into the megaton range, the detonation was used by Soviet diplomats as leverage.")

More important, it contains idle speculation on the "trueness" of the device that could not have happened in 1953 or any time before 1980, as the "secret of the hydrogen bomb" remained classified for another 30 years. I have tagged the article as {{Disputed}}. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is wide recognition among scholars almost everywhere that RDS-6 was not a true Hydrogen Bomb; even among the most devout critics of the United States Cold War foreign policy. Its low yield is very consistent with a regular nuclear bomb, and nowhere near where it should be if it was a Hydrogen Bomb. This has nothing to do with "anti-USSR sentiment." Furthermore, RDS-6 was used as a propaganda tool for the Soviet Union. This is indisputable, irrespective of its weapon classification. RDS-37 is regarded nearly across the board as the Soviet Unions first real Hydrogen Bomb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrishArney (talk • contribs) 01:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

"Real hydrogen weapon" generally means a design which is scalable into the megaton range. That is the commonly held definition, and it doesn't make a hill of beans whether it is the Teller-Ullam design, or Sakharov's Third Idea, or whatever the Chinese call their equivalent, possibly independent design. There is no question that the USSR stole a march on the US with their Sloika, particularly as a weapon right out of the box, but it was as far as that design could go, and the US had an equivalent breakthrough with the Greenhouse/George device in 1951. Today, when almost all nukes have fusion components, looking backward like this for clues as to "who was ahead" is purely a mind game; anyone can see the process was truly incremental, on both sides.

Your job, if you choose to accept it, is to make it read as the truth. If it starts a minor edit war, so be it. So go fix it. SkoreKeep (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No, a Hydrogen bomb must use both fission and fusion, it must use hydrogen as it's primary source of fissile material. Their yield is usually in the megaton range, however, simply having a megaton yield does not mean it is a true thermonuclear device, very different from the nuclear bombs used in Japan. And furthermore, RDS-6 did not even approach the megaton range at 400 kilotons, it is a matter of factual certainty, indisputable. Now sir or mam, do not tell me it is my job to edit. I placed footnotes beside any changes I made and you are free to dispute it, however, if you do not cite the source of your information which you use to dispute it then all you are doing is making noise. Nowhere here do you cite why anything in this article is wrong. Just saying it uses "weasel words," etc., does not constitute a legitimate argument. It's not a mind game to want to record history in a factual manner, if it was a thermonuclear weapon, then by all means start looking forward and prove it.ColdWarGal (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

While I'm not sure if you are arguing about what I wrote, you seem to be shotgunning everyone who commented here. I have to insist that the only way you can make your truth be heard is to edit the page yourself, and then stand back and let that truth stand. If you want to say you'll not edit, then you are wasting your time arguing on this page. BTW, and interesting article on the true thermonuclear ability of the RDS-6s, "sloika", and how it affected history can be had here: http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/06/18/what-if-truman-didnt-order-h-bomb-crash-program/. Not much else to say, except that hydrogen isn't a fissile. SkoreKeep (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact is that I did edit in a few areas and put beside it the sources I used, the Michael Kort references. The people here are supposedly disputing the article, without saying why it's actually incorrect, or contributing at all. Just saying "it's a mind game to see who was ahead" etc., makes no sense and is not a legitimate dispute. If it's wrong they should say why it's wrong. This isn't about being pro-america or something, it's about what's true. The article should be factually correct. RDS-6 is disputed as a thermonuclear weapon, and there's no anti-USSR sentiment about it. This is why I'm saying don't tell me to edit, I have contributed and the people who are saying it's wrong are the ones who need to back up their claims with some kind of evidence.The full quote from Michael Korts Colombian guide to the cold war says, 'The Soviet Union tests a version of a thermonuclear bomb. However, despite Soviet claims, it is not a full-fledged thermonuclear weapon, or "superbomb".' In the link you shared, it clearly says that it was not a true H-bomb. You're right, Hydrogen is not fissile, I should have said primary fuel source- but the dispute over RDS-6's classification is not made up, like some people seem to be implying here. Looking at John Lewis Gaddis's The Cold War: A New History on page softcover Version) , he says without any mention of a dispute that the first test of a Hydrogen Bomb by the Soviets happened on August 12'th 1953, but in light of the fact that almost every other author says it's status is disputed, then the wiki should, and does reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.86.191 (talk) 17 November 2014‎

It appears that everyone commenting here, other than the originator Petri Krohn and Alvin, agrees with your point about the RDS-6, and that is what is stated in the article. I see no reversions of anything edited into the article, back to 2007. The view of the fact that Petri has inserted a disputed tag and then not backed up his point in this Talk article in 6 months, I'm going to remove it. SkoreKeep (talk) 04:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Translation differs from given Russian name

AFAIK RDS means "Rossiya Delaet Sama", it can be translated to English like "Russia can do it" [Anonymous] 12:39, 13 May 2008

No, it translated "Russia do itself".90.150.230.20 (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Reaktivniy Dvigatel Stalina translates to Reactive Stalin's Engine, not "rocket"--Dojarca (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That's somewhat of a myth. RDS was a code name standing for "special reactive engine", in order to completely disguise the nature of the project from western spies. Later some Russians began to stay "stalin" instead of "special". DonPMitchell (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

RDS-4

Why did "RDS-4" take me to this page? RDS-4 was not related to the RDS-6 fusion-boosted bomb. DonPMitchell (talk) 04:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of Lithium

Arthur C. Clarke wrote (sorry I don't recall which book) that the USA discovered the concept of using lithium-6 by analyzing the fallout of RDS-6. It would be interesting if a reference to this coudl be found, if indeed it is true. 24.16.88.14 (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

According to "Dark Sun", Edward Teller had the idea of using Li6 D as fuel in 1947, long before the Soviets. Apparently most of the Soviet bomb concepts are based on American ideas delivered to them by Klaus Fuchs. DonPMitchell (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Joe 4. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070716171251/http://www.atomicforum.org:80/russia/russiaweapons.html to http://www.atomicforum.org/russia/russiaweapons.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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} 19:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Less powerful than the pure-fission Ivy King test

It seems like the fact that the US had already detonated a pure fission bomb with a higher yield deserves some kind of mention. Octaazacubane (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)