Talk:RDS-1

(William M. Connolley 23:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)) A couple of questions/comment:

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Skylab1995.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

• From http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/Sovwpnprog.html, its not clear whether First Lightning was a more official Western codename, or the USSR code. I'd guess the former.
• I think "Joe" comes from a generic expression for a Russian (which itself comes from J Stalin) rather than directly from JS.
• The stuff about the meaning of RDS-1 might be incorporated too?

Nice picture.

• I've always heard that the "Joe" was in respect to Stalin, but I could probably source that. My guess on "First Lightning" is the latter, only because it doesn't really resonate at all in English (and the US PR men usually picked good names for this sort of thing). In Russian I believe it would be, "Pervaya Molniya," I believe. --Fastfission 01:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I heard "RDS-1" is named after the comment of Kurchatov after the operation;"Our country made it for herself". Does anyone know the mark in accurate Russian? 210.150.101.50 10:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• • I seem to recall reading somewhere that RDS-1 was originally a meaningless codename and was backronymed into meaning "Stalin's Rocket Engine" (Reaktivnyi Dvigatel Stalina), but I'll check on that... --Fastfission 16:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • I examined;"Лодина Д??? Сама" (Rodina Delara(?) Sama-"Our country made it(?) for herself"), but I Only Don't understood spelling one word, "Derala(?)". I researched from only Japanese book and Russian-Japanese dictionary. I'm waiting for the addition of the person who understands details. 210.150.101.50 17:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Using Japanese dictionaries is a bad idea because of problems with L/R (or Л/Р in cyrillics) confusing in Japanese. Russian text may be "Родина делала сама" (i. e. "Our country made it BY herself") or "Родина делала себе" (if "Our country made it FOR herself" is well-translated phrase). But the latter variant is bad in Russian: the variants that are correсt in Russian is "сделала себе" или "делала для себя". NOTE: I've heard nothing about it, so my comment is only the comment of native Russian-speaker, not historician.--213.247.213.207 16:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • • as one more Russian-speaking non-historican, i would say that "Russia is doing itself" it very unprobable in Soviet Union, where (especially in that years) any reference to [tzar-time]Russia would had been treated as opposition to the [communists-time] Soviet Union of number of countries, including Russia. I would also say it is highly unlikely even for backronym to say 'делала' ("delala", did) - it has no sense. "Has done" in russian would begin with another letter, "s". So the only possible thing on that way would be "Motherland produces herself" - "Родина делает сама". But not "Russia", and not Past Simple "did/produced"

• I cannot justify the sources, but here it is referenced, that among all those acoronyms, the correct one was "Jet Engine, Special" rather than suggested above "Stalin's Jet Engine"

www-traditio-ru/index.php/Советский_атомный_проект#_note-1

Rosenbergs

The original wording implied that the Rosenbergs were the central figures in the passing of nuclear secrets. When the dominoes began to fall, it was Fuchs who fell first, who then named others, who in turn named Julius Rosenberg. Thus I entered Fuchs where the Rosenbergs were. Wulfe 21:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Wulfe

Naming

Is there a reason the article is called "Joe One" rather than "Joe-1" or "Joe 1"? I've never seen a source use the former, with the spelled "One." Is this a Wikipedia naming convention? It's not crucial but I find it a little odd (especially since we also have Joe 4). --Fastfission 01:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More naming

Mea culpa. I wrote the original, and if a better title is appropriate, fine. It hit me too, as Joe 4 is titled as such. I was about to move the article once, but got too distracted. This I shall do now.

dino 19:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bad Translation

The first translation seems wrong. It would seem more appropriate that RDS would be more like "Russia does it herself" not "russia makes it herself." Although "made" is I suppose is a fairly accurate translation (as the verb делать can mean both to make and to do), how many times does anyone "make" a nuclear weapon - normally you build, or construct one. However, if you accomplish something on your own, you have "done it yourself." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.178.54.217 (talk • contribs) 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• But not "Russia". Maybe "Motherland" - "Родина", "Rodina". But never "Russia" ! And not "made" - it has not sense. And not "have made" - it would start with "s" letter in russian. Only possible way is to be "makes"/"produces" - "делает". Yet after all I think this is nothing more than backronym rumours, not real history behind "RDS" designation.

Joe 1

Why is it redirected from the official RDS-1 to Joe 1, surely it should work the other way around. --60.224.14.194 02:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, usually we go with the name which is most common in English. Even the history of nuclear weapons literature in English usually uses "Joe 1" rather than RDS-1. --Fastfission 02:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

But then why does "Nazi Party" redirect to National Socialist German Workers Party? The official name RDS-1 would be better here, i think. 87.33.53.61 13:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Picture

I found a website which claims the picture for Joe-1 is actually that of the 1965 "Chagan" nuclear test instead. Somebeody should confirm this. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/Sovwpnprog.html

• This is a picture of Joe-1. This is a picture of Chagan. They are pretty easy to tell apart if you know what to look for (the latter is obviously a cratering shot). Which is what the other page says, though the layout is confusing. --Fastfission 15:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

lights on the shell?

Their appears to be to lights on the front of the RSD 1's shell. can anyone prove or disprove this? The reason this would actually make sense is to alert the crew of the bomber to its position. Or it could be a form of terrorism (IF they dropped one bomb and there where survivors then they could just drop a shell to scare a city sense less.--GMWhilhuffTarkin (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• They're radar outlets. The one pictured here seems to have a more glossy back then others I have seen. It could be a special variant with a different radar system, I guess they could have replaced the radar with lights, but that seems unlikely. The ones I have seen have a shaft in the 'eyes' to act as radar system. Can anyone get a definite answer to the 'flashbulb' pictured here?--DMKTirpitz (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh now I see. the radar wells have plastic knobs on them that look like a lightbulb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DMKTirpitz (talk • contribs) 22:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Uranium or plutonium?

DOES NOT SAY WHAT NUCLEAR FUEL WAS USED. I presume it was Plutonium? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.239.253 (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes --Mr.98 (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I repeat the question. The article does not make it clear whether the bomb was an uranium bomb or a plutonium bomb. This information should be made more clear. Also, I suppose the U.S. knew from the fallout the type of the bomb. Was this information published? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was a copy of the plutonium-bomb Fat Man. So it should have been a plutonium bomb. But what i want to know: where did the plutonium come from? Not from a uranium enrichment plant. So why mention that "A uranium-235 plant was built near Chelyabinsk in 1948."?ospalh (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Chelyabinsk-65. "The first production reactor (Reactor A) went into operation in June 1948 and the first batch of plutonium was produced at the radiochemical plant (Plant B) on February 26, 1948." Wait. What‽ The reactor had produced plutonium before it became critical? I'd guess the Pu probably came from those reactors anyway. But is that good enough‽ ospalh (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Droppable?

The pic clearly shows a droppable bomb. The first US tests weren't. I suppose the USSR might really have done its first test with a "weaponised" droppable form, but it seems a bit unlikely. Does anyone know for sure? Was the actual test done from a tower, or dropped? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems likely.

• The design was already tested by the U.S.
• The aim of the test was to test the effects on infrastructure. (note "metro")
• The first Soviet hydrogen bomb tests were weaponised (if I remember correctly).
• Even the Tsar Bomba test was weaponised.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

first lightning

much more interesting name than 'RDS-1' imho. Decora (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Summary

For those that may be confused after teying to make sense of the comments above:

1. RDS - The meaning is at present unclear, but it certainly does not mean "Stalin's Rocket Engine" (Reaktivnyi Dvigatel Stalina).
2. Joe-1, Joe-2 etc. refer to the test shots and not to the weapons or warheads used in them.

First Lightning

Is there an reliable source of this naming? Russians are strongly disagree with that one - they said it never occured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.72.24.59 (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It went off like g-g-greased lightning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.67.149.171 (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

According to the editor of the book on Soviet Strategic Rocket Forces, Pavel Podrig, the name First Lightening was not heard in the Soviet Union until the 90s. He says that in a comment on Wellerstein's blog, though I don't remember which article. SkoreKeep (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)