This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
RDS-1 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 29, 2012, August 29, 2015, August 29, 2018, August 29, 2019, and August 29, 2021. |
( William M. Connolley 23:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)) A couple of questions/comment:
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)
Nice picture.
www-traditio-ru/index.php/Советский_атомный_проект#_note-1
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
much more interesting name than 'RDS-1' imho. Decora ( talk) 21:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
For those that may be confused after teying to make sense of the comments above:
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
RDS-1 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 29, 2012, August 29, 2015, August 29, 2018, August 29, 2019, and August 29, 2021. |
( William M. Connolley 23:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)) A couple of questions/comment:
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)
Nice picture.
www-traditio-ru/index.php/Советский_атомный_проект#_note-1
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
much more interesting name than 'RDS-1' imho. Decora ( talk) 21:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
For those that may be confused after teying to make sense of the comments above:
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)