Talk:Tsar Bomba

-USSR Bomb bigger than Tsar's Bomb- A reference exists in Spanish press before 1972, about a 200 MT Nuclear Weapon tested underground in their usual test place, Novaya Zemlya, including images of the cave it built. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.44.88.66 (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Removals
This stuff could be reinstated if it can be referenced.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tsar_Bomba&diff=next&oldid=673573311

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)
 * "kek" is also not a word if we still talk in English not videogame-ish. Altenmann provided more than sufficient explanation, I believe that only because "bomba" sounds familiar some try to do unjustified translations here. "Tsar Bomba" is a name as a whole as given by the Soviets, it points to one particular unique object not a type of bombs thus cannot be partially translated - if anybody 5 years later still have doubts. 193.17.174.102 (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)TheRussian

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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 ).

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


 * 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/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)

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)
 * "Man" in "man-made" refers to huMANity. "men-made" would indicate gender since there isn't more than 1 humanity (that we know of).  Your suggested substitution is more awkward with the sci-fi "human made" vs "[hu]man-made", which is common use and means exactly the same thing without the sci-fi aspect. My current opinion on MOS:GNL is that it is language-breaking. Romance languages, which are the lion's share of languages in Europe is gendered by design.  Obscuring the current modern usage in English with wikipedia-made language rules hinders the message, it doesn't enhance it.  English is already mostly gender neutral compared to romance languages. In the scope of language evolution, new common usage would be required to support MOS:GNL to be "best practices" in this instance. ie The new use of Terrestrial, Terran, Earthling or using parallel usage standards "Person of Earth" (like Person of Color).  Such a change though would be frivolous since the number of contexts in which someone needs to make a distinction about which planet the dominant sentient species [yes I'm assuming dominant sentient species] is from is approximately 0.  Thanks for the thought-provoking editorial suggestion.  If you have more specific information you wish to share, I welcome your elaborations. Zerostatetechnologies (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I reverted to something closer to my wording in green agreed upon above. "Man-made" was reinserted by an IP about a year ago, then later changed to "human-made". But adding either to "the most powerful explosive ever detonated", is superfluous. No reader would question who else is building and detonating powerful explosives. Mojoworker (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2021 (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)

. I don't see why we must choose one between the two. Both are OK I guess. Varxo (talk) 08:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The Russian page has a redirect from RDS-220 to the bomb proper since 2008, the first word of the article starting with AN602, a line which translates as: "Officially the AN602 bomb does not have a name"

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)


 * 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 even 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)

More vandalism on page - request for stronger (or longer) protection Suggestion
Admins, this page has once again been vandalized after being protected for a short time. It seems there are some trolls out their targeting this page. Is it possible to protect it either for a longer period or with stronger protection? Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Another vandalization of the page occurred today. Would page protection from IP users be possible, Administrators? Seems this article is a target. Netherzone (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You can ask for protection here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection
 * Respectfully, Thanoscar21 (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Can a bilingual English-Russian speaker add more info?
I know a limited amount of Russian. When I saw the notice on top (the "may be expanded") I decided to check the Russian page. That page has at least a bit more information. There's something about books in the Russian version, which the English version does not have. Can a bilingual English-Russian speaker add more info?

Respectfully, Thanoscar21 (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm Russian, so I can help with translate from Russian article. KiL92 (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * is an excellent bilingual editor, she has worked on this article in the past. Netherzone (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

fate of aircraft
By any chance, does the specific aircraft that dropped the bomb - a Tu-95V - still exist somewhere? If not, does anyone know what happened to it? Elsquared (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The test dates were running out. Palliative measures were taken: increasing the drop height and turning on the afterburner of the aircraft engines after the bomb was dropped. At the same time, in the flight task for the aircraft crew, deliberately or erroneously (now it is difficult to say), an underestimated explosion power was indicated. The crew reported on the fulfillment of the combat mission to the chairman of the State Commission for Nuclear Testing, General N. I. Pavlov. After the official report, the commander of the crew, Lieutenant Colonel Martynenko (Hero of the Soviet Union, who received this title for testing nuclear warheads) explained to us what scoundrels we are, that we had underestimated the estimated power of the explosion. The essence was as follows: after the explosion, the light flux was so intense that the protective paint of the aircraft burned out, after the arrival of the first air shock wave, the aircraft received a large increase in speed (from 880 to 980 km / h), after which it fell into a deep rarefaction zone and “failed "At 800 m. The terse and gloomy Martynenko said that he thought" the wings of the plane will come off. " After examining the plane, we saw that the bottom was all black (instead of blindingly white before the flight), the skin was pressed down everywhere and the power set of wings and fuselage stood out brightly: stringers, ribs, frames. We understood what it was like for the crew at that unfortunate moment. We learned about the power of this explosion even before the plane arrived. .... The commander of the 6th Air Force Directorate, Lieutenant General N.I. Sazhin immediately offered to send the damaged aircraft to the Air Force training center as a visual aid to the effects of a nuclear explosion on aviation equipment. So nothing is missing.

http://elib.biblioatom.ru/text/veselovskiy_yaderny-schit_2003/go,53/ Finder-nev (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

New Declassified Colorized Footage, includes English Subtitles
Recently, the Rosatom State Atomic Energy Corporation has released newly declassified footage of Tsar Bomba. The information in the video linked above should be incorporated into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.245.87.15 (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Can't say how much of it is real footage, and how much staged (well, apart from the bang itself) - but the identities of Admiral Fomin and his staff are genuine. Retired electrician (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Bomb drop height
Reference 36 ("Tsar Bomba's Blast Wave Orbited Earth Three Times in 1961". Pravda.ru. 24 September 2009. Retrieved 24 September 2009.) mentions the bomb being dropped from a height of 4500 meters: "The aircraft dropped the bomb within the territory of the range ground at the height of 4,500 meters.". I think this is faulty. This reference ([36]) is placed after the sentence: "The Tsar Bomba was the single most physically powerful device ever deployed on Earth."...But the particular reference doesn't seem to mention why it would be the single most powerfull device deployed.

The article currently mentions (without a reference): "The bomb was released two hours after takeoff from a height of 10,500 m (34,500 ft) on a test target within Sukhoy Nos."

Reference 22 (http://www.nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html) mentions a drop height of 10,500 meters: "It was released at 10,500 meters, and made a parachute retarded descent to 4000 meters in 188 seconds before detonation."

Unrelated sidenote: reference 25 seems to be a faulty link (https://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/ACF1B7.pdf) 84.82.219.106 (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Translation
Translated multiple sections from ru:Царь-бомба. Shari Garland (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * thank you for your translation work on this article., , and other page watchers: Do you think it's OK now to remove the translation template from the top of the article? Netherzone (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Shari Garland (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

(I am Russian speaking, I use machine translation; I am the editor of the article about Tsar Bomba on the Russian Wikipedia page). The story of the T-15 thermonuclear torpedo with a capacity of 100 megatons in 1952 is an unconfirmed fiction from an incompetent journalist from the TASS online edition of October 29, 2016, who wrote this article. For example, in the information contained in the article: http://bourabai.ru/adushkin/ch1_6.htm there is only information that the T-15 torpedo was planned with a caliber of 1550 mm, which at that time approximately corresponded to the original caliber. charge of the atomic bomb RDS-1, and then the caliber of "puffs" RDS-6, which were considered thermonuclear, and had a maximum explosion power of about 400 kilotons (the Tsar Bomba had a caliber of not 1550 mm, but more than 2000 mm, and there was no 100 megaton torpedo mention). For the first time, the idea of ​​a torpedo with a capacity of 100 megatons was proposed only 10 years later, in 1962, by A.D. Sakharov after testing An-602, about which he writes in his book of memoirs. I propose to remove false information that has nothing to do with the article about the Tsar Bomb. (Russian Wikipedia has a separate article on the T-15 torpedo).Finder-nev --Finder-nev (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Please make any corrections you think need to be made. That would be great. Shari Garland (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Stages
My understanding of the nuclear weapon staging (understand that I'm not a weapons engineer; I got most of what I know from reading others) is that the first stage of a multistage device is the fission stage that supplies radiation and neutrons to the second stage which is a fusion device. If there is a third stage it is an additional fusion stage; examples of such weapons include the Tsar and the US B-41 bomb. Any fissioning tamper is not regarded as a "stage" by designers; it is a multi-functional component of most all nuclear weapons starting with the Trinity Gadget. All nuclear bomb stages other than the first are fusion stages.

Given this understanding there is lots of confusion in various parts of the article about the staging as well as the physical construction of the Tsar. I started to correct it from my understanding, but in at least one place the misunderstanding appears to be within a quoted Soviet document. I don't know whether that is a problem in a differing Russian interpretation of my understanding or an error in translation, but it needs to be either straightened out or an explanation written to guide the reader through all this. I'm certainly up for writing that if that is what is needed, but I need the quotation to be deemed correctly translated if that is indeed the problem.

User Finder-nev made some corrections to the quoted materials, so if it is a quote, that needs to be backed out as well, or at least reworded so as to be a paraphrase or interpretation of the quote. SkoreKeep (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Upon closer review the section in question is not a quote, so I'll proceed with straightening this all out. Sorry for my confusion.  SkoreKeep (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm also not a weapons engineer though I do have a nuclear engineering degree. In my opinion, the Tsar Bomba was a "three stage" device in the sense of having a fission primary, which ignites a fusion secondary, which provides neutrons to a fission tertiary.  Because the tertiary material can be present in arbitrary amounts, fission-fusion-fission devices can be made with yields almost arbitrarily high, which is not true of a pure fission bomb and may not be true of a two stage fission-fusion bomb.
 * However, I can't read Russian, so I'm just leaving the existing text and trusting it accurately reflects the Russian language source. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the information in the sources, and not original research by the editors. Warren Dew (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

A very controversial question about stages! After the well-known book “Brighter than a Thousand Suns”, written by R. Jung in 1958 based on the results of his investigation of the Manhattan Project, “dirty” thermonuclear munitions became commonly called FFF (Fission-Fusion-Fission) or three-stage (three-stage, or three-phase). However, this term is not correct. Almost all "FFF" refer to two-stage (two-phase) and differ only in the material of the tamper, which in "pure" FF (Fission-Fusion) ammunition can be made of non-fissile material (lead, tungsten, etc.), and in FFF (Fission-Fusion-Fission) from fissile material (uranium 238, thorium 232, or uranium 235, or plutonium 239, etc.). In multi-stage thermonuclear weapons, each stage is a complete separate nuclear or thermonuclear stage. In three-stage thermonuclear munitions, each stage is 3 separate nuclear and/or thermonuclear stages (charges). Usually in three-stage thermonuclear munitions, the first stage is a fission nuclear charge that emits X-ray radiation, which serves for the 2nd (small) fusion and 3rd (large fusion) stage radiation implosion. The second (“small” thermonuclear) stage fires next, after stage 1, and its X-ray radiation is used for further radiation implosion of the 3rd (“large” thermonuclear) stage.

In the AN-602 ("Tsar Bomba"), the 1st stage consisted of not one, but of 2 fission charges, the 2nd stage also consisted of not one, but of 2 "small" thermonuclear charges, but these 1st and 2nd stages were located symmetrically on both sides of the 3rd ("large" main thermonuclear) stage located in the center (the so-called "bifilar" scheme) for the AN-602 ("Tsar Bomba").

In the USSR, except for the RDS-202 and AN-602 ("Tsar Bomba"), such a scheme was never used again.

Finder-nev (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

There are errors in the article that lead to confusion with the stages. Quote:

The test of such a complete three-stage 100 Mt bomb was rejected due to the extremely high level of radioactive contamination that would be caused by the fission reaction of large quantities of uranium-238 fission.[40] During the test, the bomb was used in a two-stage version. A. D. Sakharov, suggested using nuclear passive material instead of the uranium-238 in the secondary bomb module, which reduced the bomb's energy to 50 Mt, and, in addition to reducing the amount of radioactive fission products, avoided the fireball's contact with the Earth's surface, thus eliminating radioactive contamination of the soil and the distribution of large amounts of fallout into the atmosphere.[16]

In fact, the AN-602 ("Tsar Bomba") was not 2-stage, but 3-stage, only in the "dirty" 100 Mt version in stage 3, fissile material was used as a tamper - uranium-238 or natural uranium, and in In the “clean” 50 Mt version, a non-fissile material, lead, was used as a tamper.

PS: I myself have introduced some confusion into the discussion. I ask English-speaking editors to correct this error. --Finder-nev (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Better source required
[36][better source needed]

Quote: ''Better source required | reason = Unable to verify the source. It is not known what this website is or who its author is. The "Bifilar" scheme does not make sense and will require two primary stages, as well as two sets of secondary ones. The use of two primary colors on each side was suggested as implausible during the Progressive event and should not be necessary. Date = March 2021''

The source of information is reliable. This website belongs to the Russian Atomic Energy Agency, and the author of the article is A.V. Veselovsky, Honorary Veteran of RFNC-VNIIEF, Head of the Research and Testing Department (1956-2009), Laureate of the USSR State Prize, who was directly involved in the tests of the "king of the bomb" (AN-602) - a reliable source. This text received from the participant of the event and his direct observer.

For the radiation implosion of such a large secondary (unit, block), module (a thermonuclear charge with a power of 50 megatons in TNT equivalent, the diameter of the main fusion unit was about 2 meters) a very high X-ray power is needed, which could only be produced by 2 thermonuclear charges (primary modules), for uniform implosion placed with on two opposite sides of the secondary module (i.e. symmetrically). Why exactly "thermonuclear" and not "nuclear" ones?

1). It doesn't matter which charge, nuclear or thermonuclear, is the source of X-rays for the secondary module. It is only important that this radiation is sufficient for effective radiation implosion of the used secondary module.

2). Nuclear charges have an explosion power, even with deuterium-tritium amplification, only a few tens of kilotons in TNT equivalent. (Even RDS-6s ("puff"), and even then had an explosion power of only 400 kilotons in TNT equivalent). And for effective radiation implosion of the Tsar Bomba secondary module, a design power of 2 x 750 kilotons in TNT equivalent was needed, which is about 10 times more than the "nuclear" charges could produce. Therefore, it was precisely "thermonuclear" charges that were used. In 3 authoritative sources of information it is written (links to which are given below) that 2 thermonuclear charges were used as the first stage of the bomb, and not one nuclear:

1). РЕКОРДНЫЙ СОВЕТСКИЙ ВЗРЫВ А.К.Чернышев, заместитель научного руководителя РФЯЦ-ВНИИЭФ по технологиям испытаний. https://archive.is/floUD 1). RECORD SOVIET EXPLOSION A.K. Chernyshev, Deputy Scientific Director of RFNC-VNIIEF for Test Technologies. Quote: «Among the features of this charge, it should be noted that the large volume of the charge (due to its high energy release) required significant amounts of X-ray energy for implosion. The developed nuclear charges did not satisfy this condition, and therefore, as a primary source of" super-powerful charge "The previously developed two-stage thermonuclear charge with relatively low energy release was used. This charge was previously developed by Yu.A. Trutnev and Yu.N. Babaev».

2). И.А. Андрюшин, А.К. Чернышев, Ю.А. Юдин. УКРОЩЕНИЕ ЯДРА. СТРАНИЦЫ ИСТОРИИ ЯДЕРНОГО ОРУЖИЯ и ЯДЕРНОЙ ИНФРАСТРУКТУРЫ СССР. Саров, 2003. https://www.atomic-energy.ru/files/books/Ukroschenie%20yadra%20(2005).pdf Эта же информация есть на стр. 113. 2). I.A. Andryushin, A.K. Chernyshev, Yu.A. Yudin. '''TAMING THE CORE. PAGES OF THE HISTORY OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE USSR'''. Sarov, 2003. The same information is on page 113. Quote: «Among the features of this charge, it should be noted that the large volume of the charge (due to its high energy release) required significant amounts of X-ray energy for implosion. The developed nuclear charges did not satisfy this condition, and therefore, as a primary source of" super-powerful charge "A previously developed two-stage thermonuclear charge with a relatively low energy release was used. This charge was previously developed by Yu.A. Trutnev and Yu.N. Babaev».

3). А.В.Веселовский, почетный ветеран РФЯЦ-ВНИИЭФ, начальник научно-испытательного отдела (в 1956-2009 гг.), Лауреат Госпремии СССР ЦАРЬ БОМБЕ 50 ЛЕТ (https://web.archive.org/web/20111112092615/www.proatom.ru/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3364) 3). A.V. Veselovsky, Honorary Veteran of RFNC-VNIIEF, Head of the Research and Testing Department (in 1956-2009), Laureate of the USSR State Prize TSAR BOMBE 50 YEARS OLD (https://web.archive.org/web/20111112092615/www.proatom.ru/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3364) Quote: «A large number of serious innovations were applied to the design of the superbomb itself and its charge. A powerful thermonuclear charge was made according to a" bifilar "scheme: for radiation implosion of the main thermonuclear block, two thermonuclear charges were placed on both sides (front and back) to ensure synchronous (with a time difference of no more than 0.1 microseconds) ignition of thermonuclear fuel. KB-25 (VNIIA) has modified a serial block of automatic detonation for this charge».

The RDS-202 used 2 thermonuclear charges (the so-called "bifilar" scheme), which was later used to create the RN-602 ("Tsar" of the bomb). Links to 2 sources of information:

1). http://elib.biblioatom.ru/text/dela-i-gody_2010/go,18/ - Дела и годы: 50-летию КБ-2 РФИЦ-ВНИИТФ посвящается …. ("Дела и годы", с.18) http://elib.biblioatom.ru/text/dela-i-gody_2010/go,18/ - Deeds and years: the 50th anniversary of KB-2 RFITS-VNIITF is dedicated to…. ("Deeds and Years", p.18) Quote: «In the USSR, in November 1955, a successful test of the YaZ was carried out, based on the use of a new compression principle, which makes it possible to create charges of high and ultra-high power with a high utilization rate of nuclear materials. Calculation and theoretical work to justify the physical charging scheme for the new SPAB, which provides for the use, in contrast to the tested prototype, of two primary initiators instead of one and much heavier main energy-releasing module, were completed in June 1956».

2). http://book.sarov.ru/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Atom-73-2017-2.pdf - Н. П. Волошин. 'Его именем назван уральский ядерный центр'. Атом, №1, 73-2017, стр. 5 http://book.sarov.ru/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Atom-73-2017-2.pdf - N.P. Voloshin. "The Ural nuclear center is named after him." Atom, No. 1, 73-2017, p. 5 Quote: «A group of theoreticians headed by E.I. Zababakhin and Yu.A. Romanov (E.N. Avrorin, Yu.S. Vakhrameev, M.N. Nechaev, V.B. Rozanov, L.P. Feoktistov, M.D. Churazov, M.P.Shumaev), successful ways were chosen to improve the physical charging circuit, in comparison with the prototype - RDS-37, aimed at ensuring the operation of a much heavier secondary module. In particular, for the first time, two primary modules were used to service the main one».

Finder-nev (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The current "Project goals" part of the article is nigh unreadable

Nonsensical Gibberish
Hi all Wiki Authors,

With reference to the following sentence, in the second paragraph under the section 'Project Goals':

As an expression of the concept of nuclear deterrence adopted during the leadership of Georgy Malenkov and Nikita Khrushchev, the actual strategic situation in consideration to this concept, for the Soviet Union, as a consequence of the disequilibrium with regards to the Soviet Union vis-à-vis America's nuclear weapons possessions, to the favour of the latter, was that the creation of Tsar Bomba represented a necessitated bluff.

Appears to be an overly long and nonsensical way of saying the Soviet Union chose to go bigger to challenge the USA's more accurate deployment. I was going to change it to something I considered a little clearer, but after reading some of the conversations on how the English language should be structured in this thread, realised I was way out of my league on correct vocabulary. Any thoughts...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.243.232 (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the wording is somewhat tortuous. Would something like "Given the Soviet Union's actual strategic disadvantage vis-à-vis America's nuclear weapons possessions, foreign policy and propaganda considerations during the leaderships of Georgy Malenkov and Nikita Khrushchev made a response to the perceived US nuclear blackmail imperative. The creation of the Tsar Bomba represented a necessitated bluff in order to maintain the concept of nuclear deterrence." convey the same meaning more clearly? JezGrove (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to wonder if the current wording more accurately illuminates the zeitgeist of the times. It reflects the pattern of official pronouncements published in Pravda. Then again, unless you lived through it, you probably need post-graduate studies in interpreting cold-war propaganda statements to understand it. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 23:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You may be correct, in which case it should be used as a direct quote. But for the benefit of the reader not familiar with Pravda-approved linguistics something more comprehensible might be necessary? JezGrove (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, absolutely. But the wording evoked a sense of nostalgia for me, having read many similar passages that had emerged from that conflict. Your wording is far more comprehensible. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 00:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'll make the change shortly if there are no objections. JezGrove (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Quote: The detonation was intended to be secret, but was detected by United States intelligence agencies, via a KC-135A aircraft (Operation SpeedLight)[11]

The fact that the explosion was secret is not true, since the USSR announced the upcoming test in advance. Criticism of the upcoming test followed at the UN, and in particular from the United States, due to the expected contamination of planet Earth with radionuclides. However, the US did not know the exact time of the upcoming test. --Finder-nev (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

What is "antiradiation paint " and why is it explainend nowhere?
The arcticle says that "A secret U.S. reconnaissance aircraft [...] [had] its antiradiation paint scorched. It doesn't explain what "antiradiation paint" is? And a quick search also doesn't reveal much. And the sources also doesn't seem to mention anything like that? Remove or change or provide an explanation? PS: It could mean "EMR/EMF Shielding Paint" but that isn't mentionend? CityScraper (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * It could mean either Anti-flash white to reflect thermal radiation or paint containing lead to stop x-rays and other radiation. I am not sure which is meant, it could be both. BertTheDragon (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

USA nuclear tests in Sept & Oct 1961 before Tsar Bomba
That announcement was in error, as the US had in fact tested five times under Operation Nougat ....

That announcement was in error, as the US had in fact done five underground tests under Operation Nougat .... 

73.163.88.137 (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC) John C.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2022
Add the links of Indian nuclear bomb tests as well: Pokhran-I and Pokhran-II in the section of "See also". BoyHayHay (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Not Done: The "See also" list was way too long, and had several unrelated links in. I trimmed it, and removed references to other countries, except the similarly large US test, which is the second largest by MT. Fbifriday (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Flashback Test Vehicle and Big Test Vehicle
Might these be worth mentioning in the article? Or even having articles of their own? Seems there has been recent evidence that the USA developed designs as large as 100 Megatons following the Tsar Bomba test in the event that the Soviets violated the Partial Test Ban in the 1960s, likely having to do with Flashback.https://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?p=3266 https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-story-of-the-b-52-stratofortress-that-carried-the-flashback-test-vehicle-the-nuclear-bomb-bigger-than-the-soviet-tsar-bomba/ 2603:8001:9C01:F7DD:A906:37DF:C076:28D0 (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Largest bomb
I’m watching The Fog of War on PBS. He claims we tested a 100 MT air blast. Maybe 15 minutes into the film. 74.77.151.61 (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Possibilities:
 * They are mistaken and/or misspoke.
 * You misunderstood what they said (that's why written citations are preferable).
 * All US military references to Castle Bravo being the largest bomb the US detonated are incorrect.
 * Tarl N. ( discuss ) 17:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Show a picture at the top that TZAR looks like
So you don't got to scroll down and just be like man I die 72.28.34.33 (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Can anyone cite a digital link to Reference 17?
There are some discrepancies introduced by this reference. It's cited as a source for claims M & N in the article.

Claim M states that the flare was visible at a distance of 1000km and that it was visible from Alaska. Small problem, Alaska is 4000km from Novaya Zemlya.

I have tried to find either this author or the source on Google Scholar but the only K. A. Chernyshev I can find publishes in the field of Chemical Physics, not Nuclear Physics. The source itself cannot be found. 2A02:C7C:5841:6900:D5D6:63B8:4C1E:CFB2 (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Probably this? It is one of the difficulties of this article, that many of its Russian language sources are poorly cited and have translated names that make finding them very difficult... NuclearSecrets (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)