Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

RDS-2

RDS-2 (: РДС-2) was the second atomic bomb developed by the , an improved -type fission device utilizing exclusively. It was first tested on September 24, 1951, at the in present-day , producing a yield of 38 kilotons of . Unlike the , which incorporated both and components, RDS-2 represented a shift to a plutonium-only core, enabling more efficient production and deployment via heavy strategic bombers including the and Tu-16. This test, conducted amid intensifying nuclear competition, validated Soviet advancements in implosion technology and plutonium metallurgy derived from and indigenous research, though it yielded lower efficiency than contemporaneous U.S. designs due to lens imperfections and initiator challenges. RDS-2's success facilitated subsequent iterations like , underscoring the USSR's rapid progression toward a deployable atomic arsenal despite resource constraints and technical hurdles.

Development and Design

Historical Context and Espionage Influence

The Soviet nuclear weapons program originated from pre-World War II research into by physicists such as and , but gained urgency after the U.S. atomic bombings of and on August 6 and 9, 1945, respectively. Stalin authorized a crash effort on August 20, 1945, appointing as scientific director and to lead bomb design at the newly established KB-11 laboratory in Arzamas-16 (later ). This initiative mobilized thousands of scientists, engineers, and vast resources through a centralized state apparatus, including uranium enrichment facilities operational by 1948 and plutonium production reactors by 1949. Espionage significantly accelerated the program by providing confirmatory intelligence on fission weapon feasibility as early as 1941 via agents like Donald Maclean ("Homer") and detailed schematics from , who delivered implosion lens designs and plutonium core specifications in 1945. Fuchs's data, transmitted through couriers like , enabled the Soviets to replicate key elements of the U.S. implosion device for , tested successfully on August 29, 1949, at Semipalatinsk with a 22-kiloton —saving an estimated one to two years of independent research. This intelligence, gathered by and networks penetrating and British , compensated for Soviet industrial lags but did not encompass full blueprints, requiring domestic adaptations. In contrast, RDS-2's development under a 1948 decree emphasized an indigenous gun-type design utilizing highly enriched , with components fabricated across multiple institutes by mid-1951. While the broader program benefited from insights into uranium enrichment processes, RDS-2 relied primarily on Soviet theoretical and engineering prowess, diverging from the espionage-dependent plutonium path of RDS-1. Detonated on , 1951, at Semipalatinsk from a 30-meter tower, it yielded 38 kilotons—more than double Little Boy's due to refined assembly and fissile mass optimization—affirming the USSR's capacity for original innovation amid persistent U.S. intelligence fears. Five units were produced for aerial delivery via Tu-4 bombers, underscoring tactical evolution.

Key Improvements over RDS-1

The RDS-2 featured refined dynamics through the introduction of advanced explosive lenses and detonators, enabling more precise convergence on the core compared to the 's simpler configuration, which relied on a direct adaptation of the U.S. design. These modifications increased compression efficiency, yielding approximately 38 kilotons —nearly double the 's 22 kilotons—during its test on September 24, 1951, at the Semipalatinsk site. Further enhancements included an optimized tamper material and geometry, which improved neutron reflection and minimized asymmetry risks in the process, addressing known inefficiencies and vulnerabilities from the 's expedited crash program under wartime pressures. This rationalized approach to production not only boosted explosive yield-to-weight ratios but also facilitated reliable serial manufacturing, with 59 units produced, including conversions from existing components for integration with Tu-4 strategic bombers. Overall, these iterative solutions shifted the RDS-2 from a proof-of-concept device toward operational viability, prioritizing empirical refinements in over the unproven alternatives considered but discarded for the initial test to ensure first-shot success.

Engineering Challenges and Solutions

The development of RDS-2 required overcoming limitations in the system, where uneven from the high-explosive lenses could lead to suboptimal pit densification and reduced efficiency. Soviet engineers addressed this by refining the explosive lens array, incorporating new formulations of castable explosives like pyroxylin-based compositions with enhanced detonation velocities to achieve greater spherical symmetry in the converging . These modifications minimized hydrodynamic instabilities during , allowing for more effective of the core. A further challenge was mitigating pre-detonation risks posed by spontaneous fission neutrons from impurities in Soviet-produced , which exceeded U.S. levels due to less optimized reactor operations. Solutions included an updated with adjusted tamper thickness and initiator timing to tolerate higher neutron backgrounds while maximizing supercriticality upon . This involved precise metallurgical controls over the sphere's purity and geometry, reducing fizzle probability. Collectively, these engineering advancements—detailed in post-RDS-1 design reviews—elevated the device's to 38 kilotons, nearly that of RDS-1's 22 kilotons, through improved overall charge efficiency without altering the fundamental principle. Additional technical solutions encompassed enhanced safety interlocks and suspension mechanisms for bomber integration, though core refinements were paramount.

Testing and Performance

The 1951 Semipalatinsk Detonation

The RDS-2 device was detonated on September 24, 1951, at the in present-day , marking the Soviet Union's second nuclear test following the explosion two years prior. The test occurred at approximately 06:19 UTC, with the bomb positioned atop a 30-meter tower to facilitate detailed measurements of blast effects on the ground and simulate low-altitude airburst conditions. The explosion released energy equivalent to 38.3 kilotons of , roughly twice the yield of , validating enhancements in the plutonium design. The initial flash was visible from distances up to 1,000 kilometers, while the ensuing registered instruments 500 kilometers away, producing a and characteristic of early implosion-type devices. Post-detonation analysis confirmed efficient compression of the fissile core, with fallout patterns later studied for radiological dispersion, including elevated ratios of isotopes like to cesium-137 in southern plumes. This tower-shot configuration allowed Soviet scientists, under the direction of figures like , to gather critical data on structural damage, , and overpressure without the variables of aerial delivery.

Yield Measurement and Data Analysis

The RDS-2 detonation on September 24, 1951, at the yielded 38 kilotons of , as determined from integrated data and post-test evaluations released in official Soviet records. This figure, approximately 1.7 to 2 times the 22-kiloton yield of , reflected enhanced efficiency from design modifications including a levitated core and refined high-explosive lenses for more uniform . Measurement relied on contemporaneous Soviet diagnostic techniques adapted from espionage-derived U.S. practices, including time-resolved of fireball radius to infer energy release via models, barometric and piezoelectric gauges arrayed at radial distances to capture decay and shock arrival times for yield scaling, and optical for initial thermal output. Radiochemical methods supplemented these by filtering airborne debris from the using aircraft-mounted collectors and projectile samplers, analyzing product ratios (e.g., via of debris tracers) to quantify plutonium fraction and total energy partition between and any minor boosting effects. Neutron flux detectors positioned at varying standoff distances provided direct rate data, calibrated against pre-test hydrodynamic simulations to estimate efficiency and neutron multiplication. Post-detonation analysis cross-validated these inputs using empirical scaling laws derived from prior tests, confirming the yield with uncertainties below 10% based on redundant sensor arrays; fallout plume mapping via ground surveys further corroborated output through cesium-137 and activity ratios consistent with a mid-yield device. Data processing emphasized causal linkages between implosion hydrodynamics and output, revealing that RDS-2 achieved higher compression uniformity than , as evidenced by reduced asymmetry in debris spectra and , though exact boosting contributions remained classified until later declassifications indicated minimal enhancement. These findings informed iterative refinements, prioritizing for deployment over marginal yield gains.

Comparative Analysis with RDS-1

The RDS-2 demonstrated substantial enhancements in explosive yield over the , achieving 38 kilotons compared to the 's approximately 20 kilotons, effectively doubling the destructive potential through refined dynamics. This increase resulted from the adoption of novel design and technical solutions in the RDS-2's assembly, which improved fission efficiency without altering the core or fundamental mechanism. Both devices retained the -type configuration initially patterned after captured U.S. intelligence on the bomb, but the RDS-2's optimizations mitigated inefficiencies observed in the 's debut, such as variability in compression uniformity during the 1949 test. In terms of deployment compatibility, the RDS-2 extended operational flexibility beyond the 's restriction to the Tu-4 heavy bomber, incorporating adaptations for the lighter Tu-16 jet bomber while maintaining comparable physical dimensions and weight class. Performance data from the RDS-2's 1951 tower detonation at Semipalatinsk revealed a brighter flash and more pronounced shockwave propagation relative to records, underscoring the yield gains' practical effects on blast radius and thermal output. These advancements marked the RDS-2 as a transitional , bridging the 's proof-of-concept role with scalable production for Soviet strategic , though both remained constrained by supply limitations from early reactor outputs.
ParameterRDS-1RDS-2
Yield~20 kt38 kt
Fissile MaterialPu-239 implosionPu-239 implosion
Primary DeliveryTu-4 bomberTu-4 and Tu-16 bombers
Key Design FeatureBasic implosion assemblyRefined implosion solutions for higher efficiency

Technical Specifications

Core Design and Materials

The core of the RDS-2 utilized a implosion pit, marking an advancement over the through refined geometry and assembly to mitigate fizzle risks from plutonium's higher rate compared to . This design aimed to achieve more uniform compression via improved symmetry in the imploding shock front, yielding approximately 38 kilotons in the September 24, 1951, tower test at Semipalatinsk. Weapons-grade , enriched to over 93% Pu-239 with minimal Pu-240 impurities to reduce predetonation probability, formed the primary fissile component, alloyed with about 1% to maintain the stable delta-phase for better formability and resistance to phase transitions under stress. The itself was a near-spherical , typically weighing 5-7 kilograms, with a central cavity housing a neutron initiator—likely a polonium-beryllium or similar Urchin-type device—to provide timed upon compression. Encasing the pit was a levitated configuration, suspending it within a tamper of dense material such as depleted uranium or tungsten carbide to enhance neutron reflection and inertial mass for sustained compression post-initial implosion. This levitation gap, filled with low-density foam or air, allowed the tamper to gain momentum before impacting the pit, increasing achievable densities beyond contact designs and contributing to the higher efficiency observed in testing. No deuterium-tritium boosting was incorporated, distinguishing RDS-2 from later boosted variants.

Implosion Mechanism Details

The implosion mechanism of RDS-2 employed a spherical array of high-explosive lenses surrounding a core to generate converging shock waves for symmetric compression, initiating a supercritical state and . This design built on the but incorporated a fundamentally revised spherical configuration, enabling more uniform wave propagation compared to the earlier RDS-1. Key enhancements included redesigned explosive lenses, likely utilizing optimized compositions of fast- and slow-detonating materials such as HMX-based mixtures and slower analogs to , which improved shock focusing and reduced asymmetries that could lead to incomplete . The core featured a refined plutonium pit geometry, potentially with a levitated or hollowed structure to enhance neutronics efficiency and mitigate pre-detonation risks from in Pu-239, a persistent challenge in early devices. These modifications allowed for omission of the heavy tamper present in , substituting lighter reflector materials to maintain duration while reducing overall mass. Initiation relied on a central detonator system with multiple points—estimated at 32 or more, akin to predecessor designs—for simultaneous firing via exploding bridgewire detonators, ensuring millisecond-scale critical to achieving the 38-kiloton observed in the September 24, 1951, test. The absence of a dense tamper necessitated precise tailoring to compensate for reduced inertial confinement, prioritizing air-drop deliverability over ground-burst optimization. Empirical test data confirmed over twofold efficiency gains relative to RDS-1's 22 kilotons, validating the mechanism's robustness despite material constraints in early Soviet production.

Physical Dimensions and Weight

The RDS-2 featured substantially reduced physical dimensions and weight relative to the , with approximately half the diameter and two-thirds the mass, despite utilizing less weapons-grade and to produce nearly twice the yield. This design refinement stemmed from enhancements in the mechanism, including better configuration and pit , which minimized the size of the high-explosive and overall tamper while boosting efficiency. The resulting yield-to-weight ratio was roughly three times superior to that of the U.S. device, on which the was modeled, allowing the RDS-2 to achieve 38 from a lighter package better suited to the payload constraints of Soviet bombers such as the and Tu-16. These reductions addressed key limitations of early designs, where bulky explosive lenses and heavy tamper had previously dominated mass and volume.

Deployment and Strategic Role

Integration with Soviet Bombers

The RDS-2, an improved implosion-type atomic bomb utilizing , was specifically engineered for aerial delivery by Soviet strategic bombers, with the serving as the primary platform during its early development phase. The Tu-4, a piston-engined reverse-engineered from captured U.S. B-29 Superfortresses and entering service in , possessed the necessary capacity—up to 12,000 kg in its —to accommodate the RDS-2's estimated weight of around 3,000–4,000 kg, though exact figures remain classified. Integration required adaptations to the Tu-4's , including thermostatically controlled heating systems to prevent freezing of the plutonium core at high altitudes, specialized suspension racks for secure mounting and release, and rudimentary biological shielding to protect the crew from during carriage. These modifications enabled the RDS-2 to be dropped from altitudes of approximately 10,000 meters, aligning with the Tu-4's operational ceiling of up to 11,000 meters and cruise speeds around 550 km/h, thereby facilitating one-way missions to targets in or the from Soviet bases. The design prioritized compatibility with the Tu-4's existing sighting and release mechanisms, which were derived from B-29 technology, allowing for free-fall delivery without advanced guidance systems. Although the RDS-2's inaugural test on September 24, 1951, at Semipalatinsk was a tower yielding 38.3 kilotons, this static configuration validated the physics package for subsequent aerial deployment, underscoring the weapon's role in transitioning Soviet nuclear capabilities from ground-based proofs to airborne strategic deterrence. Provisions were also made for future integration with the emerging jet bomber, which began development in 1952 and offered greater speed (up to 1,050 km/h) and range for RDS-2 carriage, though the Tu-4 remained operational until the mid-1950s due to production numbers exceeding 800 units. Limitations included the Tu-4's vulnerability to interceptors and its reliance on unrefueled flights, restricting effective radius to about 2,000–3,000 km with a full nuclear load, which influenced early Soviet basing strategies near borders. Declassified assessments indicate that by 1953, Tu-4 squadrons equipped with RDS-series weapons achieved initial operational readiness, marking a pivotal step in Soviet long-range strike capabilities.

Operational Readiness and Limitations

The RDS-2 entered operational service with the Soviet Air Force following its successful test on September 24, 1951, at the Semipalatinsk proving ground, where it achieved a of 38 kilotons using a gun-type mechanism fueled by highly enriched uranium-235. Production commenced at the Avangard experimental plant in Arzamas-16, with an initial series of five 3-ton units manufactured and placed in storage for potential wartime deployment, later expanding to a total of 59 bombs, some derived from modifications to existing stockpiles. Integration with delivery platforms occurred primarily through adaptation for the , a Soviet copy of the B-29, which could accommodate the device's approximate 3,000 kg weight and dimensions similar to early atomic bombs, enabling air-drop capability from altitudes up to 10 km. Subsequent compatibility extended to the jet bomber by the mid-1950s, enhancing tactical flexibility for medium-range strikes, though readiness was constrained by the need for specialized bomb bays and release mechanisms tested post-1951. Soviet doctrine emphasized rapid assembly and arming at forward bases, leveraging the gun-type design's inherent mechanical simplicity, which minimized timing sensitivities compared to systems and supported field-level maintenance with existing plutonium-handling infrastructure adapted for components. No documented failures occurred in production or stockpile maintenance, affirming basic reliability for deterrent purposes, though units required ~15 kg of weapons-grade per core, tying readiness to periodic inspections for material degradation. Key limitations stemmed from fissile material constraints, as highly production via plants lagged behind yields from reactors, capping scalable deployment to dozens rather than hundreds of units in the early . The device's bulk—necessitating a 3-ton casing for the and assembly—imposed range penalties on carrier ; Tu-4 missions to distant like the continental demanded refueling or one-way profiles due to limited payload-range tradeoffs, exacerbating vulnerability to and early warning radars. Yield efficiency was suboptimal for gun-type designs, achieving only ~1-2% fraction versus alternatives, which restricted strategic impact against hardened or dispersed without multiple strikes. Additionally, the absence of permissive links or environmental safeguards heightened risks of accidental during transport or loading, reflecting broader early Soviet priorities on over safety interlocks.

Role in Early Cold War Deterrence

The RDS-2, tested on September 24, 1951, at the Semipalatinsk site with a yield of 38 kilotons, marked the Soviet Union's second atomic detonation and introduced design improvements over the , including refinements to the system for enhanced efficiency and reliability. This tower-mounted test validated a specifically engineered for integration with heavy strategic bombers like the , enabling aerial delivery and addressing limitations in the RDS-1's non-operational prototype nature. In the early context, RDS-2's development bolstered Soviet deterrence by establishing a pathway to a bomber-deliverable atomic weapon, mirroring U.S. capabilities and signaling to American leaders that the USSR possessed not merely a singular test device but an evolving arsenal capable of threatening continental strikes. Conducted amid the (1950–1953), where U.S. considerations of atomic use against North Korean and Chinese forces were debated, the test reinforced Soviet nuclear credibility, contributing to mutual restraint despite the USSR's limited production rate—estimated at fewer than 10 operational bombs by late 1951 compared to U.S. stockpiles exceeding 300. This asymmetry tempered full parity but elevated the perceived risk of escalation, aligning with Soviet strategy to deter conventional or limited nuclear aggression through demonstrated technological progress. The RDS-2's role extended to influencing subsequent deployments, as its validated implosion mechanism informed the RDS-3 air-drop test on October 18, 1951 (42 kilotons from a Tu-4), which operationalized bomber-based deterrence and prompted U.S. doctrinal shifts toward massive retaliation under the New Look policy announced in 1953. Overall, RDS-2 exemplified the Soviet emphasis on rapid iteration post-RDS-1 to achieve minimal assured destruction capability, prioritizing bomber vectors until missile systems matured in the late 1950s.

Legacy and Assessments

Influence on Subsequent Soviet Weapons

The RDS-2, tested on September 24, 1951, at the with a of 38 kilotons, represented an evolution from the through refined configurations in its design, achieving greater compression efficiency and from comparable quantities. These enhancements, overseen by chief designer Yuliy Khariton, addressed limitations in the 's symmetry and detonation uniformity, enabling more reliable supercritical assembly. This improved implosion mechanism directly influenced the , tested on October 18, 1951, which adapted the RDS-2's core principles for a tactical air-dropped configuration with a 42-kiloton yield, facilitating integration with frontline bombers like the Il-28 and emphasizing reduced size for operational flexibility. The design lineage continued in the ("Tatyana"), detonated on August 23, 1953, at 28 kilotons; weighing approximately 1,200 kilograms, it incorporated further refinements from RDS-2's to produce a lighter, more versatile weapon compatible with a broader range of Soviet , marking the first Soviet not requiring aircraft-specific modifications. Subsequent iterations, including RDS-5, built on these efficiencies to support serial production of atomic bombs by the mid-1950s, transitioning from experimental devices to deployable arsenals numbering in the dozens. The RDS-2's validated implosion primaries also served as foundational components for early thermonuclear efforts, such as the RDS-6s "layer cake" device tested in 1953, where enhanced fission triggers improved fusion boost and overall yield scalability. These advancements accelerated Soviet fissile material utilization and design standardization, contributing to the buildup of over 100 atomic weapons by 1955 despite plutonium production constraints at facilities like Chelyabinsk-40.

Long-Term Effects at Test Sites

The RDS-2 test, conducted on September 24, 1951, at the () in , contributed to the site's cumulative as one of the early atmospheric detonations in the Soviet . Tower bursts like RDS-2, elevated at approximately 30 meters with a yield of 38.3 kilotons, dispersed fission products and residues across the local environment, exacerbating long-term soil and groundwater pollution from and other radionuclides. The , operational from 1949 to 1989 for 456 tests, remains the most contaminated former Soviet facility, with persistent hotspots of cesium-137, , and isotopes detectable in sediments and vegetation decades later. Local populations near the STS, including nomadic herders and residents in villages such as Dolon and Sarzhal, experienced elevated radiation doses from fallout plumes generated by tests including RDS-2, leading to chronic burdens. Cohort studies of over 20,000 exposed individuals have documented significantly higher incidences of , , and solid tumors compared to unexposed groups, with standardized incidence ratios for exceeding 2.0 in high-fallout areas.30151-8/fulltext) Cardiovascular mortality rates among exposed cohorts were also markedly elevated, with hazard ratios up to 1.5 for ischemic heart disease attributable to ionizing radiation's vascular damage. Multigenerational effects include increased prevalence and reduced subjective metrics, as evidenced by surveys linking in-utero or childhood to lifelong morbidity. Environmental remediation at the STS has been limited, with ongoing risks from wind-resuspended dust carrying radionuclides affecting agriculture and livestock; sheep and horse populations in adjacent areas show bioaccumulation of cesium-137 at levels 10-20 times background. Post-Soviet assessments since 1991 revealed that Soviet-era secrecy understated fallout patterns, confirming that atmospheric tests like RDS-2 deposited radionuclides over thousands of square kilometers, rendering parts of the Irtysh River basin unsuitable for sustained habitation without intervention. International monitoring, including by the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization, continues to track residual seismicity and low-level emissions, underscoring the site's enduring ecological instability.

Evaluations of Effectiveness and Reliability

The RDS-2 achieved a successful full-yield during its test on September 24, 1951, at the Semipalatinsk Polygon, producing 38.3 kilotons of explosive energy—nearly double the 22-kiloton yield of the preceding device tested in 1949. This improvement stemmed from refinements in the design, including enhanced explosive lenses and a revised core configuration, which increased fission efficiency without introducing instabilities observed in less optimized early systems. The test, conducted from a 30-meter tower to simulate airburst effects, validated the bomb's potential for delivery via strategic bombers like the Tu-4, marking a progression from the 's ground-oriented limitations. Reliability assessments highlight the RDS-2's design focus on mitigating pre-detonation risks, a common vulnerability in implosion-type weapons due to background or lens imperfections, through these targeted modifications. Unlike the conservative replica prioritized for to ensure predictable performance amid production constraints, the RDS-2 incorporated Soviet-original enhancements post- testing, yet it yielded no reported fizzles or partial detonations in its evaluation. Deployment integration with Tu-4 and Tu-16 bombers proceeded without documented operational failures in declassified records, underscoring adequate dependability for early stockpiles, though inherent complexities in handling and lens synchronization likely imposed maintenance demands exceeding those of simpler gun-type alternatives. Overall effectiveness positioned the RDS-2 as a credible deterrent component, with its yield comparable to contemporary U.S. bombs like (21 kt), enabling targeted destruction over several square kilometers in urban or military scenarios. However, its reliance on unboosted limited scalability compared to later thermonuclear designs, and logistical challenges in —tied to Soviet output rates—constrained widespread reliability in sustained alert postures until successor models emerged. Post-test analyses by Soviet engineers emphasized iterative gains in charge perfection, informing subsequent iterations like , but acknowledged that early devices like RDS-2 prioritized proof-of-concept over the hardened redundancy seen in mature arsenals.

References

  1. [1]
    RDS-2 - GlobalSecurity.org
    Apr 22, 2018 · The RDS-2 was a second generation implosion atomic bomb based on Plutonium 239, developed for the heavy strategic bombers Tu-4 and Tu-16.Missing: Soviet | Show results with:Soviet
  2. [2]
    Joe 2/RDS-2 - Soviet Union Nuclear Tests - Atomic Archive
    The 2nd Soviet atomic bomb, RDS-2, was tested on September 24, 1951 at the Semipalatinsk test site and produced a 38.3 kiloton yield.
  3. [3]
    Soviet RDS-2 atomic bomb test, 1951 - Stock Video Clip - K007/8687
    Nov 7, 2018 · Soviet RDS-2 atomic bomb test, 1951. Detonation of this atomic bomb test, also known as Joe 2, which took place on 24 September 1951 at the Semipalatinsk ...<|separator|>
  4. [4]
    The role of nuclear weapons and its possible future missions - NATO
    (The work upon RDS-2 was resumed in early 1950 after the successful test of the first nuclear device.) In such the conditions the test of RDS-1 nuclear ...
  5. [5]
    [PDF] The Soviet Atomic Bomb - DTIC
    The first Soviet hydrogen bomb was tested on August 12,1953. Like the second. Soviet atomic bomb, RDS-2, this was an original Soviet design. The history of the.
  6. [6]
    Soviet Atomic Program - 1946 - Nuclear Museum
    In February 1943, the Soviets began their own program led by nuclear physicist Igor Kurchatov and political director Lavrentiy Beria.
  7. [7]
    The Soviet Nuclear Weapons Program
    Dec 12, 1997 · The Soviet weapons program proper began in 1943 during World War II, under the leadership of physicist Igor Vasilievich Kurchatov.
  8. [8]
    USSR Archive -.:SonicBomb:.
    May 10, 2025 · Date: 06:19 UTC 24/09/1951 | Type: Tower @30m | Yield: 38.3 Kt A ... The Soviet Union's first test of a two-stage radiation implosion ...
  9. [9]
    1951 Semipalatinsk Soviet RDS-2 atomic bomb test - TVData.tv
    The RDS-2 test demonstrated the Soviet Union's ability to refine its nuclear weapons technology. The use of a tower detonation and remote triggering system ...
  10. [10]
    137 Cs activity ratios in the soil of fallout plumes from aboveground ...
    The ratio 90Sr/137Cs equals 0.9±0.3 on the Southern fallout plume from aboveground nuclear test (September 24, 1951) at the Semipalatinsk Test Site (STS).Missing: burst | Show results with:burst
  11. [11]
  12. [12]
    First Soviet nuclear test: RDS-1 vs. Joe-1, Stalin's Rocket Engine ...
    May 12, 2017 · Even though the test did not have a designation, the "first exemplar of an atomic bomb" that was tested did have a name - RDS-1. But even the ...
  13. [13]
    Section 8.0 The First Nuclear Weapons
    Jun 12, 2020 · The core was a 9.17 cm sphere, solid except for a 2.1 cm cavity in the center for the 2 cm neutron initiator. The solid design was a ...
  14. [14]
    Amounts of fissile materials in early Soviet nuclear devices - IPFM Blog
    Oct 1, 2012 · RDS-4 was tested on 23 August 1953 in an airdrop. The yield of the explosion, 28 kt, was fairly close to the original estimate. This weapon ...
  15. [15]
    Science & technology highlights
    1951 - carried out the first flight test of an atomic bomb using a basically new spherical implosion design. With this innovation, the product had smaller ...
  16. [16]
    TRINITY AT DUBNA - AIP Publishing - American Institute of Physics
    RDS-2 was half the diameter and two-thirds of the weight of RDS-1. It used significantly less weapons- grade uranium and plutonium to achieve twice the yield of ...
  17. [17]
    Soviet Tupolev Tu-4 Bomber - Mike's Research
    May 28, 2023 · RDS-1, 22 Kilotons, 29 August 1949, Ground level, Joe-1. RDS-2, 38.3 Kilotons, 24 September 1951, Ground, atop of 30m tower, Joe-2. RDS-3 (Marya) ...
  18. [18]
    Tu-4 BULL - Russian and Soviet Nuclear Forces - Nuke
    Aug 8, 2000 · This modification was adapted to transportation and airdrop 28 parachute air-troopers with their equipment. Despite this, the aircraft bomber ...
  19. [19]
    U.S.-Russia Nuclear Arms Control - Council on Foreign Relations
    The United States and Russia agree to extend New START for another five years, keeping verifiable limits on their arsenals of long-range nuclear weapons.
  20. [20]
    Soviet Gravity Bombs - Nuclear Weapons - GlobalSecurity.org
    Sep 25, 2023 · The charge power varies from 0.2 to 1 kiloton of TNT. To understand what one kiloton is, imagine a train of 25 wagons, each loaded with 40 tons ...<|separator|>
  21. [21]
    WWII equipment in Soviet nuclear tests: part 1 - wwiiafterwwii
    Dec 18, 2020 · Some sources describe the bomb as a RDS-2. This was a plutonium impacting-mass (aka “gun technique”) weapon with a 38kT yield. Only eight of ...
  22. [22]
    Nuclear Weapons Tests and Environmental Consequences
    2004). Currently, it is estimated that due to the prolonged nuclear tests, cancer incidence in the province is approx. 30–35 % higher than the average rate ...Missing: RDS- | Show results with:RDS-
  23. [23]
    Fallout from Nuclear Weapons Tests and Cancer Risks
    The legacy of open-air nuclear weapons testing includes a small but significant increase in thyroid cancer, leukemia and certain solid tumors.Missing: RDS- | Show results with:RDS-
  24. [24]
    Mortality from Cardiovascular Diseases in the Semipalatinsk ...
    Overall, the exposed population showed a high mortality from cardiovascular disease. Rates of mortality from cardiovascular disease in the exposed group ...<|separator|>
  25. [25]
    Long-Term Health Effects of Nuclear Tests: The Semipalatinsk Case
    Results show that nuclear exposure significantly increases the risk of chronic disease and anemia, reduces subjective health, and lowers life satisfaction.
  26. [26]
    [PDF] Contemporary Health Consequences of Atomic Testing in the ...
    In sum, radiation exposure has been found to have various severe long-run effects. The long-run effects of exposure of populations near the Semipalatinsk ...
  27. [27]
    Semipalatinsk Test Site - The Nuclear Threat Initiative
    Two nuclear explosions of up to 20 kilotons yield were conducted in this tunnel in 10/75 and 11/79.Missing: RDS- 1951