Talk:Project 596

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): Davidxyz. Peer reviewers: Cmedvid, Emily rodriguez.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Co-ordinates

I've corrected the co-ordinates in the "specifics" section, but don't know how to do it at the top, where the link is. Can anyone help. The true site (round scar) is within a few hundred metres of the co-ordinates I have cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeurocrat (talk • contribs) 10:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that round scar is not the site of 596. Based on the satellite photographs (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/China/LopNor700c15.jpg) taken just after the blast, the correct coordinates (as far as Google earth can place them) is 40.8121,89.79386, about 2.8 km to the NW of the scar. The cause of the scar is unknown but obviously man-made; there were about 24 drops made in this area (known as the drop area of Lop Nur, separate form the underground test areas of Nanshan, Beishan and Qinggir), 16 of which have no known coordinates, and for which no ground proof seismic disturbances have been noted (including 596 itself). These unplaced drops were up to 3 MT in yield, and might be responsible for the scar. See http://www.rdss.info/cgi-bin/resdb_ent?dbtype_id=GTD SkoreKeep (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

PS: A close look with the latest data in Google Earth shows a faint circular scar around the new placement as well. I didn't see that until after editing the page. :) SkoreKeep (talk) 07:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Very good sleuthing, Skorekeep, and that is a great tool. An ex-Air Force friend of mine has already told me that the scar I mentioned is no scar at all, but rather a bombing target. There is another one a few miles west. As to the 596 site, we reckon it is about 500 metres west of the point you calculate, and probably within the margin of error of the tool - if you go into Bing Maps, you can clearly see the base of the tower, the instrumentation bunker, and even the road that the device was rolled down.Theeurocrat (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur with your adjustment. Thanks for the correction. SkoreKeep (talk) 04:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Photo of the mock-up bomb

I think that this cannot be the right photo. 596 was a tower shot, and there are small pictures of it as a large cylindrical object being pushed down a road to the site. Perhaps the image shows an early weaponised device derived from 596, but it cannot be 596 itself. Skorekeep, any comments? Theeurocrat (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no information on that. It seems very unlikely that the Chinese would have made a tower shot item look like a drop bomb; that's too much "gilding the lily". SkoreKeep (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

UD3 Thing

In the 1980's China explored and then abandoned the idea of UD3 fusion via highly symmetrical implosion. They used techniques that weren't available in 1965 to achieve a very small neutron signal. This path was ultimately abandoned because it wasn't reliably reproducible for scientific purposes using 1980's Chinese technology. But then we are supposed to believe the Chinese of 1965 got this working so reliably that they were using it in production nuclear weapons for their military??

We already know what China was using to initiate neutron cascades back then. We know they received it from the Soviet Union who used it in their second generation designs. I'm not certain why the need for the retrocon of UD3?

“Fusion Produced by Implosion of Spherical Explosive” by Q.-D. Dong, J.-C. Zhang, G.Z. Liu, and H.-Z. Jiang, presented at the 1989 Shock Compression of Condensed Matter conference and published in 1990, explores the concept of achieving fusion reactions through the spherical implosion of an explosive material.

ThukDe (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Reference no longer has valid URL

Reference # 3 no longer has a valid URL. It now links to a default landing page at ctbto.org. It'd be interesting to see what should replace it, but I do not know. "16 October 1964 – First Chinese nuclear test: CTBTO Preparatory Commission". www.ctbto.org. Retrieved 2017-06-01. ~2026-34871-90 (talk)eric ferguson ~2026-34871-90 (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 22 July 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. After more than a month and three relists, there is no consensus. Editors who supported some sort of move did not agree on the best approach. Others questioned the basis for the proposal or explicitly opposed all suggested titles. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

---

• Project 596 → 596 (nuclear test)596 (nuclear test)
• Project 596L → 596L (nuclear test)
• Project 639 → 639 (nuclear test)

– Scholars do not use this wording, and any online mention along the lines of WP:COMMONNAME of "Project 596" is likely to stem from this page seemingly inventing it. Each article should also make it clearer that these are the codenames of the devices and designs, the test events themselves were codenamed (Operation) 21-41, 21-72, and 21-73 respectively. See Zhang:

China conducted twenty-three atmospheric nuclear tests, including seventeen airburst tests—sixteen air-dropped (codenamed 21-7x) by aircrafts over an airburst center, and one by DF-2A missile (21-2) over twenty kilometers away from the airburst center. It also conducted six surface nuclear tests (codenames 21-4x), twenty-three underground nuclear tests including eight tunnel tests (codenamed 21-9 x), and fifteen vertical shaft tests (codenamed 21-8x).

See Reed, 2008, The Chinese nuclear tests, 1964–1996 and Zhang, 2025, The Untold Story of China's Nuclear Weapon Development and Testing. Doeze (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. 1isall (talk | contribs) 13:14, 29 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 09:22, 6 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 07:26, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@Amigao @JArthur1984 @NPguy what are we thinkin here folks Doeze (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the general rationale here (i.e., WP:CITOGENESIS), but for the purposes of adequate article title WP:PRECISION, the moves should follow the framework of 596 (nuclear weapons test) and so forth. - Amigao (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Good thinking. Either of the suggested alternatives is an improvement. My thinking is "(nuclear test)" is the better of the two alternatives, as don't these tests necessarily occur before weaponization? It is possible I am wrong and may need to be corrected on this more technical matter. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I would favor this logic, in spite of the page being called Nuclear weapons testing, and these tests being in pursuit of deliverable weapons, they are not always weaponized. See also Sedan (nuclear test), Chagan (nuclear test), Raduga (nuclear test), Project Gnome (nuclear test). Doeze (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I have a hard time caring about this. The current names seem more natural than the proposed ones. Having a number and a parenthetical is bizarre, and if the number is made up, why keep it at all? NPguy (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

the numbers are the part that’s “real”. JArthur1984 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

The quote above is supposed to explain why "Project 596" is not the term scholars use. I'm not sure how it does that, but it doesn't use anything like "596." So where does that number come from? I haven't dug into the citations. NPguy (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think OP gave that quote to talk more broadly about naming conventions of device tests. It does not answer your question.

“596” is the code name given to this test by China. It refers to the year and month that the Soviet Union broke its promise to provide China with technical assistance in nuclear development — June (sixth month) 1959. It thus alludes to China’s self-reliant development in the face of a broken promise. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that now in the article. I did find one other reference to "project 596" at the Atomic Archive. There's an article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that refers to it as "device 596." NPguy (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Even if Atomic Archive called it Project 596 before Wikipedia did, these moves should still go through. Atomic Archive refers to the 639 test as "Test No. 6".

Per Zhang 2024:

Testing the bomb

First test: Boosted atomic bomb

(device 596L)

Second test: Low-yield H-bomb

(device 629)

Third test: Full-yield H-bomb

(device 639)

As I said these are the device names but they are more widely used in the literature to refer to the single tests of each device, more so than Operation 21-xxx. I'll note I have created a page on the test Operation 21-716, although I would support a rescoping of that page as 515 (nuclear warhead). Doeze (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that 596L redirects to Project 596L so the dab isn't needed for that one. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 16:17, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Military history and WikiProject China have been notified of this discussion. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 09:25, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Editors agree that the articles should be retitled, but appear to still be discussing how they should be disambiguated BilledMammal (talk) 07:26, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose all as proposed per WP:NATURALDAB. No objection to the proposed move targets being created as redirects though. Steel1943 (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.