Talk:596 (nuclear test)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject China (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.


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 (talkcontribs) 10:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that round scar is not the site of 596. Based on the satellite photographs ( 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 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[edit]

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)