Dud
explosive that fails to detonate
A dud is in general something that fails to function in the way it is intended to. In a military context the word is often used to refer to an ammunition round or explosive that fails to fire or detonate as expected. Devices designed or built poorly—for example, improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and bombs with over-complicated fuses—have higher chances of being duds. They must be deactivated and disposed of carefully. In war-torn areas, many curious children have been injured or killed from tampering with such devices.
The variation absolute dud describes a nuclear weapon that fails to explode. (A nuclear weapon which does explode, but does not achieve its expected power, is termed a fizzle.)
Etymology
The term descends from the Middle English dudde, originally meaning worn-out or ragged clothing, and is a cognate of duds (i.e., "clothing") and dowdy. Eventually dud became a general pejorative for something useless, including ammunition. The word's use is attested from 1355.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Dud” as explosive that fails to detonate. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as explosive that fails to detonate. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 6, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q16821828. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1355.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Dud”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Dud primary sources, Dud archive and explosive research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Dud”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Dud” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.