Discussion Question #1
Why do you think Harry Gold provided sensitive information to the Russians? Could there be spies in Crawford County collecting sensitive information for another country's benefit?
Why do you think Harry Gold provided sensitive information to the Russians? Could there be spies in Crawford County collecting sensitive information for another country's benefit?
Discussion Question #2
The chapter, “Quiet Fellow,” ends with the following statement: “It was a decision that would haunt him for the rest of his life.” What is the meaning of the word haunt as it is used in the previous sentence? Why do you think Sheinkin used this statement at this point in the book? What could he be telling his audience?
Discussion Question #3
On page 113, we learn that twenty-six Norwegian civilians were killed when Knut Haukelid and his commandos sank the ferry carrying the German heavy water. What are your thoughts and feelings about loss of innocent lives during any war?
Discussion Question #4
Why is it important that you understand the different perspectives regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction?
Thank you for helping us with our blog. Dalton, Brooklyn, Nicki, and I really appreciate your help.
ReplyDeleteQuestion #1
Harry Gold provided sensitive information to the Russians because he needed money for his family . Steve Sheinkin, the author of Bomb:The Race to Build -and Steal- The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, explicitly stated on page twenty-three, “It all began one snowy night in February 1933, in the depths of the Great Depression. Like millions of Americans, Gold had been laid off from his job. His family was way behind on rent and facing eviction from their apartment. This evidence backs up our claim by proving that Gold needed money or his family would have been out on the streets. Dalton, Brooklyn, Nicki, and I can infer that the economy was poor because of The Great Depression, and people would have done anything to keep a roof over their heads and food in their bellies. Therefore, “desperate times call for desperate measures”. In our judgement, we understand helping family is critical, and we understand that it was a really difficult time financially, but choosing to be a traitor to our country is just wrong. Was there no other option for him? What do you think?
Question #2
There could be spies in Crawford County collecting sensitive information. In Crawford County, we have the following five major industries: Marathon, Hershey, the ethanol plant, Flying S, Inc., and Victor Dana. Crawford County also has a rail system that cuts through the county. We are close to highways and at least thirty minutes from the interstate. Because of our industry and infrastructure, we could be a target so security is a must. Dessa’s father told us at Hershey there is top security to enter the building. They have to scan their badges to park their cars, and they have to use them to enter in the building. This is done so non-employees cannot enter in the building. Why would Hershey go to this extent plus other security measures if the threat is not real? Why spend that money? This evidence backs up my claim by showing that Hershey and other businesses have top notch security to keep spies out. Again, Hershey is just one industry here. If Hershey needs to have security clearly the others do too. Dalton, Brooklyn, Nicki, and I know this because we see what is around us. Yes, we are a small community, but we are different because we have large industry. With large industry, comes great threat. Our companies know this, and that is why they pay the money to keep their products and their employees secure.
Dalton, Brooklyn, Nicki, and I can’t wait to read your response.
Hello Group 12. Concerning Harry Gold, I believe it was a combination of things that led to his treason. It seemed to start innocent enough with sharing simple plans from a manufacturing facility as a favor for the opportunity that Black had given him. I consider this a form of conditioning. He was providing non-governmental information because he was led to believe it would help improve the lives of people in the Soviet Union. This seems like something that is good to do. I would be surprised if the initial information he provided was even used by Black. I believe it was just the first step of conditioning Harry to justify his actions and then very deliberately and slowly move to the point where he could justify anything, even the "greatest crime of the century" I think the financial need and the pressure to embrace communism were factors in Harry's decision, but as with a lot of situations, the conditioning to justify your actions can bring you to a point or situation you never thought possible. What do you think about my interpretation of Harry's situation?
ReplyDeleteConcerning spies in Crawford County, there could be some industries that are concerned about this, but many of the processes are well established and fairly common. Individual specifications or recipes might be trade secrets, but I believe the level of security at industries is more likely to protect the community, customers and consumers. Many regulations related to homeland security have been put in place by industries that work to eliminate the risk of harm to their employees and community.
Great discussion by your group. I look forward to your thoughts.
Dave.
Dalton, Brooklyn, Nicki, and I agree with you about the combination of things that led to Gold’s choice to commit treason. We do understand that sometimes choices are not always clearly cut. There may be multiple factors that make a person choose something. To us, it means that it is important to analyze at all the factors before making a judgement. Also, we never thought about the Soviets “conditioning” Gold, but now we see it. It is just plain scary to us because this could happen to anyone; sometimes, we do not understand others’ intentions. So, as citizens, we need to be cautious of those around us. And, we certainly understand that in the community in which we live.
ReplyDeleteWe look forward to our next blog.
Blog #2 Group #12
ReplyDeleteThe word ‘haunt’ as used in the following sentence, “It was a decision that would haunt him for the rest of his life”, means something that Oppenheimer will regret and something that will follow him. Sheinkin probably used this statement at the end of the chapter to foreshadow a decision that will negatively affect Oppenheimer’s career. In the book, Bomb: The Race to Build-and Steal- the World's Most Dangerous Weapon, Sheinkin explicitly stated on page sixty-five, “Oppenheimer chose not to tell General Groves that he’d been approached by the Soviets.” This evidence backs up our claim by proving that Sheinkin wanted to tell his readers that since Oppenheimer did not tell his boss that he was approached by the Soviets, it makes Oppenheimer look guilty. Because Oppenheimer looks guilty, he will most likely lose his credibility and his reputation. Our guess is that Oppenheimer loses his position and his credibility as a top scientist in the bomb project, and this haunts him for the rest of his life.
Group 12,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your evaluation of Sheinkin's us of this statement in the book. I think it does provide a foreshadowing of Oppenheimer's eventual issues. He certainly did the right thing by not providing any information, but it was not right to not disclose that he had been approached. This really damaged his credibility and would always be a point of question of his loyalty.
Thank you for your response. What Oppenheimer did taught us to tell the truth especially if it could negatively effect others.
ReplyDeleteBlog 3- Group 12
ReplyDeleteNicki, Dalton, Brooklyn, and I learned that twenty-six Norwegian civilians were killed when the ferry boat, the Hydro, sank. Our group actually predicted that something terrible was going to happen, but when we heard innocent lives were taken, we were instantly in shock! In the book, Bomb: The Race to Build-and Steal-the World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, Steve Sheinkin explicitly stated on page 110, “‘Case considered,” came the immediate reply from London. “Very urgent that heavy water be destroyed. Hope this can be done without too serious consequences”. This evidence backs up our claim by proving that the British intelligence was aware of the lives that were going to be taken. This shocked us by showing that the British intelligence continued to proceed with the mission even though it was going to be risky.We were shocked because we did not really know that the military would really carry on the mission knowing that that many people would be killed. Why would they not do something different? Why not consider a different tactic so civilian lives would not be lost? This confuses us. I guess it is safe to say that we must be naive regarding military decisions and tactical missions. It is also safe to say we learned a lot. What do you think? Were you shocked?
We look forward to your reply.
Group 12. This situation is definitely difficult to understand and is an example of the most controversial decisions during war and war times. I cannot imagine being faced with determining the best course of action when there is certainty of the loss of innocent lives.
ReplyDeleteEven with the knowledge that the sacrifice of this small group would result in saving thousands, maybe even millions of lives, the decision is no less distressing. We often have to trust that the officials making these types of decisions are sufficiently skilled, capable and compassionate to ensure that all measures are taken to reduce or eliminate the loss of innocent lives.
When I consider these types of situations, I see how the obstacles that I am faced with on a daily basis are often much less critical or concerning than they seem.
Thank you for your response. Your last paragraph has us thinking about our decisions we make on a daily basis. Our decisions are not life threatening, but sometimes we act like the decisions are life threatening. As we grow and mature, we need to think about the situation in the grand scheme of life. Is this really going to matter five years down the road? Is this decision going to harm someone?
ReplyDeleteWe look forward to blog 4. Have a great day!
It is important to understand the different perspective regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction, because of the damage that the weapons can do to ourselves and others.In the book, Bomb: The Race to Build-and-Steal the World's Most Dangerous Weapon, Steve Sheinkin explains the following four perspectives: scientific, military, political, and those of the Japanese civilians. It is important to understand these perspectives because it helps us understand our own.
ReplyDeleteTo begin, scientists, such as Oppenheimer, initially believed in using the bomb to stop Hitler, but once these scientists realized the true impact, they did not want to use these weapons; in fact, they wanted world peace. Sheinkin explicitly stated on page 213, “Oppenheimer was torn by the attention. He relished the fame, but was terrified by the thought of what he had helped create-a world with atomic weapons.” This evidence backs up our claim by showing that some of the scientists were terrified by their creation. We can guess that any scientist would be thrilled with one of the best discoveries of all time, but also scared of how the science can be used. It is important for us to understand the role of the scientist versus the military and the politicians, because sometimes scientific creations do not mix well in society, and sometimes it does.
It is also important to understand the military perspective, and this perspective is one of the most important. The military’s perspective is important because they want to win the war. They want to fight for their country so they risk their lives everyday so we have the freedoms to do what we want to do. Sheinkin explicitly stated on page 198, “‘I’m proud of you and all of your people,’ Groves said”. Groves also said on page 198, “Apparently it went with a tremendous bang.” This evidence backs up our claim by showing the pride our soldiers on an accomplished mission. We know that our soldiers are so brave, and they will use what they have to win. It is important to understand this because we need to respect what they do.
Not only that, the politicians perspective was similar to that of the military. Truman wanted to use the bomb to win the war and show others that the United States is truly a mighty force. Sheinkin explicitly stated on page 189, “I couldn’t worry about what history would say about my personal mortality. I made the only decision I ever knew how to make. I did what I thought was right.” This evidence backs up our claim by showing that President Truman thought he made the right decision. Our guess is that running this country is not an easy one, but tough decisions like these have to be made. That is why, again, that we need to understand the political side, because one day we will vote and help make the decision of who will run this country.
ReplyDeleteLast, but certainly not least, the perspective of the Japanese civilians must be analyzed. These civilians felt that the use of the bomb was barbaric. Steve Sheinkin explicitly stated on page 196, “He passed people with horrible burns, their faces swollen, their blackened skin hanging in strips. Bodies on the ground, and bodies floating in the river. ‘I cannot describe the countless tragic things I saw’, he said.” This evidence proves beyond a doubt that this weapon destroyed lives and destroyed cities. Our guess is that the Japanese felt like their lives were not valued, and their suffering would not be taken into consideration. It is important to understand this perspective because the same can happen to us so we need to understand all sides of the story.
In the end, it seems to us that Sheinkin explained all perspectives to help us figure out where we stand on this issue. He could have easily written only one perspective, but he put more out there. It is clear as day that multiple perspectives help us make correct decisions.
Group 12. I agree with you that the author really did well explaining the view from different perspectives, even the perspective of the pilots when they saw the result of the reaction. I think it is important with any decision to consider all of the perspectives. It is critical to look at the decision with a 360 degree view including the inputs, outputs and customers of the decision. The decisions that normally have to be made are not as critical as deciding about weapons of mass destruction, but every decision has result. You know the affects best, if you have felt the results of a decision that impacted you negatively. The advice I would like to offer is that the definition of responsibility is literally "the ability to choose a response". This means that you rarely have controls of what happens to you, but you always have 100% control of how you respond to it.
ReplyDeleteI have really enjoyed blogging with Group 12 this year and wish you the very best in your debate and the remainder of your school year.
Thank you for replying to blog four.Thank you for the advice, it is always a nice reminder that the only person you can control is yourself. We look forward to blog five.
ReplyDeleteSteve Sheinkin’s summary means that this world is very dangerous and no matter the situation, we cannot let our guard down. In the book, Bomb: The Race to Build -And Steal- The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, Sheinkin explicitly stated on page 236, “Most of the world’s atomic bombs are still in the hands of the United States and Russia. And while our two countries are not exactly friendly, tensions are far lower than they were in the Cold War.” This evidence backs up our claim by proving that there are weapons of mass destruction in the hands of other countries; therefore, we need to be aware of this especially when we vote for our own leaders. The people we vote for must know how to work with others in order to keep peace. Nicki, Brooklyn, Dalton, and I can infer that the United States needs to be aware of what is happening in other countries; we must be proactive in the protection of our country.
ReplyDeleteGreat review group 12! It is critical to maintain workable relationships with other countries. Just like in our personal lives, we don't have to be best friends with everyone, but we should respect them as a person, respect their values, beliefs and traditions. I have enjoyed blogging with you and wish you the very best.
ReplyDeleteThanks again for helping and listening to what we had to say.
ReplyDeleteWe will take your advice a long way and really begin to think before we decide to make choices that could affect us in the long run.