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?
Blog #1 Group #17
ReplyDeleteDear Mr. Staller,
Isaiah, Colby, Jared, Kollin and I thank you for taking time out of your day to read our blogs and voice your input. We are excited to have you as our group mentor for this project.
Question #1
During The Great Depression, Harry Gold was laid off and desperate for a job to provide for his family. In the book, Bomb: The Race to Build-and Steal-The World's Most Dangerous Weapon, on page twenty-four, Steve Sheinkin explicitly stated, “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.” When he was presented with a job at a soap factory in New Jersey, he gladly took it. Harry Gold provided sensitive information to the Soviets because he was persuaded to join the Communist cause, but was then blackmailed and forced to continue spying for the Soviet Union or risk the safety of himself and his loved ones. On pages twenty-four through twenty-six, Sheinkin explicitly stated, “Some spies do it for the money; others are trying to change the world. Gold’s reasons were a lot less dramatic. He was thankful to Black for getting him a job and wanted to repay the debt.” Later on, it was stated, “Should Gold ever get the idea of walking away from the Soviets, Fred assured Gold that his boss would get an anonymous note all about Gold’s illegal activities.” On page twenty-four, Sheinkin later stated, “Black pressured Gold to officially join the Communist party”. All these pieces of textual evidence support our claim by proving that Gold spied for the Soviets because he was blackmailed and wanted to repay Tom Black, but instead, dug himself a hole he could not manage with ease. We think that Gold’s first intentions did not start out as wanting to hurt people, but he was put in a position where it was either his career or others. This action leads us to believe that Harry Gold was selfish, only caring about how his decisions affected himself and his family, while disregarding the rest of the world.
Question #2
Jared, Colby, Kollin, Isaiah and I believe that there is a possibility that there are spies in Crawford County who spy on the big businesses within. On the website for the company Flying S Inc. , they have their projects restricted, so that the public may not see what they are working on. This supports our claim by showing if one was a spy, he/she would have a limited, if not, restricted access to sensitive information involved with treachery. Anything from chocolate formulas from Hershey, to government grade drones\equipment from Flying S, other countries might want in on.
Isaiah, Jared, Colby, Kollin, and I look forward to your feedback.
Dear Isaiah, Colby, Jared, Kollin and Andrew,
ReplyDeleteThank you for including me in your community reading project. I’m looking forward to our conversations!
I agree with the conclusions you have made regarding Harry Gold’s motives for providing sensitive information to the Russians. He was drawn in by a need for employment and money and once hooked he was pressured into doing things he may not have done on his own. Regarding your last sentence stating that Mr. Gold was selfish and put his own needs before others - when trapped do you think that people may have a tendency to justify their actions in their own minds in order to make themselves feel better about what they are doing even though they know deep down that what they are doing is wrong?
Besides being a situation of need followed by black-mail I also think that this may be a case of peer pressure. The author, Steve Sheinkin, points out that Harry Gold had “an almost puppy-like eagerness to please”. Do you think Tom Black recognized this characteristic (some might say “flaw”) of Harry’s personality and that is why he pursued him, knowing that he could take advantage of his good nature?
Yes, I do agree with you in that espionage may be a concern for many businesses in our area. You have called out two important companies located in our community. Yes, I agree that Flying S may have some sensitive information that the military does not want to share with other countries. However, espionage is not just limited to the military or the government. As you point out, business technology (such as Hershey’s receipt for chocolate) could also be quit valuable.
So what actions do you think these companies might take to protect sensitive information? What do you see as being potential weak links in their security?
Group #17
ReplyDeleteDear Mr. Staller, Thank you for your insightful questions about our first post. We will try to answer them as thoroughly as possible.
In response to your very first question, “When trapped do you think that people may have a tendency to justify their actions in their own minds in order to make themselves feel better about what they are doing even though they know deep down that what they are doing is wrong?” Colby, Isaiah, Kollin, Jared, and I believe that people tend to, “sugar coat” things to make themselves feel better. When people were drafted into the Nazi army against their will, they did just what Harry Gold did; they made excuses within themselves to justify what they did. Gold was selfish and so were these soldiers. They were trapped with no way out.
Regarding your second question, “So what actions do you think these companies might take to protect sensitive information? What do you see as being potential weak links in their security?” Colby, Isaiah, Kollin, Jared, and I have an example. As students, we have access to Chromebooks, in which we have to sign in, in order to access the internet. We have an administrator who is allowed access to our accounts at any time one is accused of misuse. If all companies used this system, if they already were not in use, there would most likely be less internal breaches. As for external breaches, companies, if they don’t already, should encrypt their data and develop a complex firewall that has several detection triggers, such as locking the system if a password is tried that is incorrect. In response to the second part of the second question, we believe that the companies in Crawford County do not have many potential weak links in their systems as long as they give perfect background checks, and they continue their security precautions.
Answering your final question, “Do you think Tom Black recognized this characteristic (some might say “flaw”) of Harry’s personality and that is why he pursued him, knowing that he could take advantage of his good nature?” Colby, Isaiah, Kollin, Jared, and I do think that Tom Black took advantage of Gold’s good nature from the start. We believe he did so because on pages twenty-two and twenty-three in Bomb:The Race to Build -And Steal- the World's Most Dangerous Weapon Steve Sheinkin explicitly stated, “When World War II began, Gold was a twenty-eight-year-old chemist, living with his parents and younger brother in a working-class Philadelphia neighborhood. He stood five foot six, with thick black hair and a soft, round face. Friends described him as shy, smart, and always ready to help anyone who asked.” This textual evidence supports our claim by showing that Harry Gold was just a young man with the flaw of being easily taken advantage of. Since Gold was already on his toes to help someone, if somebody does him the gigantic favor of giving him a job during the worst depression in American history there is nearly nothing he would not do to return that favor to said person.
We look forward to our next blog with you!
Group #17 Blog #2
ReplyDeleteThe chapter, “Quiet Fellow” ends with the following statements: “Oppenheimer chose not to tell General Groves that he had been approached by the Soviets. It was a decision that would haunt him for the rest of his life.” After annotating, Colby, Isaiah, Kollin, Jared, and I believe that the meaning of the word haunt, is that Oppenheimer’s actions will cause immense regret, and it will linger in the back of his mind for the rest of his life. We hypothesize that Sheinkin inserted this statement to foreshadow an event that will happen later on in the book. On page 105, Sheinkin explicitly stated, “Groves’s word was final. But if Army Counterintelligence couldn’t get rid of Oppenheimer, they could certainly let him know how they felt. ‘In the future, please avoid seeing you questionable friends.’ Colonel Kenneth Nichols told Oppenheimer. He had no idea how long intelligence agents had been following him, or what they already knew about his private life. Suddenly worried about losing his position at Los Alamos, he decided to tell Colonel Pash about the six months earlier, that his friend Haakon Chevalier had approached him about sharing information with the Soviets. Oppenheimer repeated the brief conversation he had had with Chevalier. He assured Pash the subject had not come up again. Oppenheimer hoped this confession would convince Pash of his loyalty. Instead, Pash was more suspicious than ever. Had the Chevalier meeting really been that innocent? Pash wandered. If so, why did Oppenheimer wait so long to tell us about it?” This textual evidence backs up our claim by proving that by not talking to Groves about the Soviet confrontation, did, in fact, come back to haunt him. If Oppenheimer would have told Groves about the confrontation when it had happened, he might not have gotten that far into the process of the atomic bomb making. And without Oppenheimer in on the bomb secret, then it would take far too long, and therefore, the Germans would have beat America to the finish line.
Helloh Isaiah, Colby, Jared, Kollin and Andrew!
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your responses to my questions. You made good use of excerpts from our book to support your positions!
I think it was a good observation on your part to recognize the author’s use of the work “haunt” as a foreshadowing of future consequences that Mr. Oppenheimer would suffer. Considering the information that the author has provided to us at this point in the story and your response to this question, it appears that a lack or break in trust between Mr. Oppenheimer and Army Intelligence was one of the negative consequences of Mr. Oppenheimer’s delay in sharing his experience with General Groves. Do you agree? Do you think a timely admission of the encounter by Mr. Oppenheimer could have had the opposite effect?
Based on Mr. Oppenheimer’s response on page 65 to Chevalier when he was approached about sharing information with the Soviets, I sometimes wonder if Robert Oppenheimer even made a conscious decision to not report the incident to General Groves, but rather mentally dismissed the event due to his narrow focus on his work. What do you think?
Response Blog 2
ReplyDeleteYes, Isaiah, Jared, Kollin, Colby, and agree about Oppenheimer being negatively affected by not telling General Groves about being confronted by a known Communist. We believe that his delay sprouted the suspicion. Colby, Isaiah, Jared, Kollin, and I believe that if Oppenheimer would have told General Groves right away about the confrontation, then the consequences would have probably been different. Groves would have still probably put Oppenheimer under close surveillance, but would have had more trust in Oppenheimer because he told him as soon as physically possible. Colby, Isaiah, Jared, Kollin, and I believe that Oppenheimer had just thought of the confrontation as a non-important approach and that he simply put the confrontation to the back of his mind. We believe that he only did so because he had things of greater interest on his mind.
We look forward to blog 3!
Blog #3 Group 17
ReplyDeleteColby, Isaiah, Jared, Kollin, and I learned that twenty-six Norwegian civilians were killed when Knut Haukelid and his commandos sank the ferry carrying the German heavy water. We think that if there were more lives at risk than the civilians who are going to be sacrificed, it is frowned upon, albeit necessary for the greater good. We feel that it is still going to be difficult for the civilians’ families, but they would be held as heros in the war because of their sacrifices to stop Hitler and his army from assembling a world-ending weapon. Steve Sheinkin, author of the book, Bomb: The Race To Build-And Steal-The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, explicitly stated on page 109, “The five-hundred-pound bombs exploded all over the gorge and nearby town of Rjukan. One hit a bomb shelter, killing sixteen Norwegians. Several landed around Vemork, with just two hitting the heavy water plant. The high concentration room, deep in the basement of the steel and concrete structure, lay unscratched. Yet the bombing was a success, in an unexpected way. German authorities realized their precious heavy water would never be safe in Norway.” This textual evidence supports our claim by proving that, even though sixteen civilian lives were lost, Germany was majorly affected by the bombing run and realized that if they continued to operate in Vemork their labs were in great peril. Germany was very frightened by the attack and turned their heavy water operation, belly high. In the end, if the loss of life can be avoided, it should be. If it is crucial to the survival of a higher population, then it should be reasonable to sacrifice civilians.
We cannot wait to work with you further!
Hi everyone!
ReplyDeleteI don’t know if you struggled to answer this question, but I found it to be a tough one! This question has been debated repeatedly throughout history. Generally speaking, I agree with you. Sometimes to win we have to make sacrifices. And yes, it might be possible for the families of those civilians who were killed on the ferry or those who died in the bombing attempt on the heavy water plant to console themselves with the thought that the death of their loved ones was necessary for the greater good of all.
However, this path of reason can become a slippery slope. If we can justify sixteen innocent deaths, what about 160? Or 1,600?
The author provides us an estimated civilian death toll of 170,000+ at Hiroshima and 50,000+ at Nagasaki for a total of 220,000+. During President Truman’s debate on whether or not to use the bomb he was provided with an estimate of 250,000+ U.S. casualties that would be suffered during an invasion of the Japanese mainland. In the end, some people were going to die in order to finally resolve the war and in this case it appears that using the bomb made somewhat of an even trade in the number of fatalities - so do you think that makes it ok to use the bomb on civilians? Do you think President Truman struggled with this decision, both before and after he made it?
Dear Mr. Staller,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your feedback. In response to your first question, Colby, Kollin, Isaiah, Jared, and I believe that if the amount of civilian lives lost is less than what we are trying to save, then it should be acceptable to say that it was for a greater good. In response to your second question, no, we believe that if we had a choice to use an atomic bomb on civilians or soldiers, then we should use it on the enemy soldiers rather than innocent civilians. Although, this is nearly impossible to only harm enemy soldiers and not accidentally harm even some civilians. It is preferred that we try and aim for the soldiers rather than civilians. In response to your final question, yes, we think that President Truman struggled with his decision because his popularity was on the line along with the name he would set for his family.
We look forward to blog 4!
Blog #4 Group #17
ReplyDeleteIt is important that Colby, Kollin, Isaiah, Jared, and I understand the different perspectives regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction because we must understand how each perspective feels about these powerful weapons in order to fully grasp how to handle them. In the book, Bomb: The Race To Build-And Steal-The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, by Steve Sheinkin, he offers the perspectives of the scientists, military, political, and the Japanese civilians.
To begin, Sheinkin put forward the perspective of the scientists that took place in the bomb making, we will look at the perspective of Robert Oppenheimer. In the beginning of the bomb making, Oppenheimer wanted to create an atomic fission bomb, but after it was created and used on the Japanese, Oppenheimer’s view changed from excitement to anxiety. The scientists had changing opinions throughout this entire event because they wanted to win, but not kill innocent civilians. On page 200, Sheinkin explicitly states, “That night Oppenheimer went to a party in one of the men’s dorms, carrying in his hand a message from Washington with more details on the destruction of Hiroshima. As he showed the note around, the mood in the room darkened. The party broke up early. As Oppenheimer walked home, he saw one of his scientists bent over a bush, vomiting.” This textual evidence supports our claim by proving that the scientists were upset because of the amount of civilian casualties that were a result of their creation. One can infer that the scientists were horrified at the results of the bombing because they loved science, but did not want to kill innocent civilians. It is important that we understand the scientific perspective because they were so overloaded with their responsibilities that they did not realize that they were creating a weapon that could wipe out entire cities and kill thousands.
Next, Sheinkin also provides a military perspective. The military were exuberant to the fact that the bomb worked and weakened Japan. The military immediately wanted more bombs. On page 214, Sheinkin explicitly states, “In other words, he wanted Oppenheimer to get back to the lab and build more bombs. That’s what Leslie Groves expected, too-if things moved according to schedule, he reported, the U.S. Army would have twenty plutonium bombs by the end of 1945.” This textual evidence backs up our claim by proving that the military wanted to be prepared in case of retaliation from other countries. One can infer that the military wanted to protect the United States with any means possible. It is important for us to understand the military perspective because it shows that they want to protect the US by any possible way.
Also, it is important for us to understand the political perspective. The political perspective was pride and excitement. The politicians wanted to have the most power possible by arming themselves with these weapons. On page 199, Sheinkin states, “Keep your seats gentlemen,’ Truman said, an excited smile on his face as he waved the note in his hand. ‘I have an announcement to make. We have just dropped a new bomb on Japan which has more power than twenty thousand ton of TNT. It has been an overwhelming success!’” This textual evidence further proves that politicians were very excited at the fact of having the most powerful weapon on earth, at that point in time. One can infer that if Truman did not use the bomb, and the population found out about it, he would be shamed at the fact that he could have saved countless American lives. It is important that we understand the political perspective because some people would not understand why he chose to kill thousands of Japanese civilians. It is also important to note that the president has a huge responsibility and makes crucial decisions on a daily basis.
ReplyDeleteThe Japanese civilians perspective is the opposite of the military and political perspectives. The civilians of Japan were horrified by the dropping of the atomic bomb. On page 196, Sheinkin states, “The ten-year-old boy, Shintar Fukuhora, also felt the need to move, to get away. ‘I just ran as fast as I could.’ 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 tragic things I saw,’ he said.” This textual evidence backs up our claim by putting forward the horrible things that the survivors of Hiroshima endured. One can infer that Japanese were caught off guard just like the Japanese officials. It is crucial that we understand the hardships the Japanese civilians had to face because it could happen to us at anytime. We do not want to be victims!
Throughout this book, Sheinkin has offered truly amazing perspectives of what it was like to be in this horrible, world changing event, and the shower of many emotions that were flowing through the ever changing world. Sheinkin included all of these perspectives to show what all sides felt about weapons of mass destruction so we could make a sound judgement. It is an important life lesson for us to understand all sides of a story to make an accurate judgement.
Hello Isaiah, Colby, Jared, Kollin and Andrew!
ReplyDeleteI agree with your assessment that Mr. Sheinkin strived to provide the reader with various perspectives on the building and use of the bomb so that we might understand both the driving forces that lead to its creation and the final consequences of its use.
So back to the original question – Why is it important that you understand the different perspectives regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction? What if we were missing one or more of the perspectives you described in your response? Let’s say we didn’t know the military and political perspectives and only had the civilian perspective. Wouldn’t we look evil for what we have done? What if we didn’t consider the civilian perspective? Would the use of weapons of mass destruction be an easily justified military tactic?
Isaiah, Colby, Jared, Kollin and Andrew - You’ll find in life that you will be faced with many difficult decisions with no safe and easy answer. Take your time when you can. Gather information from diverse sources. Think. Then make your best judgement.
Thank you for including me in your reading project. Best wishes to you all.
Ted Staller
Thank you for your response.
ReplyDeleteIf Sheinkin had left off one or more perspectives, it would kind of relate to what Hitler did during WWII. He only told the people what he wanted them to hear. If Sheinkin did decide to not tell all of the perspectives, then it would be hard to truthfully have a balanced opinion about the bombing.
Thank you for the advice, it is always nice to have reminders as we make more adult-like decisions.
Blog #5 Group #17
ReplyDeleteColby, Jared, Kollin, Isaiah, and I believe that the history of the atomic bomb is fascinating and a real nail-biting situation to be in, but it is also a story about how humans created a bomb that can wipe out entire species of off the face of the earth. In the book, Bomb:The Race To Build-And Steal-The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, Steve Sheinkin explicitly stated, “The scientists concluded that the explosions would ignite massive firestorms, sending enormous amounts of dust and smoke into the atmosphere.” Sheinkin also stated later, “And that’s if only half of one percent of all atomic bombs on earth were used.” This textual evidence supports our claim by proving that we could wipe out our own species with our own creations. If we do not control the use of these bombs, the world as we know it will end. To us, this means we need to be careful who we vote for as our leaders. It will be up to us to keep the world the same as we know it.
Colby, Jared, Kollin, Isaiah and Andrew,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your assessment that Mr. Sheinkin is telling us that we as a country possess a weapon of amazing destructive power and that we need to be mindful of how we manage it. I also think that he is giving us a general warning. The members of the team who showed such “genius and poise under pressure” may not have thought about the long term implications of their creation. It has been the case with many actions we have taken as a race, whether it be scientific, political, social, or other, that the unknown or unintended consequences of our actions sometimes affect us more than the initial gain of the achievement itself.
Thanks again,
Ted Staller