Group 19

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?


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?

15 comments:

  1. Blog #1 Group #19

    Thank you for giving us your time to read this blog; Olivia, Blake, L.J., and I are appreciative.

    Question #1
    Harry Gold provided sensitive information to the Russians because he wanted to please others. Gold was also thankful to Black for getting him a job and wanted to repay the debt. In the book, Bomb: The Race to Build-and- Steal The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon by Steve Sheinkin, he explicitly stated on pages twenty-four and twenty-five, “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. Also, Gold had what he described as “an almost puppy-like eagerness to please.” Sheinkin also stated, “ Here was a chance to do something nice for Black and help the Soviet people.” This textual evidence backs up our claim by proving that Gold felt obligated to Black for helping him during a tough time in the economy. One can infer that The Great Depression took its toll, and people made choices they never thought they would make. In our judgement, Gold just wanted to help his family, himself, and Black, but he should have thought of the consequences of doing so. Gold ended up helping his family money-wise, but he did the opposite for everyone else. Gold was willing to sacrifice his needs before everyone else. What are your thoughts about Gold’s decision?



    Question #2
    * * *
    Our group had a hard time deciding whether or not there could be spies in Crawford County. Olivia, Blake, and I feel that there could be spies in Crawford County so we combined ours. LJ felt that there could not be spies so he wrote his separately.

    Jayden, Olivia, and Blake
    There could possibly be spies in Crawford County collecting sensitive information for another country’s benefit because we have the rail system, Marathon, Flying S, Hershey, the Ethanol Plant, pipelines, Victor Dana, and E.H. Berry. This proves that we have the industry that others do not. Therefore, our county may have products that may make us an easy target. Look at Marathon. This is a corporation that refines petroleum. Because this is an energy source, it is a target, and this is probably why the corporation spends the money it does to secure the plant. Why else would the company spend the money to secure itself? There has to be some threat. In fact, all the companies probably pay a lot of money to secure their facilities. What do you think? Could we be correct?
    LJ:
    There could not be spies in Crawford County. My grandpa is plant manager at Victor Dana and he said, “ I think our security is just for safety. I doubt there would be any spies here in Crawford”. This means, to me, there are no spies in Crawford County. I can infer that if there was a spy, there would be enough security to capture said spy. There is no war going on so there would be no need for it. To end, there is no chance of spies in Crawford County.

    L.J., Blake, Olivia, and I look forward to reading your response.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hello Jayden, LJ, Blake, and Olivia! I look forward to conversing with you throughout this project.

    Question 1: I think you’re correct in your interpretation of why Harry Gold felt he needed to provide information for Tom Black – to repay him for helping him get a job. However, I also feel that it made Harry Gold feel important to become a spy. In his mind, he may have felt that if he were a spy then he would be something more than just a breadwinner for his family, who so desperately needed him to work to provide them with the means to live during those depressed economic times. I believe that Tom Black could sense this about Harry and used this to take advantage of him without Harry realizing it.

    I feel it is important to take care of your family, and family should come first, but I do not think that betraying your country should ever happen – for any reason – whether it be to make yourself feel important or to provide ill-gotten money for your family. I would bet that his family would never have wanted that money from him if they had known how he was going about earning it.

    Question 2: Jayden, Olivia and Blake, I agree with you that spies in Crawford County could exist. Your example of Marathon is a very good one, considering employees there could give out highly sensitive, valuable information regarding the production of petroleum, the processes used there, and even the layout of the refinery, to interested parties that may not use the information for good.

    Spies could exist in other places in the county as well. The electric and gas companies could also be important places that spies may look for information. With the United States relying heavily on both electric and gas to be productive, inside information on electric transmission grids and maps of gas lines provided to terrorists could render not only our area disabled, but with a coordinated effort, could take down the entire country: there would be no lights, heating and/or air conditioning; no water generation systems; no grocery stores; and, health and financial systems would shut down. All this would be devastating to the United States and could provide an advantage to any country who wishes ill of us. Did you know that our county’s power is connected to all other power throughout the nation? Can you think of other problems that would be caused if our country’s power grid were to be shut down by outside forces?

    LJ, I’m sorry, but I don’t agree with your viewpoint. Although there isn’t a war like the United States has been involved with in the past, the US has been victim to terrorist attacks – 9/11, Boston – which means that terrorists live within our borders (and not always legally). This means that other countries who mean us harm have spies over here, gathering information to use against us and other areas of the world. You can read history to get more information on terrorist activities within the United States. Now, this doesn’t mean there are spies in Crawford County, but there is a possibility that there could be. What do you think of my viewpoint?

    I look forward to reading any responses you four may have to things I’ve written here, and eagerly await your answers to Part 2’s questions.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Reply to Blog 1
    Mrs. Bruner, thank you for opening my eyes! I understand what you are saying, and I appreciate your viewpoint. You are correct; there very well could be terrorists inside our borders and the big terrorist attacks could just be a diversion for the spies to get the valuable information from well-guarded places during the event of a crisis. This information could be used against us in devastating ways in order to run our country down and put us in a detrimental position.
    -LJ

    ReplyDelete
  4. Blog #2 Group #19

    The meaning of the word ‘haunt’ in the sentence, “It was a decision that would haunt him for the rest of his life” means that guilt would linger in the back of his mind for the rest of his life. Sheinkin used this statement at the end of the chapter to foreshadow the outcome of his decision. In the book, Bomb: The Race to Build-and-Steal The World Most Dangerous Weapon by Steve Sheinkin, he explicitly stated on page sixty-five, “Oppenheimer chose not to tell General Groves that he’d been approached by the Soviets.” The textual evidence backs up our claim by proving that Oppenheimer knew that the approach by the Soviets would endanger his position in the bomb project or his dream job if he told Groves. So, that is most likely why he did not tell. And, this decision may come back to bite him. In our opinion, Oppenheimer’s decision ‘haunts’ him because he could possibly lose trust of which he already had so little. With the loss of trust, Oppenheimer may lose his career and the trust of his coworkers which could devastate him. What do you think?
    * * *
    We wanted to let you know that we now have a new member to the group and her name is Katelin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Jayden, LJ, Blake, and Olivia, and welcome Katelin!

      I agree with your interpretation of the meaning of the word haunt as it is used in this chapter. But, even though I also agree with you that Oppenheimer did have his dream job and that he also probably didn’t want to lose the trust of Groves or his coworkers, I believe he didn’t tell Groves of the conversation with Chevalier because he thought once he refused to share the secrets, it was over and done with, and that nothing bad would happen after that. But, I think the word haunt has a deeper meaning for Oppenheimer than just losing his career.

      Here is something to think about: if Oppenheimer had reported the conversation to General Groves immediately after the encounter with Chevalier, would stricter security measures been taken to protect the scientific procedures and findings used in the making of the bomb, along with the selection of the scientists who would work at Los Alamos? I believe Sheinkin is telling us to really ponder this and to read on to see if Oppenheimer’s “haunting” mistake could have saved us a lot of potential trouble.

      Delete
  5. Blog #3 Group #19
    Katelin, Olivia, Blake, L.J., 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 feel that the loss of innocent lives during any war is tragic but heroic. No innocent lives should ever ever be taken, but if Knut Haukelid had not sunk the ferry, Hitler would have had the heavy water for his bomb and with that, could have killed millions. Think about 9/11, flight 93, the fourth plane that crashed. The passengers knew that they were going down, but they were not going down without a fight. Just like in Bomb, if those few people would not have lost their lives, many other lives would have been at risk. On page 110, Sheinkin stated, “The job would be tricky and might result in the loss of civilian lives.” This textual evidence backs up our claim by proving that Haukelid did not want them to lose their lives, but knew that it was the only way to get the job done. The loss of civilian life is not okay, but in the scenario, it was necessary because the future of the world was at stake. Common sense says if Knut Haukelid would not have sacrificed those twenty-six Norwegians, Hitler would have gotten his hands on the heavy water, and the entire world would have been in great danger.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Group #19! You’ve made some very good points here, and I think you’re on the right track. I’m sure that Knut Haukelid and his team did not go into that mission wishing to injure or kill any innocent civilians. The sacrificing of the 26 Norwegian civilians was necessary in saving the millions of others that surely would have perished had Hitler gained access to the heavy water aboard that ferry. If Haukelid’s team had decided they couldn’t risk any civilians, and the sinking of the ferry had not occurred, the world as we know it today would not be in existence.

      I understand that you feel the Norwegians that perished on the ferry are heroes, and I can see your point, since their lives were sacrificed for the greater good. However, where they differ from the heroes on Flight 93 is that the ferry passengers had no idea their lives would make such a difference in saving millions around the world. Flight 93 passengers knew that they had to do something to help save the citizens of the United States. They knew that their lives were being sacrificed for something evil so they chose to use their own lives to do something good instead – to save their fellow Americans.

      Delete
  6. Reply to Blog #2
    Mrs. Bruner, thank you for reading our response, and we understand your point of view that none of us had ever thought of before! If Oppenheimer would have told Groves about the Soviets, and Groves had ordered for stricter security measures, then maybe the Soviet spies would not have been able to steal the information on the plutonium implosion bomb, and would have kept the Soviets from making an exact copy.
    Thanks again!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Response To Blog #3
    Mrs. Bruner,
    Thank you for your response! We understand the similarities of flight 93 and the sinking of the ferry, but did not think of the difference. We agree that they are different because the passengers on Flight 93 knew what they were about to do would save lives, where as the people aboard the ferry had no idea that they would be saving millions of lives. There are definitely different types of heros, past and present.
    We look forward to blog 4. Have a great day!

    ReplyDelete
  8. It is important to understand the different perspectives regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction because until we see all sides of what happened, we cannot make an educated judgement. In the book, Bomb: The Race To Build-And Steal- The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, Steve Sheinkin explains the following perspectives: political, scientific, military, and the Japanese civilians.
    To begin, it is important that we understand the political perspective. President Truman’s perspective and viewpoint on the atomic bomb centered around his future as president. Sheinkin explicitly states on page 232, “President Truman saw it differently. The Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin was proving to be ruthless and untrustworthy. It would be dangerous-even irresponsible, Truman figured- to let that Soviets become more powerful than the United States. And, always, there was a political angle. If the Soviets got the hydrogen bomb first, American voters might blame the president who’d would let it happen.” This textual evidence backs up our claim by proving that President Truman was looking out for the United States, but he was also selfishly thinking of his future in government. One can infer that had President Truman not dropped the atomic bomb, the United States would have been attacked. If this scenario would have happened and the voters found out that the United States could have used an atomic bomb first, President Truman would not have been well liked by voters. All in all, this perspective reminds our group that in just a few short years, we will be able to vote. We need to realize that the person to whom we elect, will have to make decisions regarding weapons of mass destruction. It is imperative that we look at how each candidate feels about weapons of mass destruction.
    Also, the scientists believed that the atomic bomb was a necessary evil. It was needed to win the war, but they realized that it would cause death and destruction upon the targeted. In the book, Bomb: The Race To Build- And Steal-The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, Sheinkin explicitly states on page 200, “Almost everyone was feeling that same strang mix of pride and horror. 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 in 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. He thought to himself ‘The reaction has begun.’” This textual evidence backs up our claim by proving that they were proud of their accomplishment because it would be helping their country, as a result, innocent lives would be lost. One can infer that the scientists felt guilty that because of their love of science, innocent people were killed. All in all, this shows that these men and women were human. They were torn between their life’s passion of science and assisting their country.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Next, the military, similar to the scientists, felt a mix of emotions regarding the dropping of the atomic bomb. In the book Bomb: The Race To Build-And-Steal The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, Sheinkin explicitly states on page 197, “As the plane headed home, the crew felt a mix of emotions, including relief that the job was done and hope that the war would now end. But something else entered the mix, a thought that Paul Tibbets would never forget. ‘We were sobered by the knowledge that the world would never be the same’ he said. ‘War, the scourge of the human race since time began, now held terrors beyond belief.” This textual evidence supports our claim by proving that the military men, that actually dropped the bomb, felt a sense of happiness that their mission was a success, but at the same time, they felt sadness for the devastation that the atomic bomb caused. One can infer these men were eyewitnesses to the immediate destruction of this deadly weapon. Common sense tells us that these men were affected in a similar way to that of the Japanese civilians.
    Most importantly, Japanese civilians were devastated and terrified by the dropping of the atomic bomb. Steve Sheinkin explicitly states on page 196, “The ten-year-old boy, Shintaro Fukuhara, also felt the need to move, to get away. “‘I had unconsciously taken my brothers hand and started running.’” he said. ‘I just ran home 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 countless tragic things I saw.’ He stated.” This textual evidence backs up our claim by showing that the pain and suffering one atomic bomb did to innocent civilians and an entire city. One can infer that Hiroshima felt the aftermath of the atomic bomb for generations. It is important that we understand the Japanese civilians point of view because history will repeat itself and by hearing the Japanese side, gives us a touch of reality.
    Overall, it is very important to understand all the different perspectives regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction because a sound judgement cannot be made until you see all sides of an issue. Sheinkin not only wanted to teach us about the different perspectives, but he also wanted us to apply this to our lives. One day we are going to be able to vote, and we need to be educated on how the candidates feel about weapons of mass destruction. Being knowledgeable in these matters will help our country in the future.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that it is very important to understand the many different perspectives of all the groups involved in this true story, and it is also important to remember that, in everyday life, there is always more than one way to look at any situation. In this case there were many, as you pointed out in your blog posts. Group #19, you’ve done a very good job at looking at the different sides, gathering information from Mr. Sheinkin’s novel, and giving excellent examples of your understanding of the text.

      Your conclusion for question #4 says it all…you’ve learned how to look at things in different ways, something you may not have been so good at up until now. You would want someone to listen to your opinions, your viewpoints, your wishes, and your concerns. You must remember to do that yourself.

      Well done!

      Delete
    2. Thank you for your response! We look forward to blog 5!

      Delete
  10. Blog #5
    The summary is showing us how advanced the bombs have become, and how there is no turning back, and there is no escaping. In the book, Bomb; The Race to Build-and-Steal The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, by Steve Sheinkin, he explicitly stated on page 233, “From this point on, there could be no such thing as winning a nuclear war. We all may be likened to two scorpions in a bottle.” He also states on page 231, “The United States already had bombs powerful enough to wipe out Soviet cities. Building even bigger bombs would heat up the arms race with the Soviets. The Soviets would respond by building even bigger bombs themselves, putting Americans in greater danger.” This textual evidence supports our claim by proving how these bombs could destroy us all. One can infer that Steve Sheinkin included this to show that there is no such thing as safety as long as there are weapons of mass destruction present. Common sense says that the summary was added so we can be aware of things happening outside of the country, and we need to protect ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is frightening to know that so many countries, that may or may not ever fight against us, have the ability to build such high-powered, destructive weapons. As I read the descriptions of the aftermath of the bombs, I did become more frightened of the possibilities of such things being used on the United States, and in areas that our military assist in overseas. Unfortunately, with the rise of terrorism in all areas of the world, I believe the need for these weapons are a necessity, if nothing more than to use as a threat of use on another country, as some of the students in your classes mentioned during the in-class debates.

      I wonder if the scientists who were asked to use their intelligence to build the original bomb had any idea that what they were doing would affect the future so much. I know that no one can see into the future, but I wonder if they would have agreed to this work if they would have known the impact it would have on their future generations – an impact that could, in one heartbeat, change so many lives.

      Delete