Group 1

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?

16 comments:

  1. Blog #1 Group #1

    Thank you, Mr.Trimble,for dedicating your time and effort to assist Joey, Evan, Patience, and me in better understanding the content of the book, Bomb: The Race to Build -and Steal- The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon and helping us to create an exceptional blog that showcases our ability to compose stellar responses.
    1. Harry Gold provided sensitive information to the Russians because he was easily manipulated into thinking that he was obligated to repay Tom Black for the job he provided Gold, which allowed him to support his family. On page twenty-five of the book, Bomb: The Race to Build -and Steal- The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, award winning author, Steve Sheinkin, explicitly stated, “The chemical processes Black wanted didn’t seem so secret, and if the information could really help the Soviets build a better society, why not share it? Who would it hurt?” This textual evidence supports our claim by proving that Gold was blindsided by Black’s seemingly generous acts to the extent that he was unaware of Black’s true intentions. One can infer that Gold’s negligence towards discerning the reasoning behind the actions of people like Black forced him into situations that he never intended upon participating in. All in all, disregarding imperative aspects of a situation could ultimately lead to one being enticed to perform actions that they would not habitually perform; they would not recognize their committed wrongs until they were past the point of no return.
    2. Crawford County, a sparsely populated community with sizable industries, could be home to traitorous spies whose task is to collect sensitive information that these massive industries house. The colossal Marathon Petroleum Corporation refines petroleum that is then used to fuel cars and other forms of transportation. People from other countries rely on such fuel to power their nation, and if the United States is successful in that particular industry, they may try to acquire that information for their own benefit. This supports our claim by proving why people from other countries may attempt to plunder American intel in order to ensure the well-being of their people. To most, this means that spies may reside in communities where important industries are prospering, in search of the secrets behind America’s success. In the end, dwelling within the security of companies anywhere, there is the possibility that not all are as loyal as they seem.
    Thanks again for helping us, and we are excited to read your reply.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think you have basically hit the nail on the head. Gold got sucked into helping Black because he was trying to repay a favor. The problem is however, that anytime one gives information of any type to a foreign government it is considered treason and he should have known better. One can argue that Americans had not come to grip with the evils of communism and particularly of Joseph Stalin and therefore Gold ,like other Americans, was in the dark as to the real intentions of the USSR.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for your response. We look forward to blogging with you on the next question.

    ReplyDelete

  4. Blog #2 Group 1

    The word haunt as used in the statement, “It was a decision that would haunt him for the rest of his life,” means that one feels remorse for an action and the memory lingers with him/her for the rest of his/her life. Steve Sheinkin used this statement at this point in the book to set the stage for another happening that will result from his decision. Sheinkin was foreshadowing a large event that was to come for the scientist. On page sixty-five of the book, Bomb: The Race to Build -and Steal- The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, Sheinkin explicitly stated, “Oppenheimer chose not to tell General Groves that he’d been approached by the Soviets. It was a decision that would haunt him for the rest of his life.” This textual evidence proves that Oppenheimer regretted keeping the information from Groves, but the choice had been made and there was no going back. One can infer that Sheinkin wanted to keep his audience on the edge of their seats by showing future peril for an important operation. All in all, the results of even the most minute decisions were haunting to those who did not make wise ones, and Sheinkin used that to give the story an edge.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm not sure he personally regretted it but it certainly followed him around. I'm sure he wished that he had been more forthcoming to General Groves so as to diminish the tarnished image he held with others in the intelligence and defense agencies. There is a saying that 'hindsight is 20/20' which means that it is easy to second guess one's actions or other's actions but is immensely more difficult at the time it occurs.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you for your response! We had heard of the expression “hindsight is 20/20”, but we didn’t fully understand it. Once you explained it, it does apply to Oppenheimer. We look forward to blog #3!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Group #1 Blog #3
    The loss of innocent lives in war is dreaded, but in some cases, it is necessary in order to protect the lives of thousands more. As in Norway during the delicate time of the atomic bomb creation, the lives of many innocent men were lost, but it gave way for the Allies to sabotage the German atomic bomb program in which many more civilians would have been killed. On page 110 of the book, Bomb: The Race to Build- and Steal- The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, Steve Sheinkin explicitly stated, “Very urgent that heavy water be destroyed. Hope this can be done without too serious consequences.” This textual evidence supports our claim by proving that authorities such as British intelligence knew of the possible consequences that war has on civilian life, but sometimes it is crucial to an operation that will ultimately preserve more lives than were lost. One can infer that those whose lives were jeopardized in war will not go down without honor but contribute to the fight for the greater good. All in all, death in war is inevitable, but the sacrifice of innocent life could protect those of countless others. What are your thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Loss of innocent lives is indeed unfortunate but as you correctly state, is sometimes unavoidable to the long term mission. There were many lives lost when the Allies bombed Dresden, Germany due to its industrial capacity during the war. Countless workers lost lives due to the relentless bombing by the Allies. Every effort was made to minimize loss of life by bombing at night which also gave our aircraft cover.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your response! While we feel that the loss of innocent lives is in some cases necessary, Joey also feels that it is immoral because people like Pilot Paul Tibbets still murdered many innocents, which he feels is inexcusable. Either way you look at it, it would be a difficult decision to make. We can only hope that our government officials make a decision that is in the best interest to our country as a whole.

      Delete
  9. Blog #4
    It is important the we understand that we understand the different perspectives regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction because if we see why one group used the weapons the way that they did and how it affects the innocent lives that were lost or devastatingly changed for the worse, it will help us make better decisions in the future. In the book, Bomb-The Race to Build-and Steal-The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, the author, Steve Sheinkin, identified the following four perspectives: scientists, military, political, and Japanese citizens, especially those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, involved with the use of the atomic bomb.
    To begin, the scientists felt pride and horror with the use of the atomic bomb. Sheinkin explicitly states on page 184, “It was a chill of knowing they had used something they loved -the study of physics- to build the deadliest weapon in human history. Oppenheimer was feeling the chill too.” This textual evidence supports our claim by proving that the scientists’ love for science overran their minds, blocking any idea of the devastation, both physically and emotionally, inflicted upon innocent lives once the atomic bomb is dropped. One can infer that while the men worked feverishly on the bomb, they were enveloped in their true passions, but after the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and then, only three days later, a second dropped on Nagasaki, they came to the shocking realization that what they had created is so powerful that it could ultimately lead to the perishing of the entire human race. All in all, the scientists were proud of their creation, but they were also horrified by the thought that their creation will be used to kill people.
    Also, the military felt pride when it came to the use of the atomic bomb. The perspectives of the United States military forces were also expressed in the book. Sheinkin explained how military personnel such as General Leslie Groves who ordered the missions felt that they had acquired a valuable asset to protect the citizens of America and to justify wrongs done unto them by other peoples, so why not take full advantage of that? It was explicitly stated on page 206, “In Washington, Leslie Groves told Truman a third atomic bomb ‘should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or 18 August.” This textual evidence supports our claim by showing how Groves was eager to plunder the Japanese, even though two assaults had already occured, transforming its land and inhabitants into a mass of suffering and devastation. On the other end, Colonel Paul Tibbets and his crew of the Enola Gay realized that, after the use of weapons of mass destruction, the world had been changed, and not for the better. On page 197, it explicitly states, “We were sobered by the knowledge that the world would never be the same.” This textual evidence shows how the men who were directly involved with the attacks and saw the treacherous outcomes truly realized, unlike those who did not experience the actual bombings, that they had unleashed a power much greater than any that ever been seen, and it dawned on them that they had helped to make that possible. To infer, the military men’s brains were wired to operate solely on ensuring that no attack on America would be possible and that no American lives were lost, no matter the costs, but those who directly witnessed the total annihilation that had been left for Japan felt a different sense of repentance for what had been done. In the end, there were even different perspectives within the same group, which shows how even slightly different experiences can result in very different viewpoints, and they are both exceedingly important.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Not only did Sheinkin include the perspectives of the scientists and the military, but he also elaborated on the political viewpoint and interpretation of the use of weapons of mass destruction. The politicians felt that the atomic bomb was necessary in order to win the war. Sheinkin provided the view of President Harry Truman about the atomic bomb project and and what to do moving forward. On page 232, Sheinkin explicitly states, “It would be dangerous -even irresponsible, Truman figured- to let the Soviets become more powerful than the United States. And, as always, there was a political angle. If the Soviets got the hydrogen bomb first, American voters might blame the president who’d let that happen.” This textual evidence supports our claim by explaining how Truman was ignoring the fact that building more advanced and deadly bombs may spark a chain reaction between countries that could cause the demise of life as we know it. He was focused solely on appeasing to the Americans and earning their votes, securing his position in office. To most, this means that the president was focused on gaining popularity rather than fulfilling his duties by making decisions to better benefit the country and prevent its fallout. All in all, Truman’s political approach to the dire situation during the time of the arms race was impractical; he was focused on igniting his fame instead of seeing how much more danger our country is put in due to building atomic weapons than it is saved from. We cannot imagine the pressure that he was under during this time.
    The last, and most certainly not least, perspective described by Sheinkin was that of the Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki after they were bombed, and even a citizen of Tokyo who knew that he could be next. The innocent Japanese citizens suffered the consequences of of the battle between Japan and America. Sheinkin explicitly states on page 195, “Pushing and wriggling out from under fallen pieces of his home, Hachiya stood. He was bleeding badly, his skin pierced with splinters and broken glass. Like people all over Hiroshima, he assumed a large, but ordinary bomb had fallen right near him.” This evidence supports our claim by describing how the Japanese men, women, and children did not even begin to understand what was being done to them and what they were a part of. One can infer that the unexpected blast shocked the citizens of the Japanese cities, leaving them unaware that what was happening on the larger scale outside of their country. In the end, the release of the American atomic bomb destroyed the lives of thousands of innocent Japanese citizens, even children, by taking loved ones and giving the people scars, on the skin or somewhere within, that would never fade.
    Sheinkin wanted his readers to understand the different perspectives because if only the military perspective was given, the bombing may seem like a necessary act to show that our country would not be broken, but explaining the Japanese civilians’ perspective shows how there is a flaw in every plan. It also shows how it was not just hard on the Japanese men, women, and children, but on the scientists who created this weapon of mass destruction as well. It is vital to understand all of the sides of an issue or event, or one may take actions that they do not begin to understand the possible outcomes. It is important that leaders, and everyone in general, think before they act.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It is easy to look back and see the unintended consequences of actions that we make. Dropping the bomb obviously cost hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. Had Truman not dropped the bomb he would have been demonized for not taking actions to protect and save the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldier's lives. It was a no win situation. Truman had a plaque on his desk which said "The buck stops here". The meaning was that he couldn't pass the decision on to anyone else. The decision stopped with him. The dropping of the bomb is an excellent example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Your group has done an excellent job on this project. Best of luck in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thank you for responding to blog 4. We had never heard of the saying "The buck stops here," and we think that Truman's decision makes sense after knowing what was on his plaque.
    We look forward to our final blog question 5.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Blog #5
    On page 236 of the book, Bomb: The Race to Build- And Steal- The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, Steve Sheinkin wrote a summary about the book and what was to come for our nation. The summary explicitly states, “In the end, this is a difficult story to sum up. The making of the atomic bomb is one of history’s most amazing examples of teamwork and genius and poise under pressure. But it’s also the story of how humans created a weapon capable of wiping our species off the planet. It’s a story with no end in sight. And, like it or not, you’re in it.” Steve Sheinkin wanted to connect the readers to the story and he wanted us to know that as future voters, we will be a part of what happens in our world. The summary proves that the seemingly endless story will affect our lives, even though we were not around when scientists built it, and may ultimately cause our demise. One can infer that it is imperative for voters, especially the new or younger ones, to understand that the annihilation of our world is being held at the fingertips of powerful persons, and we must know how to react. All in all, our world houses the danger of weapons of mass destruction, and we are all a part of the perilous situation that the weapons may arouse, whether we wish to be or not.

    ReplyDelete
  14. We consider ourselves to be moral and righteous and correct in our beliefs. In economic theory, many assumptions are made but the one I keep coming to is that we assume people act rationally or that they invest rationally. In 2005, there was a bomb attack on a subway in London and in 1995 terrorists dropped 5 bags of Sarin nerve gas in a subway in Tokyo. These are not rational acts. My point being that not everyone is just and righteous and RATIONAL! There are suicide bombers who strap themselves with explosives, detonate them and believe they will be richly rewarded for it. You and I may be rational and want to preserve life as we know it but there are people who believe they will be rewarded for killing thousands with a dirty bomb, a bomb that detonates and spreads radioactive or germ material. Don't assume that as long as we have leaders with our best interests at heart that all will be fine. Again, I wish you all the best. Your answers show considerable thought and study.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thank you for your reply! We agree with your stance about how not everyone acts in a way that is necessary or rational. We will take your advice about not always assuming the best, even though we may want to at times. We enjoyed reading your responses and appreciate your feedback.

    ReplyDelete