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 #20
ReplyDeleteHello Mr. Walls. Thank you for taking the time out of your day to work with us on our blog.
Question #1
Cadance, Jude, Josh, and I believe that Harry Gold provided sensitive information to the Russians because he was desperate for a job after being laid off by his previous employer. Gold did not want to spy; he only did it to stay alive. In the book, Bomb: The Race to Build-and-Steal-The World's Most Dangerous Weapon, by Steve Sheinkin, he explicitly stated on page twenty-seven,“When Gold hesitated, Fred went further, 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.” This textual evidence backs up our claim by proving that Gold wanted to walk away, but was threatened into not leaving. We can infer that Gold was head over his heels for money, and he did not put any thought into his actions. Overall, Gold needed a job, and found one, but we feel as if this job was a death trap.
Question #2
Jude, Josh, Cadance, and I know that there could be spies in Crawford County collecting sensitive information for another country’s benefit. For example, at an industry like Hershey, security is a top priority. We understand that it is not easy to walk into Hershey without a badge. Hershey invests lots of money into the security program. Would they really invest so much in security if this was not a problem in the past? One can guess that with the top security like Hershey has, it is very difficult to slip by security and steal the valuable information that another country may use for their own benefit. So, in the end, it would be a challenge to spy in Robinson or go unnoticed. What do you think? Could Hershey be a target?
Jude, Josh, Cadance, and I look forward to reading your responses.
Question #1
ReplyDeleteYour assessment of the reason that Gold provided sensitive information to the Soviets was out of desperation from losing his source of income is probably correct. Once he worked for the Soviets, he was trapped.
Question #2
While it is possible for spies to be in Crawford County, it is unlikely anything in our area would draw much attention. We have security at Hershey to ensure safety for employees and the products we make. This tends to work more towards small local issues while also providing security in the off chance a large organized operation were to target Hershey.
Thank you for your response. Jude, Josh, Cadance, and I are glad you agreed with us! We look forward to our next blog.
ReplyDeleteBlog #2 Group #20
ReplyDeleteThe word ‘haunt’ as used in the sentence, “It was a decision that would haunt him for the rest of his life.” means it was a decision made that would always be in the back of Oppenheimer’s head. Jude, Josh, Cadance, and I suspect that Sheinkin put this statement in this particular spot in the book to use it as foreshadowing and as a cliffhanger to keep his readers wondering what could happen next. In the book, Bomb: The Race to Build-and Steal-The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, Steve Sheinkin explicitly stated, “Oppenheimer chose not to tell General Groves that he’d been approached by the Soviets.” This evidence backs up our claim by proving that not telling Groves about being approached by the Soviets was a decision that Oppenheimer most likely would always regret. Oppenheimer should have told Groves because it may have proven that Oppenheimer was honest and loyal to the United States. Groves most likely would have supported Oppenheimer based on his previous history of support. Being open and honest may have kept Oppenheimer’s credibility not questioned. Because Oppenheimer did not tell, we can infer through Sheinkin’s statement that something may negatively impact his career. This would be devastating to Oppenheimer because he lived for physics, and being a part of the bomb project was so important to him.
We look forward to your response.
By not mentioning being approached by the Soviets, Oppenheimer withheld information that Groves would have found useful. It is understandable though if someone in Oppenheimer's situation would hesitate to say anything. Mentioning being contacted by the Soviets could still lead to suspicion which would impact his career. He was working on a project of unprecedented destructive power and it could have later become known that he had been approached by the Soviets about this. The possibility of different bad outcomes from the Soviets approaching him led to him being haunted by this for the rest of his life.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your response. We look forward for blog #3.
DeleteBlog #3 Group #20
ReplyDeleteJude, Josh, Lizzie, Cadance, and I learn that twenty-six Norwegian civilians were killed when Knut Haukelid and his commando’s sank the ferry carrying the German heavy water. Our thoughts on the situation is that twenty-six people died on the ferry for the greater good. Twenty-six civilians were killed to stop the maniac, Hitler. If this heavy water was transported to Germany, Hitler might have been the ruler of the world. In the book, Bomb: The Race to Build-and-Steal the World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, Steven Shenkein explicitly stated on page seventy-five, “But Adolf Hitler held tight the world's only supply. Breaking that grip was the key to stopping the German bomb.” This evidence backs up our claim by proving that with the stopping of the shipment of the heavy water, Hitler was stopped! We feel as if Haukelid and the British intelligence made the correct decision to risk killing fifty-two in order to save an entire nation. Lizzie, Josh, Jude, Cadance, and I understand that the families were most likely devastated, but we wonder if the families understand that their loved ones did not die in vain. If so, would this make them accept their deaths easier?
We look forward to your response.
While the loss of innocent lives was a tragic price to pay, stopping the shipment of heavy water was critical. I think you are correct in your views concerning this issue. The potential loss of life would have been much greater if Hitler had acquired an atomic bomb. It also could have turned the tide of the war back in favor of the Axis.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your response. Jude, Josh, Cadance, Lizzie, and I are glad you agreed with us! We look forward to blog #4.
ReplyDeleteBlog #4 Group #20
ReplyDeleteIt is important that Cadance, Josh, Jude, Lizzie, and I understand the different perspectives regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction so we can figure out where we stand on the issue. In the book, Bomb: The Race to Build And Steal The World's Most Dangerous Weapon, Sheinkin explains the following perspectives: scientific, military political and those of the Japanese civilians.
To begin, Oppenheimer, a scientist, believed that he only just created the beginning of something much worse, the atomic bomb. Shenkin explicitly stated on page 214, “The safety of this nation,” he insisted, “cannot lie wholly or even primarily in its scientific or technical prowess. It can be based only on making a future wears impossible.” This textual evidence backs up our claim by proving that Oppenheimer knew that his creation was “completely- and forever- beyond his control.” To infer, Oppenheimer most likely felt guilty for all the casualties and those who suffered. In the end, Oppenheimer most likely felt as if he has just committed murder only by creating the bomb. It is important to understand the scientific perspective because we need to understand how the bomb came about and how scientists feel about these type of discoveries and creations.
Next, military personnel, such as General Leslie Groves firmly believed that since we dropped one bomb, we needed to drop more, only to prove our power and point. Steve Sheinkin explicitly stated on page 214, “In other words, he wanted Oppenheimer to get back to the lab and build more bombs.” This evidence backs up our claim by showing that General Groves was greedy for power, and the easiest way to do that was to drop bombs and flatten cities. We can guess that Groves wanted to show his power and the power of the United States. To win the war, power was needed. It is important to understand the military perspective because these are our leaders, so we need to know what they believe and how they go about using weapons of mass destruction.
Not only that, politicians believed the more bombs the better. Sheinkin explicitly stated on page 216, “Truman wanted to discuss how scientists and the military could continue working together to make more atomic bombs...”. This textual evidence backs our claim by proving that President Truman did not care about how many enemy lives were lost, but he cared about his own country. To infer, President Truman wanted to keep his country safe and end Hitler’s reign of terror. In the end, Truman believed that the war would not be over unless multiple bombs were dropped onto enemy countries. To stop Hitler, great force was needed. Again, it is important to understand this perspective, because we vote for these politicians. Depending on our viewpoint, helps us decide who we want to vote in.
Most powerful of all, the perspective of Japanese civilians need to be analyzed. The Japanese civilians believed the the use of weapons of mass destruction were barbaric. Sheinkin explicitly stated on page 196, “An image that haunted many in Hiroshima was the horrific parade of victims on the streets.” This evidence backs up our claim by proving that for those who suffered from the effects would never be the same. We can guess that their view on humanity was negative. Of course, it is important to understand the perspective of those who suffered the most. This could happen to us one day so we need to understand the impact that it had.
In the end, Jude, Josh, Cadance, Lizzie, and I think Sheinkin put all of these perspectives into the book to let everyone be aware of how it went down from every point of view. To us, this means that Shinkien wants us, as the reader, to know that there are multiple sides to every story, no matter how big. This is important because one day we will be future voters, and it is up to us to make sure we understand how everyone feels about the use of weapons of mass destruction. This, in turn, will help us decide where we stand and for whom to vote.
You have made several valid points about the destructive power of nuclear weapons and how they are a sign of power. Oppenheimer was right to be concerned about the destructive weapon he had helped create. Any time we consider entering a war we should try to determine whether it is just. A just war is an effort to protect human dignity from oppressors. To have a nuclear conflict violates what we are trying to protect through its destructive effects on a global scale. I cannot see how using nuclear weapons in a first strike situation is ever justified and therefore the only reason I can see for having them is as a deterrent for potential aggressors.
ReplyDeletePresident Truman was presented with a weapon of unprecedented destructive potential and looking back it is understandable why he would be inclined to use it. Although by looking back we can also see that not only the use of atomic bombs on Japan but all terror bombing of cities were atrocious acts. These weapons would also become examples of power for the leaders of the Soviet Union and the United States throughout the Cold War.
Jude,Josh,Cadance,Lizzie,and I are glad that you gave us another perspective to look at for this questions. Thank you for taking the time out of your day to work with us. We look forward to blog 5.
ReplyDeleteBlog #5 Group#20
ReplyDeleteJude, Josh, Cadance, Lizzie, and I believe that this summary means that weapons of mass destruction will not stop, and eventually, could lead to the death of the entire population on earth. In the book, Bomb, The Race To Build-And-Steal The World's Most Dangerous Weapon, Steve Sheinkin explicitly states on page 231, “The power of such a bomb would have no limit.” This evidence backs up our claim by telling that if an advanced version of the bomb is put into use in today’s world, it could destroy millions of square miles and also millions of people. We can infer that if a deadly weapon was used anywhere in the world today, every human would feel its wrath. In the end, since there are weapons of mass destruction in today’s world, it is imperative that we, as future voters, elect officials that share our beliefs on weapons of mass destruction.
The global effects of a nuclear conflict are put in perspective by this summary. This ties in with my previous point that a nuclear conflict destroys what we are trying to protect. The presence of nuclear weapons around the world makes their presence necessary as a deterrent, but we should elect leaders who will use restraint and not provoke a mutually destructive conflict.
DeleteWe agree with you that we should elect leaders who will restrain against using such a weapon, and not provoke a mutually destructive conflict that could possibly end the world. Thank you for taking the time to blog with us. We learned so much from you.
ReplyDelete