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?
Branden, Dylan, and I want to thank you for helping us understand this book. We appreciate all your time and advice.
ReplyDeleteQuestion #1
Harry Gold provided sensitive information to the Russians because he needed a job so he could help his family pay for rent. Gold was desperate for money at the time, and because of this desperation, he committed a treasonous act. Steve Sheinkin, the author of the book, 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.” Steve Sheinkin also stated on page twenty-five, “He was thankful to Black for getting him a job and wanted to repay the debt. Also, Gold had what he describ9ed as ‘an almost puppy-like eagerness to please.’” This backs up our claim because the evidence shows that Gold needed money, and he was desperate. The Great Depression was a horrible time in our history because the stock market crashed, and people all over were losing their jobs. This created stress because people could not pay their bills and pay for food. Then, this stress may have caused desperation, and this was probably where Gold was. Gold made a choice to help his family, but ended up as a traitor.
Question #2
Could there be spies in Crawford County collecting sensitive information for another country’s benefit? Yes, there could be because we have Marathon Petroleum Corporation and Hershey, the two biggest plants in Crawford County. Marathon makes jet fuel and gasoline. Other refineries might send spies to get information about the workings of Marathon and other candy companies might send spies to learn the secret chocolate recipe. Branden recently read an article in The Wall Street Journal by Sean Gardiner. He wrote about Paul Browne, who worked as a police commissioner in New York City. He was just an average guy to most. But, Gardiner wrote, “Long before he had ascended to his position as deputy, New York City police commissioner, Mr. Browne had first hand experience being recruited by a Russian agent-a Soviet spy betting a relationship with a small-town newspaper reporter would one day bear fruit…” This backs up our claim because it shows that we do not always know who everyone really is and to whom he/she is loyal. That is why industries like we have in Crawford County have security. They need to protect their products, and that is why companies spend the money they do on security. Any industry can be hacked or spied on, but they may have security precautions for this very reason. Could we be correct? Could there be spies lurking in Crawford County?
Branden, Dylan, and I are excited to read your response.
Hello, I am Tom Dickerson, glad to join you for this project. Mrs. Dickerson is my wife and Levi, Callie and Mia are my kids if you know any of them? I work for Marathon as a software developer and help coach football at Robinson. This is a great book with very important world history in it. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and discussing them with you.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1:
I agree the main reason Gold provided information to the Russians was for the job and to ultimately protect his family and their income. I also think he was a loyal, accountable man that felt like he owed Mr. Black for getting him the job and didn’t want to disappoint him. In my opinion, the right thing to do would have been to think more about why Mr. Black gave him the job? Was it because he was a caring person or was it strictly to get him to share the information? Did Mr. Gold really consider the full impact of his decision and potential consequences or was he consumed by the desire to take care of his family? Emotions and strong desire are like the nitrous button in a race car, they magnify your power but they also make it easier to crash and burn, they should be used with caution.
Good point about the great depression being such a tough time to live through and the desperation it caused. I can’t imagine how tough it must have been to live through.
Question 2:
I also agree that it is possible there could be spies in Crawford County. Hershey, Marathon and other businesses are definitely very concerned with security for their facilities and their information. With data on devices everywhere and everyone connected to the internet, cyber security has become one of the primary focuses for the government and businesses alike. If other countries or organizations can gain access to your computer systems they can collect a wealth of information instantly if it is not protected well. To gain access to business systems, sometimes they will use methods that require a spy to be physically at the location. Other times they use methods they can operate remotely through the internet.
Branden, Dylan, and I want to thank you for your response. We appreciate the time that you are taking to help us better understand the book and get another perspective. We know Mrs. Dickerson and your kids. We miss her as our guidance counselor, but we are happy she is still in the building as a teacher. We are sure you have seen systems being hacked in your line of work.
DeleteWe agree, Gold should have thought about why Tom Black gave him the job. We feel that if Gold would have thought this out, he wouldn’t have shared the information. This reminds us of when adults tell us that choices have consequences and we need to think things through before deciding.
We are glad that our local industries have safety measures in place to help protect against spies.
We look forward to blog question two.
Blog #2 Group #23
ReplyDeleteThe word ‘haunt’ as it is used in the sentence, “It was a decision that would haunt him for the rest of his life.” means it was a poor decision that Oppenheimer made that he will never forget. Sheinkin used this statement at the end of the chapter because he most likely wanted his readers to know that his decision would negatively affect Oppenheimer’s career and life. Steve Sheinkin, the author of the book, Bomb: The Race to Build- and Steal- the World’s Most Dangerous Weapon 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 because there would be major consequences if General Groves knew that Oppenheimer did not tell him about the Soviet spy trying to get information about the atomic bomb. We can infer that since Oppenheimer did not tell, someone finds out. Because of this, it makes Oppenheimer look like he is untrustworthy. In our opinion, Oppenheimer should have told because Groves may have still supported him. Based on his support in the past, it would make sense that if Oppenheimer was open about the approach, Groves would still have supported him. Yes, Groves may have taken him off the bomb project, but at least Oppenheimer would not look guilty. What do you think? Should Oppenheimer have told?
We look forward to your reply.
I agree the word haunt could mean that it was a poor decision that Oppenheimer wouldn’t forget. I think the author was foreshadowing a negative event to come with the statement and Sheinkin did this to try to get the readers to think about and imagine their own possible conclusions before finishing the story. Thinking of their own ideas could make the book more interesting as they compare and contrast them to the book and Sheinkens thoughts as the plot unfolds.
ReplyDeleteYou make an interesting point about him being found to be untrustworthy and whether or not Groves would continue to support him. I’m sure those were concerns for him. I wonder if he could also be haunted by the fact that he betrayed people he cared about or his country or very scared of any terror, death or destruction that may have eventually been brought about by his decision not to tell?
I understand why he didn’t tell, but I think it was the wrong decision given the potential consequences it could have caused.
Dylan, Branden, and I want to thank you for the response. We appreciate your time and effort to give our group feedback and another perspective on how we can see the book in a different way. We agree that the author used the literary device of foreshadowing. As we read this part, we discussed possible negative impacts this would have on Oppenheimer. The main impact being taken of the Manhattan Project. We feel like he would have wondered those same things. We look forward to blog 3.
ReplyDeleteDylan, Branden, and I want to thank you for the response. We appreciate your time and effort to give our group feedback and another perspective on how we can see the book in a different way. We agree that the author used the literary device of foreshadowing. As we read this part, we discussed possible negative impacts this would have on Oppenheimer. The main impact being taken of the Manhattan Project. We feel like he would have wondered those same things. We look forward to blog 3.
ReplyDeleteGroup 23 Blog Question #3
ReplyDeleteOn pages 113-115, Dylan, Branden, and I learned that the ferry boat named the Hydro was bombed, and twenty-six civilians vanished never to be seen again. We think that Knut Haukelid made the right choice to bomb the Hydro so America could have the upper hand in the war. In the book, by Steve Sheinkin, Bomb: The Race to Build-and Steal the World's Most Dangerous Weapon, he explicitly stated on page 113, “ German soldiers lashed flat train cars carrying forty barrels of heavy water to the deck of the Hydro” This backs our claim up because America had to destroy this ferry no matter what. If Knut Haukelid did not bomb the Hydro, then this war may have been in favor of the Germans. These twenty-six lives had value, and we understand that, but we also understand that the greater good has to be taken into account. Sacrificing twenty-six is better than risking 26,000 or 126,000, or more.
What are your thoughts?
Knut’s situation reminds me of something I like about math and science, there is ultimately a right or wrong answer. With many matters in the world, especially those involving people, decisions are made and actions taken without ever being able to know 100% if it was right or wrong. In this case I absolutely agree with Knut’s choice based on the information and time he had and it likely saved many more innocent lives than it cost. However, if they hadn’t blown up the ferry and the German’s were still not able to develop the bomb or gain an advantage in the war, then that could have been better yet. There is just no way to know for sure what would have happened, so Knut made the best decision he could in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteAs far as innocent lives being lost during war, I feel it is both unavoidable and terrible at the same time and this should be of great concern to our military leaders when making decisions. When innocent lives are lost, especially our own, I think they should be remembered and serve as reason to do what we can to finish war and prevent them in the future.
Thanks again for letting me talk through this with you. I really enjoy your responses and look forward to the next.
Branden, Dylan, and I want to thank you for your response, time, and support on our blog. We appreciate your viewpoint and opinion on the book.
ReplyDeleteWe agree with you on the math and science reference where there is ultimately a right or wrong answer. We agree again with Knut’s decision with blowing up the ferry. If he had not, Germany would have had the upper hand in the war. When we make decisions to go to war, we first need to think about what effect it will have on the civilians. Does the benefits outweigh the consequences?
We look forward to blog four.
It is important that we understand the different perspective regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction because there were many people affected by them. Steve Sheinkin, author of the book, Bomb: The Race to Build-And Steal-The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, explains the perspectives of the scientists, military, political, and Japanese civilians.
ReplyDeleteTo begin, the scientists were proud and terrified by their creation. Sheinkin states on page 200, “Almost everyone was feeling that same strange 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.” This textual evidence backs up our claim by proving that some felt pride because they successfully built the atomic bomb, but some felt horror because of the result. One can infer that these scientists loved science. It was their passion! Because of their creation, innocent lives were killed. Ultimately, their reaction humanized them. It shows us that these men and women had strong feelings about their creation and the harm that could be done with it.
Also, the military felt a sense of pride when it came to the use of the atomic bomb. Sheinkin states on page 198, “I am proud of you and all of your people.” This textual evidence backs up our claim by that the military was proud of the scientists because of all their hard work which in turn allowed for them to successfully complete their mission. One can infer that the military’s is to protect our country so when they could accomplish this goal with the creation of the atomic bomb, they were thrilled.
Next, the political perspective was one of excitement and pride. Sheinkin states on page 199, “Keep you 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 tons of TNT. It has been an overwhelming success!” The room erupted in cheers.” This textual evidence backs up our claim by showing that Truman felt it a necessity to build and drop the atomic bomb for the future of our country. One can infer that he also felt a huge responsibility in making this impactful decision. Had he chose not to drop the atomic bomb, the United States could have been attacked by other countries.
ReplyDeleteFinally, the Japanese citizens of Hiroshima felt pain and devastation. Sheinkin states on page 204, “About 70,000 people were dead already. Over 100,000 more would die of wounds, burns, and radiation poisoning.” This textual evidence backs up our claim by proving that the aftermath of the dropping of the bomb was felt by innocent civilians for years to come. One can infer that these citizens were victims. Our group can only hope that we do not have to witness in our lifetime what these civilians went through.
Overall, Steve Sheinkin included all perspectives to show us that there were many people involved in the making and use of the atomic bomb. He wanted us to read about all sides of the atomic bomb rather than just one side so we could see all sides. This applies to any decision that we make in our lives. We must look at all sides, plus the benefits and consequences, in order to make an educated decision.
Do you think it's important to have different reactions in a book? If you could be a character in the book, who would you be?
Great questions and thoughts. I can really tell you have put some effort into this and that is very cool. The comment on decisions, looking at all sides , benefits and consequences, in order to make your best choice is an excellent value to live by. This is very smart.
ReplyDeleteWhat character would I like to be? If I were going to pick one it would be Knut Haukelid. He lived a very interesting life as a special operative working with different people to fight for what he believed was right. I admire his bravery and commitment to serving others. He sounds like an awesome person.
Are different reactions important in a book? I do think it is important to have different reactions and perspectives in a book. Rather than lay everything out one way, the different views open your imagination to explore your own thoughts and draw your own conclusions.
The use of weapons of mass destruction is obviously a critical world issue of the utmost importance due to the lives at stake and long term damage the weapons could cause whether a country is trying to protect themselves or take over the world. We can see through the book and your examples that the politicians, military, scientists and Japan had different views of the weapons existence and usage. As voters and future voters in the United States, I believe it is important that we understand the different perspectives involved on world issues in order to make the best decisions when promoting and voting for new leaders for our country. Thinking beyond the timeline of the book to today, are there other points of view to consider on this subject? What about other countries and their tendencies to use weapons of mass destruction? Do you think those should be taken into consideration? I do, specifically countries that have used them, claim willingness to do so or have shown disregard for human life. I think we have to continuously keep a pulse on their thoughts and intentions in regards to weapons of mass destruction to help protect ourselves and the rest of the world. We should consider the neighbors, allies and enemies of these countries as well as the future people of the world that could be affected by the long term effects physically and psychologically. That is a lot to think about and a huge responsibility for the leaders of our country.
Thank you for your response. When we read about Knut, we liked him as well. We also agree that other countries and their tendencies to use mass destruction should be taken into consideration. We should always be vigilant and aware and what other countries are doing. We need to protect our country.
ReplyDeleteBlog 5 Group 23
ReplyDeleteSheinkin’s summary means that if one country drops an atomic bomb, it is going to affect all of us. If one country uses a weapon of mass destruction, then its allies may drop a bomb in retaliation. It will never stop; unfortunately, it could kill us all because there are more and more bombs. On page 235, Sheinkin explicitly stated, “All the while the arms race expanded.” He also stated, “ Other countries decided they needed the bomb as well.” This evidence proves beyond a doubt that more bombs are being built, and they are also getting stronger and stronger. If one rogue country decides to use a weapon of mass destruction, it could kill us all. Plants will die, and the animals will die which leaves the humans to survive without food, and the pollution could affect the water so the water would be unsafe to drink; therefore, that would lead to the entire extinction to the human race. Like Sheinkin said, it is a story with no end in sight.
I agree with your thoughts. Like it or not, if the bomb is used anywhere in the world it would have a major impact on the entire planet and could set off multiple events. The part about the bomb being a story with no end in sight I assume refers to there being no defense other than more bombs and as long as that is the case the story will continue unless as you say they are used for mass destruction around the world to the point we are all in danger. It makes sense to me that is a potential outcome. I wonder though if it would ever be possible to come up with a solution that could rid the world of the capability by destroying the required materials along with existing bombs themselves or even developing a preventive or counter action? If there was a solution I think the world would eventually move on to develop new weapons of mass destruction, but at least we would increase our protection in the meantime.
ReplyDelete