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?
Thank you, Coach Pinnell, for agreeing to blog with us. We appreciate you for taking time out of your day to write and also to argue with us... a lot.
ReplyDeleteQuestion #1
Harry Gold provided sensitive information to the Russians because Black got him a job when he and his family were desperate due to the economy; therefore, Gold felt indebted to Black. In the book, Bomb: The Race to Build -and Steal- The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, Steve Sheinkin explicitly stated in the chapter, Tradecraft, 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.” And, on page twenty-four, Sheinkin stated, “Some spies do it for the money; others are trying to change the world. Gold’s reason were a lot less dramatic. He was thankful to Black for getting him a job and wanted to repay the debt.” We can infer Gold wanted to help his family in desperate times. Everyone knows what drastic things he/she could do if he/she is in need of something. Many may forget to think and to just act impulsively...just like Gold did. He was desperate for money, so he took the job and tried to help a friend. But, our group feels that Gold was wrong, and he should have thought it through and found another way. We do understand that the economy was in ruins, but was there no other way? In our opinion, not under any condition should someone put himself/herself into situations he/she does not want to be in. These situations could turn into something even bigger and more terrifying than ever imaginable...even finding oneself as a traitor to his/her country. What do you think? Do you think Gold thought through his choice?
Question #2
There could very well be the possibility of spies in Crawford County collecting sensitive information for another country's benefit due to our minuscule area that no one ever thinks about twice, but we have major industry that may make these industries a target. Therefore, it is probable that spies could be lurking in our area. Sheinkin even implied this in Tradecraft. On page twenty-three in the novel, Bomb: The Race to Build -And steal- The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, he explicitly stated, “The best spies are truly the most unexpected and the ones that blend in without effort.” This backs up our claim by showing that really anyone could be a spy. We can hypothesize with companies like Hershey, Victoria Dana, EH Baare, Flying S and a refinery such as Marathon, there could very well be people collecting information for their own well-being or another country’s. Marathon is an energy source; Hershey makes specialized candy or chocolates; Flying S makes drones, builds some machinery for N.A.S.A, and provides drones for the U.S. government, and is hidden in Palestine, Illinois! Palestine? Can you imagine? Flying S also sells cows and beef which one can infer is a cover-up for what really goes on there! Victoria Dana is an international company that makes gaskets which is a mechanical seal that fills space between two or more surfaces in an engine or another device. EH Baare is an ethanol plant in Palestine which is used as an energy source too. Crawford County is also where two vital highways meet (Route 1 and Route 33); we also have our own rail system and pipelines that have gas or petroleum that can be used as energy as well. So, one can easily guess that there are spies in Crawford County. In the final analysis, because this is a small area, no one would think of it is the perfect place to get essential information or data on just about anything formidable, well of course, other than flavorful sweets. So, never judge a book by its cover because you never know the truth about anyone by taking a quick glance at him/her. What do you think? Spies in Crawford County? Could they be lurking in our small community?
Delilah, Clarence, Patrick, Logan, and I are excited to read what you think!
To begin I'd like to say thanks for allowing me to be a part of this! It's an honor to be able to toss ideas and dialogue back and forth with you about this book. After reading your initial post, I can see I've got a smart group I get to debate (or agree) with. Having a history with the military and being a veteran I can somewhat relate to some of this stuff. I have no experience with weapons of mass destruction or atomic bombs specifically, but I definitely have experience with the importance of operational secrecy and the important role it plays in keeping our country safe. I'm looking forward to where we get to go with this project! So again, thanks for allowing me to be a part of your group!
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1:
I totally agree with you guys. Harry Gold made a decision during a tough time in his life financially (great depression, no work, etc,) to help a "friend" that went out of his way to help him get on his feet. It also states on Page 24 "Gold had what he described as an almost puppy-like eagerness to please" (Sheinkin, 2012). I firmly believe that we as humans have a natural urge to make others happy. When we please others, it gives us a special feeling inside that we typically enjoy as people. Repaying Black for his help, being able to fuel Gold's urge to satisfy, and to keep his job and be financially sound all seemed to be his initial urge to spy for the Soviets. I would argue that it was not his reason why he continued to spy for the Soviets though. It says in the book on page 25 and 26 that Harry became aware that the Soviet Union was a police state and ruled by a terrible dictator (Joseph Stalin). He was disturbed especially when Stalin notoriously made a deal with Hitler not to fight each other. It says in the book that Harry Gold couldn't understand how "Stalin would make a deal with the devil" (Sheinkin, 2012). It even said that he wanted to leave his secret life behind and stop spying. When Gold approached his communist contact Fred on page 26, Fred told Gold "his boss would get an anonymous note all about Gold's illegal activities. You'll be finished!" (Sheinken, 2012). I would argue that no matter what Harry's initial reasons for spying were, fear is what made him continue. Even though you thought Gold was wrong and the economy was bad, should he have thought it through and was their another way? think as humans, and again with a natural urge to please others, it is easy to fall into traps. We see people fall into bad decisions all the time based on their situations. Examples of this would be people maybe trying to rob a bank, people deciding to do drugs, or even something as simple as hanging out with a person you may know is a bad influence. When we as humans get into tough situations, it is easy for us to choose a route that maybe isn't so great. Is it right? No. I agree with you guys that you should, under no circumstances, go against what you believe in is truly right. Although we may make a bad decision in life initially (and we ALL have) it is important when we realize we screwed up that stop that behavior immediately, learn from it, and try to make it right no matter what the consequences. Continued negative behaviors will only lead to worse outcomes like you guys mentioned. I do think Gold thought through his choice initially and made what he thought was a good decision. Only after he started did he realize the decision wasn't a good one and didn't think through the repercussions of continuing.
Question 2:
ReplyDeleteOf course there are spies in Crawford County!! I love how you guys listed a lot of industry here that would attract wandering eyes and ears. I definitely think that some country, somewhere, would have an interest in at least one thing from each of those factories. This question made me do some research of my own on the internet. I put a link to two different articles below that I found interesting while researching this on the internet. Feel free to check them out. The first one states that there are an estimated 100,000 agents from 60-80 different countries in America spying for their native country! The second article briefly discusses that if the U.S. government knows they exist, why do they allow it? It discusses that spying is such a common practice among countries today that it is almost an accepted practice anymore. I think with technology today no one is safe anywhere. Even if there may not be a physical spy presence in Crawford County, you can bet there is someone constantly scanning social media, local medias, company computers, employee emails, and whatever electronic databases available for information pertinent to them. This was one thing in the military that was made very clear to us as soldiers when we were overseas. We were not to discuss anything with anyone that was not mission essential over any kind of communication (phone, letters, email, etc.). You folks hit the nail on the head when you said you never know who it could be. Do you think it is ok to allow other countries to have spies in our country so we are allowed to be in theirs? Or should we not allow any spies in at all and take our chances?
https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/20/us/declassified-spycraft-espionage-gear-techniques/index.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-diplomats-expelled-spies-2018-3
GREAT post guys and gals! Looking forward to hearing back.
Coach Pinnell
Response Blog #1
ReplyDeleteTo begin, Patrick, Logan, Delilah, Clarence, and I would all like to say thank you again for taking the time out of your busy day to write and to respond to our blogs. Our group truly appreciates it.
Your first question, “Even though you thought Gold was wrong and the economy was bad, should he have thought it through and was there another way?” We truly think there was another way. Yes, most humans do have the urge to please others, but why would you go out of your way to please someone when your first gut feeling was to go against it and not do it? So, we do not see why Gold eventually gave in to Black after saying that he did not want to help the Communists several times. Obviously, Gold thought there was another way as well when he thought about taking his old job back and get away from Black.
Your next question, “Do you think it is okay to allow other countries to have spies in our country so we are allowed to be in their country? Or, should we not allow any spies in at all and take our chances?” Honestly, this question is throwing us; we cannot agree so we need your help. Our groups know that technically spies are not supposed to be in this country, but we know that they are and vice versa. Some of us feel that spies should not be in our country, and we should not be in their county. All it does is give spies information to steal. But, some of us feel differently and believe that if we have spies in their country then they should have them in ours. It would give each side a fair battleground if war was to break out. So, as you can see we are struggling? What do you think?
It is definitely a tough one for me too. I think spies should be monitored 24/7 if they are here in our country. It is hard to trust anyone without your own interest at heart. If allowing these people to be here means we can protect our interests overseas to keep our enemies off our shores I'm all for it!
DeleteGroup #24 Blog #2
ReplyDeleteThe word ‘haunt’ as used in the sentence, “It was a decision that would haunt him for the rest of his life.” means that it will come back to mess with him in the future. Sheikin is telling his audience that something incriminating was about to happen, so he was using foreshadowing at this point in the chapter to prove this. In the book, Bomb: The Race to Build -And Steal- The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon on page sixty-five, Steve Sheinkin explicitly stated, “Oppenheimer was visibly disturbed by the suggestion. ‘That would be a frightful thing to do,’ he said. ‘That would be treason.” This evidence backs up our claim by proving that Oppenheimer knew that giving information to the Communists was treasonous. But, why did he not tell Groves? Our guess is that Oppenheimer did not tell because he did not want to lose Groves’ trust and be taken off the bomb project. Oppenheimer lived for physics so being taken away from his life work would have most likely been devastating. He probably did not want to get thrown in prison either. In our opinion, Oppenheimer should have told Groves immediately. Most of us feel that telling would have made Oppenheimer look trustworthy, but Leighanna disagrees. She believes that either way, it would make Oppenheimer look guilty because he was in contact with the Soviets. What do you think? Should Oppenheimer have told or not told?
We look forward to your reply.
As the author stated on pages 49 and 50, Oppenheimer was already assumed to be untrustworthy by the FBI since he had previous associations with Communist sympathizers. From the get go, General Groves was the only one that seemed to be one that whole-heartedly put his faith in him. By not telling General Groves the truth, I believe that the author is referring to the fact that he was withholding information from the only person that every truly trusted him. Like you folks mentioned, this will weigh on him in the future. I think this also played into his decisions to not tell General Groves the truth. With a past that already had ties to Communism, telling General Groves this could have sealed the deal and ended his work in the Manhattan Project. I think at the time it seemed to be the only thing that was on his mind. He wanted a shot at being the physicist that invented the weapon. Although telling General Groves was probably the correct thing to do, I agree with Leighanna here. I don't think Oppenheimer gains anything from telling General Groves. He did nothing wrong. Although it will most likely cause some sort of trust issue down the road if it surfaces, he probably makes things worse for himself and General Groves as well if he tells him. General Groves put his own reputation on the line hiring Oppenheimer and Oppenheimer put his career on the line accepting the job. They needed each other. I think keeping his conversation with Eltenton secret was a good decision.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the response. I(Leighanna) was excited to know that you agreed with me. We look forward to blog 3.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteGroup #24 Blog #3
Coach Pinnell,
Our group disagreed on how to answer this question so we decided to separate our responses so you could truly understand how each of us feels about the loss of civilian lives during wartime.
Logan and Leighanna:
Logan 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 the loss of innocent lives during war or conflicts with other countries is only acceptable when absolutely necessary and is a life or death instance. In the book, Bomb: The Race to Build -And Steal- the World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, on page 110, Steve Sheinkin explicitly stated, “Haukelid relayed the details to British intelligence in London, saying that the job would be tricky and might result in the loss of civilian lives. “Case considered,” came the immediate reply from London. Very urgent that heavy water be destroyed. Hope this can be done without too serious consequences. Send our best wishes for good luck in the work.” He also explicitly stated on page fifty-three, ”Except for one thing: It was a key ingredient in the German atomic bomb program.” This textual evidence supports our claim by showing that this mission was absolutely necessary so the Germans would not build the bomb first. One can hypothesize that if Hitler built the bomb first, it could have ended in massive destruction and Hitler could have taken over the world! In our final analysis, those twenty-six lives were lost to save potential hundreds or thousands of other people. So therefore, their lives were lost for the greater good and an absolute necessity. This was truly a life or death experience however it would have turned out. War always results in bloodshed.
Patrick:
Patrick believes that the loss of any innocent lives during a war is unexceptable. The thought of innocent people being punished with death for someone else’s actions, by no means is okay. In the book, Bomb: The Race to Build -And Steal- the World’s Most Dangerous Weapon Sheinkin explicitly stated on page 110, “Haukelid relayed the details to British intelligence in London, saying that the job would be tricky and might result in the loss of civilian lives. “Case considered,” came the immediate reply from London. Very urgent that the heavy water be destroyed. Hope this can be done without too serious consequences.” Meaning in the event of destroying, the death of innocent people to the military is not a serious consequence. I feel that in any circumstance with conflict between two countries by no means should it result in death of innocent people. I can infer it does not faze military generals, but as a child from a military family, it is wrong to kill innocent civilians while attacking an enemy. Patrick can conclude that innocent lives do not matter to the military. What do you think about Patrick’s feelings regarding the loss of civilians during wartime?
Clarence and Delilah:
Clarence and Delilah feel that it is unfair that civilians were killed in warfare, and that they never were in the war; they were just sitting ducks. In Bomb: The Race to Build-and Steal- the World’s Most Dangerous Weapon by Steve Sheinkin, he explicitly stated on page 110, “‘Case considered’” came the immediate reply from London. Very urgent that heavy water be destroyed. Hope this can be done without too serious consequences”. This evidence backs up our claim by proving that these twenty-six people were sitting ducks even though their lives were considered by British intelligence. In our opinion, if our family was in a situation that may result in their deaths during wartime, we would hope that the military and intelligence would come up with another plan. How come another plan was not even thought of? As smart and savvy as Knut was, why in the world could he not come up with another plan? Those people’s lives had value. What do you think about the value of human life?
We look forward to your response and on who you agree with on this one.
Wow, a lot to process here. I think it's great you guys can have a civilized debate about all of this and form your own opinions based on what you feel is right. Good stuff!!
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you folks understand that this is a very touchy subject in any discussion. Also understand that my opinions to you questions are just that, my opinions. Not sure if I'm right or wrong, but they are just my own thoughts. I am happy to give them to you best I can and hopefully the help.
To begin, I have fought in a war and have some unfortunate experience with this exact topic. My year in Iraq in 2004 gives an upclose look into hwo civilians are affected by conflict. To begin answering your questions based on my own experiences I would like to first say that I think every one of you are exactly correct. Even though you all have some different thoughts on the affect war has on civilians, your thoughts are all correct. Let me explain...
Logan and Leighanna: There is absolutely no question that war puts EVERYONE in harms way. There is no "clean and easy" way to do it. Unfortuneatly when you have to make a decision if the lives of a few innocent civilians have to die in order to save the lives of hundreds or thousands, you chose the later every time.
Patrick: Lives of innocent civilians during conflict IS unacceptable. It is an absolute travesty that people that get involved in what is usually some sort of "political" struggle for power have to die. I would argue that innocent people dying during war is completely unpreventable, but it is definitely not ok. I don't necessarily think that military personnel disregard human life. Coming from a year overseas, I know that as far as United States military goes we were always concerned with human life. We have what were called rules of engagement which limited how we could have deadly contact with anyone not in the US military. I do believe that civilian life is always taken into consideration, but military officials certainly put the mission first.
Clarence and Delilah: All human life has value and any time any human has to die it is a travesty. This is especially true for those that are innocent in the conflict. There seems like there is always another way to accomplish a goal or mission. Hard to tell if another option was considered here or if they just grabbed what they thought was an "open window" to take care of the heavy water. Either way, I think there could have possibly been more thought into the mission. Your statement of loss of life being unfair is SPOT on.
ReplyDeleteNow for my answer to the question and my own thoughts: The saying "war is hell" could not be more true. Unfortunately, there is no way to prevent the loss of innocent life in today's battlefield. This is especially true as technology in warfare increases. When our military officials have to decide if shooting a rocket from a warship in the Persian Gulf to eliminate a target hundreds of miles away is worth civilian life to keep that target for killing more of our own people, they will pull the trigger every time. We have the benefit of having this discussion in the United States of America where we can type on our computer with a sense of security that we are pretty safe from foreign invaders. Unfortuneatly, wars have to be fought somewhere. I would much rather fight these wars somewhere else if they must be fought. There is no 100% effective way to prevent the loss of innocent civilians when these wars happen. One problem we ran into when we were overseas in Iraq is that their "army" didn't wear uniforms. They dressed exactly like civilians, lived in civilian neighborhoods, and it was impossible to separate one from the other. Our rules of engagement gave us a list of guidelines we had to follow before we could make contact with any of these people and I truly believed this helped minimize civilian casualties. BUT, it was unpreventable at times. Again this is just my opinion, but our service members, our military leaders, and our military intelligence folks have to do whatever they need to do to keep these people off our shores. As far as our story goes, Knut saw a window and acted. His actions killed 26 innocent civilians, but may have saved thousands of lives in the long run. Unfortuneatly, this is war. It's the only way to fight it.
As always, thanks for allowing me to reply. Keep up the good work group!
Thank you again for keeping up with our blog. I can truthfully tell you that each and everyone of us put lots of effort into this response. We all chuckled when you said this was a civilized debate; unfortunately, we were all truly about to rip off each others’ heads.
ReplyDeletePat, Delilah, Clarence, Logan, and I have thought about your response, and we all entirely agree that if wars must be fought, they should be fought elsewhere. We also all understand that there is not a 100% effective way to prevent loss of innocent lives in war. That must have been really been nerve racking that you could not tell the difference between the enemy or civilians. We can infer that you did not want to kill or injure any civilians in the process. Logan and I agree that those twenty-six innocent civilians killed might have saved thousands. Patrick also understands modernized war better now. He now agrees that there is no way to completely eliminate any civilian loss. Clarence and Delilah: They still think that there are ways around not killing or injuring civilians. Logan, Patrick, and I all agree this is war and there is no way around it.
We can all agree that we are appreciative and thankful for your sacrifice and service to our country! We also feel like we have the best community member volunteer and hope that you can make it to “The Great Debate”. We hope that it will be a civilized and spirited debate!!
Group #24 Blog #4
ReplyDeleteIt is important that students like us understand the different perspectives regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction because when we understand all sides of this issue, it will help us decide how we feel about using these weapons. In the book, Bomb: The Race to Build -and Steal- the World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, Steve Sheinkin explains the following four perspectives: political, scientific, military, and those of the Japanese civilians. These perspectives help us understand where we stand on this topic.
To begin, politicians believed that the bombs were necessary, and we needed to make more of them. Sheinkin explicitly stated on page 214, “Tell Dr. Oppenheimer for the time being his proposal about an international agreement is not practical, and that he and the rest the gang should pursue their work full face.’ In other words, he wanted Oppenheimer to get back to the lab and build more bombs.” Also on page 216, Steve Sheinkin explicitly states, “Truman wanted to discuss how scientists and the military could continue working together to make more bombs.” We can guess that the politicians felt that the more bombs we had, the more powerful we were. Having this power kept the United States on top. It is important for us to understand this, because we vote for politicians so it is important to understand their views on weapons of mass destruction.
Not only did the politicians want more bombs, but the military also wanted more bombs. Sheinkin stated on page 214, “That’s what Leslie Groves expected, too- if things moved accordingly to schedule, he reported, the U.S. army would have twenty plutonium bombs by the end of 1945.” This textual evidence proves our claim by explaining Groves and other military personnel wanted as many bombs as they could physically make in the smallest amount of time. Military leaders, like the politicians, believed in these weapons because it guaranteed our possible success in wartime. Again, this is important for us to understand how the military feels since they are our leaders as well.
On the other hand, some scientists wanted to stop making bombs. Sheinkin explicitly states on page 214, “Physicists could certainly design more powerful atomic bombs, he argued. But would that necessarily make the country safer? No, because other countries could also build bombs and there would be no way to ensure that those bombs weren’t used on Americans. ‘The safety of this nation,’ he insisted, ‘cannot lie wholly or even primarily in its scientific or technical prowess. It can only be based only on making future wars impossible.’ The only hope he believed was for the United States to stop building bombs and to somehow convince the Soviet Union not to start… ‘It was obvious,’ Teller said later, ‘That Oppenheimer did not want to support further weapons work in anyway.’ That was a common feeling among the bomb makers.” Also stated on page 215, “It is our hope that in years to come we may look at this scroll, and all that it signifies with pride,’ Oppenheimer told the crowd. ‘Today that pride must be tempered with a profound concern,’ he continued ‘If atomic bombs are to be added as new weapons to the arsenals of a warring world, or to the arsenals of nations preparing for war, then the time will come when mankind will curse the name of Los Alamos and Hiroshima, ‘The peoples of this world most unite or the will perish.’” These pieces of textual evidence support our claim by explaining that most scientists could cause the end of the world, but they just wanted peace. Oppenheimer believed that creating more bombs would end in war and loss of all mankind.
ReplyDeleteLastly and most devastatingly, the perspective of the Japanese civilians must be examined. They were in absolute devastation and grief because of the bombs. So, their point of view was entirely different from any other perspective. Steve Sheinkin explicitly states on page 195, “Nearly every person within nearly 1,000 yards were killed. Many were vaporized… 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 said… one thing was common to everything I saw- complete silence.’” Also, on page 204, “...of the 76,000 buildings that stood two days before, 70,000 were completely destroyed. About 70,000 people were dead already. Over 100,000 more would die of wounds, burns, and radiation poisoning.” These few pieces of evidence on the effects of Hiroshima after the bomb backup our claim by explaining and by describing the devastation of this tragic event in time as well as describing the ultimate grief this atomic bomb brought upon them. It is imperative to understand this perspective because it shows the actual effect of the weapons of mass destruction, and it shows us exactly what can happen...even to us.
Any human being who has learned or has researched this topic can easily infer that readers will understand any of the four perspectives because each and everyone of these points of views explains a different group on a broad spectrum describing their beliefs and understandings of these atomic weapons. The readers will understand the point in time much better with several perspectives because the history will be equitable, and they will know every aspect adequately and have a great understanding of each position.
First of all, thanks for the nice compliment! It was an honor to be in all of your group! I thoroughly enjoyed this process and reading your responses. Good luck with the debate. I know from the responses and thought you all have put in to this process you all will do just fine!
ReplyDeleteAs to response 4, I say you guys nailed it on the head with all four perspectives. When it comes to politics, it seems that in our country that is the driving factor for a lot of things. It's mind blowing to think that a governing body with little to no war experience would want to push for weapons of mass destruction not to help have a military advantage, but to push their own agenda. Just having the weapons would have given politicians "bullying" power to get what they wanted. The military perspective was definitely the easiest to understand. Have the most advanced weapons, win the war. As a military leader it is easy to see the urge to develop bigger and more powerful weapons as fast as possible. I think the excitement of being a part of a great new discovery intrigued scientists to be involved with WMDs. Only after the initial detonation did they all realize what they had really done. Like you folks mentioned, although they created it for the specific purpose of stopping the war they wanted to see it cease or destroyed after. Hard to imagine that eirie feeling of knowing you created something with that kind of negative energy around it. Finally, the perspective of the Japanese people I don't think I could ever understand. Although the author did a good job describing the details like you mentioned, no words in a book could possibly explain the horror of that day for those people. My guess is that day carried on for months after the event as well. It is hard for me to fathom the depths of anguish over the course of the following months or years that they had to rebuild every part of their lives.
My hope is that every human being on earth learns from that day the bombs were dropped. I hope that history never repeats itself. My hope is that every nation on earth that has their hands on these weapons understand the magnitude and responsibility they have under their fingers. My hope is that some day these weapons won't exist and that that day is soon. I have three kids and I couldn't imagine a world that exists where they have to live in fear of people who can end civilizations with the push of a button. I don't know if that will ever happen though. After all, how do you enforce world peace?
Thank you again for this great opportunity! Go win that debate!!
Thank you for your response. Your points are valid and gave us something additional to consider about the topic. When we read your point on the Japanese civilians, it made us think about the pilots and what they saw when they dropped the bomb.
ReplyDeleteWe look forward to blog five.
Group #24 Blog 5
ReplyDeleteSteve Sheinkin wants us to understand that the events starting in 1934 still affect us greatly to this day. We know this because Steve Sheinkin states in the book, Bomb: The Race to Build -and Steal- the World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, on page 236, “But it’s also the story of how humans created a weapon that is capable of wiping out all of our species. It is a story with no end in sight. And, like it or not, your in it.” This textual evidence backs up our claim by showing that this creation happened in the 1930’s to the 1940’s, and since then, we have built even more powerful weapons of mass destruction. So putting that into consideration, it means to us that whether or not we want to be in the race, we will always be involved as long as there are weapons of mass destruction. We, as future voters, need to be aware of what is happening in today’s world. The future of the United States will be in our hands. If we have a better understanding, then maybe we can help the world prosper into peace. While one person may not make the world go around, one person can easily add up to hundreds, then thousands, and then eventually reaching the population of the world. So, one person might not make a difference to notice a change, but other people may also make small changes which may eventually add up. As Matt Bevin, the Governor of Kentucky said, “While it may seem small, the ripple effect of small things is extraordinary.” This means to us that even though something seems small, it could lead to something huge...like world peace. To end, Sheinkin truly wants us to understand that the safety and well-being of the whole world is truly in the palm of our hands.
"We will always be involved as long as there are weapons of mass destruction"...
ReplyDeleteI think this sentence from your answer says it all. The fact is that although we may not have a direct influence on how these weapons are used, unfortunately populations of people are used as bargining chips for politcal figures to force agendas. If you look at the tensions between the United States and other countries in the news today it deals with nuclear weapons and other countries advancements in developing arsenals that are a danger to us. Iran, North Korea, and Russia are the three most recent on this list. The truth is that you and I are important in these argument processes simply because our lives are numbers in the grand scheme of things. These negotiations are typically centered around the fear of loss of life in our countries and the inability to defend ourselves against foreign invaders. I feel like sometimes we are just a bargaining chip for keeping the world under control. I think fear alone of what might happen is what keeps things at bay, even it is just barely. In the end, you guys are right. You ARE the future and your generation has the ability to make the world a better place. Don't ever lose sight of how important you guys are and how every human life has value.
I will leave you guys with something that interests me. I'm not sure if you folks have discussed the Doomsday Clock in your class or not, but I have included a link to it on the bottom of the blog. It basically is a group of scientist that alerts the world how close we are to the end of the world as we know it. When the clock strikes midnight, that is basically the end. We have been at two minutes until midnight for over a year. The two minutes to midnight is closer than it ever has been in the history of the clock. We are at a volatile point in history wear nuclear arsenals have become so plentiful in countries that it's not a matter of IF someone will use these weapons, but seemingly WHEN. I think that when Sheinkin says "and like it or not, your in it", I would say that this current moment in history is what he is referring to.
Again, it's been a pleasure to blog with you guys. I may have learned more through this journey than you have. Good luck with the rest of the school year and GO MAROONS!
https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/past-announcements/
ReplyDeleteAgain, we all want to say thank you for blogging with us. We are all sad that this the last blog. We actually have never heard about the Doomsday Clock. We will be sure to check it out and learn more from it. We will officially be a Maroon in thirty five school days, not that we are counting down or anything. Go Maroons!