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 #25
ReplyDeletePaul, Weston, and I would like to thank you for taking your time out of your day to help us with our blog; we really appreciate all your help.
Question #1
Mr. Price,
The members of our group had different ideas about the answer to this question. So, we split up the responses.
Weston and Angel: Harry Gold provided sensitive information to the Russians because he wanted to help his family and himself who were all going through tough times during The Great Depression. In the book, Bomb: The Race to Build-and Steal-The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, the author, Steve Sheinkin, 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.” This evidence proves that the Gold family was desperate for money. Gold was also trying to repay a debt. On pages twenty-four and twenty-five, Sheinkin explicitly states,” He was thankful to Black for getting him a job and wanted to repay the debt.” This textual evidence proves that Gold appreciated Black’s help and wanted to give back. Weston and I know that Gold gave back because he accepted Black’s job, and he was also willing to take on the a Communist role. This demonstrates the struggle of The Great Depression, and how Gold was pressured into working for the Soviets. One can guess that Gold was looking for money, and the only way he could help his family was to betray his country.
Paul: Why did Harry Gold share delicate information with the Russians? Harry Gold shared delicate information with the Soviets because he wanted to HELP and have some PRIDE in his work. In the book, Bomb: The Race to Build-and Steal-The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, on page twenty- five, Sheinkin explicitly stated, “ Gold had what he described as ‘an almost puppy like eagerness to please.”’ By describing why Harry Gold gave away top secret information, I can infer that only helped to have some pride in what he does. In the end, it did not end so well because he got caught. So, beware if you steal...you steal your life!
Question #2
Paul, Weston, and I believe that there could, without a doubt, be spies in Crawford County looking for sensitive information to help themselves. Crawford County is a small county, that has big industry with a lot of services. Robinson is a well-known town for its important industries. That is why the industries in Crawford County go to great lengths to ensure their security. People cannot just walk into Hershey or Marathon. There are procedures to ensure the company’s security and everyone’s safety. Why would a company spend money on security if it is not needed? Obviously, if money is spent on it, clearly there may be a problem. We can infer that spies can even be our next door neighbors too, or can even be someone we know very well. Again, that is why security measures are taken. In the end, this shows spies may be among us searching for important information. Crawford County is not your ordinary county!
Paul, Weston, and I look forward to reading your response.
Angel, Weston, and Paul – thank you for your thorough answers to this question. I also appreciate that you split up your response to provide multiple perspectives on your answer. I agree that Mr. Gold was motivated by financial reasons as well as a desire to help out someone that helped him. He was naïve as he didn’t foresee that sharing sensitive information with the Soviets would make him vulnerable to being blackmailed. A word of wisdom I received was that if I didn’t want what I was doing on the front page of the paper I probably shouldn’t be doing it – that was a lesson Mr. Gold learned the hard way.
ReplyDeleteFor the second question, I agree with your assessment. I happen to work at Marathon and can assure you that everyone that has access to the plant has undergone a thorough background check by our security team and the Department of Homeland Security. We do random searches of people and possessions as well to very that materials and information aren’t leaving our site unintentionally. Crawford County also is the home of Flying S Industries which manufactures components for the US Military drone program. I could easily imagine spies being interested in that. To reply to your question about spending money on security if there no threat – there is a security theory called “deterrence” where you work to make your site a hard target for someone to access. If a car thief wanted to steal a car, the one that is unlocked is the easy target. In the same way, companies will spend money to make their site not be the easy target for would-be criminals or spies.
Thank you for responding, Mr.Price. We really appreciate your comments especially the part about Marathon’s security system and your experience. It makes us feel better about the community in which we live. Paul, Weston, and I look forward to your next response on our next blog question.
ReplyDeleteBlog #2 Group #25
ReplyDeleteThe word “haunt” as it is used in the sentence, “It was a decision that would haunt him for the rest for the rest of his life,” means that it will affect how Oppenheimer lives and the decisions he will make. In the book, Bomb:The Race to Build- and Steal-The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon on page sixty-five, Steve Sheinkin explicitly states,” That would be a frightful thing to do,” “That would be treason.” This textual evidence shows that the decisions that Oppenheimer would make would determine the future of the war and his life. One can infer Steve Sheinkin used this in the book because he wanted to inform his readers that the decisions you make now can haunt you for the rest of your life and can affect the road ahead. In the end Robert Oppenheimer felt haunted from his decision of not telling Groves about the incident with Haakon Chevalier. In our opinion, Oppenheimer should have come out and told Groves about the Soviet contact. That way, Oppenheimer would not have had to worry about his position as the director of the bomb project, and his credibility may not be questioned. What do you think?
We look forward to your response.
Angel, Weston, and Paul - I think you're on the right track with your answer. If Oppenheimer had volunteered the information immediately after Mr. Chevalier had approached him, Oppenheimer would have avoided any mistrust and second-guessing concerning his loyalty and Soviet connections. His decision at the time seemed insignificant but as time went on the consequences of his choice to not share that he has been approached incriminated him and cast doubt on his loyalty. People rarely get do-overs in life; this was a choice Oppenheimer wished he would have made differently.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your response. We look forward to blog three.
DeleteBlog #3 Group #25
ReplyDeleteOn pages 113-115, Paul, Weston, and I learned that twenty-six Norwegian civilians were killed when Knut Haukelid and his commandos sank the ferry, Hydro, carrying the German heavy water. Our thoughts on innocent lives lost during war are controversial. We think that innocent lives are valuable, but are twenty-six lives more valuable than a vast amount of lives lost? We are all entitled to our own opinion, but not our own facts. In the book Bomb The Race- to- Build and Steal The World's Most Dangerous Weapon 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.” This textual evidence backs up our claim by proving that British intelligence took into consideration that civilian lives would be lost but knew it was for the greater good. We can guess that this type of decision would be so difficult to make, but when looking at the greater good, sometimes, decisions like this just have to be made. Paul, Weston, and I feel badly for those who lost their lives, but we also feel that they did not die in vain. The twenty-six lives had true value. In the end, we believe that all humans are equal in value, but sometimes missions like sinking the ferry to stop Hitler from taking more lives has to be completed in order to succeed.
How do you feel about the lives lost on the ferry?
Civilian casualties in wartime are always controversial. To someone, those killed were loved ones - not just collateral damage. I believe you are correct that the British intelligence was strongly motivated by the strategic value of destroying the heavy water and that the ends justified the means, in their opinion. We learn later in the book that Heisenberg and his team were significantly behind the American team in developing the bomb. Would this knowledge have changed the decision to sink the ship? Making life-and-death decisions is very serious and requires the best available information to avoid any second-guessing (i.e. Iraqi WMD's). I would encourage you to independently research the firebombing of Dresden that occurred in WWII. Ascertaining the greater good can be difficult. What may seem like a good thing in the moment may not be good when given perspective or more complete information. In general, I agree with you assessment concerning the ferry - at the time destroying the heavy water was of utmost importance and the loss of 26 innocent lives was a small trade for the tens or hundreds of thousands of lives that may have been lost if Germany had developed the bomb. However, that type of decision cannot be made lightly and there needs to be accountability for those making a decision like that.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your response, Mr. Price.
DeleteWeston, Paul, and I believe that the knowledge of innocent civilians being lost on the ship would not have changed their decision to sink the ferry. On page 163 it says, “It was the elimination of German heavy-water production in Norway that was the main factor in our failure to achieve a self-sustaining atomic reactor before the war ended.”
Thank you for the reference to the Bombing of Dresden. We researched it on history.com.
We agree that this type of decision cannot be made lightly which reminded us of our class discussion on voting. We talked about how in just a few short years, we will have the right to vote. It is important, when this time comes, to look at all perspectives of the potential candidates on the different views, particularly where they stand on weapons of mass destruction.
We look forward to the next blog!
Thank you for your response, Mr. Price.
ReplyDeleteWeston, Paul, and I believe that the knowledge of innocent civilians being lost on the ship would not have changed their decision to sink the ferry. On page 163 it says, “It was the elimination of German heavy-water production in Norway that was the main factor in our failure to achieve a self-sustaining atomic reactor before the war ended.”
Thank you for your response, Mr. Price.
ReplyDeleteWeston, Paul, and I believe that the knowledge of innocent civilians being lost on the ship would not have changed their decision to sink the ferry. On page 163 it says, “It was the elimination of German heavy-water production in Norway that was the main factor in our failure to achieve a self-sustaining atomic reactor before the war ended.”
Thank you for the reference to the Bombing of Dresden. We researched it on history.com.
We agree that this type of decision cannot be made lightly which reminded us of our class discussion on voting. We talked about how in just a few short years, we will have the right to vote. It is important, when this time comes, to look at all perspectives of the potential candidates on the different views, particularly where they stand on weapons of mass destruction.
We look forward to the next blog!
Blog #4 Group #25
ReplyDeleteIt is important that we understand the different perspectives regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction because we need to understand how others feel so we can figure out how we feel about it. One day, we will be voters so we need to understand all sides to this issue. In the book, Bomb: The Race To Build- And Steal- The World's Most Dangerous Weapon, Steve Sheinkin explains the following four perspectives: scientific, military, political, and those of the Japanese civilians.
To begin, the scientific perspective over the use of the bomb is mixed because the scientists loved the discovery of the atom splitting, but hated it for the use of weapons that killed innocent people. Sheinkin explicitly stated on page 184 ,” It was the chill of knowing they had used something they loved- the study of physics- to build the deadliest weapon in human history.” This textual evidence backs up our claim by proving how the scientists used physics, something they loved, to destroy cities and kill millions. One can infer that many scientists felt distraught, haunted, and felt emotional for the people who would feel the absolute terror and destruction of the atomic bomb. One can also guess that the scientists would have not of built the bomb if they knew the power and devastation of it. It is important to understand this perspective because these scientists taught us that something so amazing can be used for something so tragic.
Also, the military perspective is important to analyze. Many felt that the use of weapons of mass destruction must be used in order for the safety and well-being for the citizens of the United States. On page 214, Sheinkin states, “..if things moved according to schedule, he reported, the U.S. Army would have twenty plutonium bombs by the end of 1945.” This textual evidence shows that these military officials were prepared for what was to come. One can infer that General Groves and the U.S. military were not hesitant of what destruction these powerful weapons could do or who they could harm. It is important to understand this perspective because the military will do whatever they can to protect. Again, as future voters, we need to recognize this.
Not only did the military believe in using weapons of mass destruction, but the politicians shared this perspective as well. Sheinkin explicitly states on page 232,”Truman figured- to let the Soviets become more powerful than the United States. And as always, there was a political angle. If the Soviets get the hydrogen bomb first, American voters might blame the president who’d let it happen.” This textual evidence backs up our claim by proving that Truman felt it necessary to use the atomic bomb for the protection of the United States citizens, but also for the safety of his presidency. One can infer that Truman was afraid that he would be blamed if another country attacked the United States, especially if the public knew that we were the first to have an atomic bomb. All and all, President Truman faced many moments where he had to choose between what is morally right to him and what the voters expect.
ReplyDeleteFinally, the Japanese citizens of Hiroshima felt shock and horror when the atomic bomb was dropped. Sheinkin states on page 195, “Just as my brother reached out to catch the dragonfly, there was a flash. I felt I’d suddenly been blown into a furnace . . .When I opened my eyes after being flung eight yards, it was still dark as if I were facing a wall painted black.” Furthermore this evidence shows the devastation the bomb caused to the city, and also the shock it brought upon its citizens. One can infer that the sight of the atomic bomb would forever be etched in their minds. All things concerned, the Japanese civilians were victims and suffered because of decisions made by their government.
To sum up, Sheinkin included multiple perspectives regarding the use of the atomic bomb so the reader would not have a bias opinion. Sheinkin wanted us to see all aspects of the dropping of the atomic bomb in order for us to make a judgement.
Angel, Weston, and Paul - your response to this discussion topic was robust, thank you. Weapons of Mass Destruction are indiscriminate in which particular people they affect. The political and military leaders that provoked the response from the US were not the ones directly impacted by the use of the atomic bomb. The scientists that labored to produce the technology and manufacturing techniques to make the bomb were not directly impacted by the use of the bomb; however, the military leaders, the political leaders, and the scientists were all transformed when the bomb was actually used. The MASS DESTRUCTION of the bomb was not only the Japanese civilians or the other innocents that died along the way, but the innocence of a pre-atomic world. Having diverse perspectives is necessary to weigh the impact and consequences of deploying something like the atomic bomb in comparison to holding back and dealing with the alternatives.
ReplyDeleteWe frequently want situations to be clear one way or another and they are seldom that straightforward. Healthcare, border walls, Brexit, minimum wage etc are all topics that would benefit from healthy and mature discussion from all sides understanding the different perspectives on these topics rather than just waiting for their turn to talk or just shouting over others to make their voice heard. Dialogue and debate help clarify and refine points of view and lead to better outcomes than a single perspective.
I agree that the author did well to bring each perspective into focus to help the reader gain a fuller understanding how the bomb shaped the world we live in today.
Thank you for your response, Mr. Price. We agree that civil and adult discussions should be made with the issues you listed.
ReplyDeleteWe look forward to blog five.
It's been great to interact with you. I don't see blog 5. Have a good rest of the year.
DeleteBlog #5 Group #25
ReplyDeleteThe summary by Steve Sheinkin means that we have to live in a period of time where humans have the capability to wipe our existence off this planet. In the book, Bomb: The Race to Build-and Steal- The World's Most Dangerous Weapon, Sheinkin explicitly stated on page 236, “It’s a story with no end in sight. And, like it or not, your in it.” This textual evidence backs up our claim by showing how weapons of mass destruction will always be around, and we will have to think or else the unimaginable may occur. One can infer that if people go rogue and do not think about their actions before they act, mankind may be erased off this planet and take everything else with it. In the end, we could all die because of just one person's ignorance.
Thank you for blogging with us. We look forward to your response.