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 4
ReplyDeleteOur group is thankful for you, Mrs. Wellum, for taking your time to talk to us about the book.
Question #1
Harry Gold provided sensitive information to the Russians because it was the time of The Great Depression, and he needed a job and money. Gold also felt he needed to repay his debt to Black because Black had gotten him a job. 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. ” Sheinkin also states on pages twenty-four and twenty-five, “He was thankful to Black for getting him a job and wanted to repay the debt.” This textual evidence proves that Gold was in need of a job and did not think it would hurt anybody. It seems to us that Gold thought about things in the present and did not think about who it would hurt later. We can infer that Gold felt forced to provide for his family, and maybe he felt he had no other options. During The Great Depression, people probably made choices that they never thought they would make. Our group feels that family always comes first, but really, he hurt his family in the long run. Mrs. Wellum, what do you think about Harry Gold’s choice?
Question #2
There could be spies in Crawford County because there are big industries, and spies could be collecting sensitive information. Our group examined the Flying S, Inc. website, http://flying-s.com, and it explicitly showed and stated that there are areas where people work on specific prototypes for the government and for NASA. It also shows a “Projects” tab where information has been restricted. Why restricted? Why can we not know? Well, the answer to us is simple. There are secrets to be kept. There are also rooms that non employees are not allowed in so there may be more happening than what we know. So, if something has to be kept secret, there must be a reason, and this reason is to keep people from stealing ideas. Therefore, spies are probable. What do you believe? What do you know?
Jesse, Gabe, Allie, Dason, and I are excited to read your responses.
Question 1 Reply:
ReplyDeleteHello Johnna, Jesse, Allie, Gabe and Dason!
First let me congratulate your work on putting together such as eloquent and well written answer. I can tell this group has put a lot of thought into the book and answers. Thank you for being dedicated to your education!
Harry Gold is described as a shy and smart person who is puppy-like and eager to please. It appears at first that he will not agree to help Mr. Black. In fact, Mr. Black questions Harry Gold regarding trying to avoid joining the Communist Party. The group’s point about Harry Gold feeling obligated to help because Mr. Black assisted in getting Harry Gold a job is strong. I believe that Harry Gold did feel an obligation to Mr. Black. I also believe that Mr. Black targeted Harry Gold for more reasons than Harry’s scientific background. I think Harry Gold made an uneducated choice. I think he was swept up in a persuasive person’s opinion and did not take the time to gather facts for himself. He let someone else make a decision for him.
In what ways do you think Mr. Black took advantage of Harry Gold? Have you ever had someone take advantage of you based on your sense of loyalty and eager to please?
Question 2 Reply:
I agree with your group’s answer to the second question. Any time there are secrets, there are people wanting to know the secrets. Think about seeing someone whispering in class, it doesn’t matter what the topic might be, your curiosity rises. It is probable to have spies in this area. However, I would hope that our local companies and government have enough security to prevent this. We know there are spies online. Think about how many times someone’s identity is stolen or their passwords are hacked. This is a 21st century version of spying. Honestly, this version worries me more than someone seeing information in a secret room.
Blog #1 Reply:
ReplyDeleteYou asked the question, “In what ways do you think Mr. Black took advantage of Harry Gold? Have you ever had someone take advantage of you based on your sense of loyalty and eager to please? Our group discussed your questions, and we believe Mr. Black took advantage of Harry Gold through manipulation. Black took advantage of him by gaining his trust then asking him to do things that he knows Gold would not usually do but now feels obligated. Our group has been in situations where we have been taken advantage of and used when people need us, but they do not give the same in return. So, our guess the lesson in all this is to try to be aware of people’s intentions. Unfortunately, there are people out there who will take advantage, so we need to be aware and be careful of our choices.
Thank you again, and we look forward to our next blog.
Blog #2 Group # 4
ReplyDeleteIn the sentence, “It was a decision that would haunt him for the rest of his life” the word, ‘haunt’ means a horrible decision that could affect a person's life. In the book, Bomb: The Race To Build-and Steal-The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, Steve Sheinkin explicitly stated on page sixty-five, “ Oppenheimer chose not to tell General Groves that he’d been approached by the Soviets.” Oppenheimer's life is all about physics; therefore, by not telling Groves that he had been approached by the Soviets, Oppenheimer was trying to hold on to something that was vital to his existence. The idea of losing his job and/or his life’s work would be devastating. So, that is why we believe he did not tell. So, keeping it from him, Oppenheimer thought it would keep suspicions away and keep his job. In our best judgement, Sheikin used this sentence at this point in the book to foreshadow what might come with his career. Telling his audience that something terrible is going to happen lets the readers know that Oppenheimer’s future is at stake.
I agree that Sheinkin was foreshadowing Oppenheimer’s fate by using the word “haunt.” When I think of the sentence, “Haunt him for the rest of his life”, I cannot help but think about hindsight. I am sure you have all heard the phrase hindsight is 20/20. This is a reference to perfect vision. This phrase means that when we look behind us we can see the mistakes we made and where we could have made improvements. I would imagine by Sheinkin’s use of the word haunt, he was foreshadowing Oppenheimer’s regret to not be more forthcoming. Can you think of a time in your life where secrecy was problematic? How did you work through the problem and your regret? How do you think Oppenheimer will work through his own regret?
ReplyDeleteBlog#2 Reply
ReplyDeleteOur group all have secrets that we keep to ourselves. But, secrets that have leaked have caused problems. Unfortunately, Mrs. Wellum, we cannot divulge or otherwise we could find ourselves deeper in despair. (Ha!) Some of us worked through our problems by telling on ourselves and some of us still have not said anything. We believe that Oppenheimer will hopefully work through his problems by confessing that he was approached by the Soviets.
Dason, Gabe, Jesse, Allie, and I look forward to Blog #3.
Blog #3 Group #4
ReplyDelete` Dason, Allie, Jessie, Gabe, and I learned that twenty-six Norwegian civilians were killed when Knut Haukelid and his commandos sank the ferry carrying the German heavy water. The loss of their lives was acceptable for the greater good instead of hundreds of thousands more lives being lost if Hitler gained the heavy water. In the book, Bomb: The Race To Build-And Steal-The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, Steve Sheinkin explicitly stated on page 110, “Haukelid relayed the details to British intelligence in London, saying the job would be tricky and might result in the loss of civilian lives.” This textual evidence proves that British intelligence understood that innocent lives may have been lost, but they knew that it was so important to get the heavy water from Germany so they could not build the atomic bomb; in the end, it was worth it. Our group feels that one life being lost is worth it if he/she is saving thousand of other lives. In the end, our group believes that it is a given that people are going to die in war, but if that life is an innocent one then just think of how many lives that one person just saved. What are your thoughts on this question?
Hello Johnna, Jesse, Allie, Gabe and Dason!
ReplyDeleteThis question is a tough one. I appreciate the thought you all put into your answer. The loss of civilian life is a part of war. It is a very sad part of war. I would imagine that the consolation of knowing more lives were saved is hard for the family members of the deceased civilians. In the circumstance of the ferryboat, the family members would not have known why the ferry was bombed. The family members would not have the knowledge that their loved one’s life saved the lives of others. To the family members, it would be a tragedy without answers. Also, the element of choice, or lack of choice, adds an interesting dynamic and discussion topic to this question. Do you think it would have been different if the deceased civilians knew about the bomb and still boarded the boat? Would this have made their loss easier for the family members? Would Haukelid, Sorlie, and Leir-Hansen have less trepidation in their decision to bomb the ferry boat? Does a choice to sacrifice your life to save others make dying easier or harder?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteBlog 3 Reply
ReplyDeleteOur group feels like it would be easier for the family members to know about the bomb and that their family member died for a cause. However, we believe that it would be more difficult for the people boarding the ferry if they knew ahead of time that their time of death was approaching. Some members of our group feel that the civilians would have been ok with boarding the ferry knowing that their death would save thousands in the long run. Other members feel that if they knew ahead of time, they would not have boarded even if that meant Germany’s advancement of the bomb. If this would have happened, Germany would have been tipped off that the ferry was going to be attacked. We all agree that the sinking was a necessary evil.
We look forward to blog 4. Have a great day!
Group 4 Blog 4
ReplyDeleteIt is important for us to understand the different perspectives regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction because it helps us better understand why we may need or may not need them. In the book, Bomb: The Race To Build-and Steal- The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, Sheinkin explains the following four perspectives: scientific, military, political, and those of the Japanese civilians. Sheinkin explains these perspectives so we can possible discover ours.
To begin, scientists like Oppenheimer believed that the bomb, at first, was a great idea, but by the end of World War II, the scientists saw that their weapon would lead to mass destruction. Sheinkin explicitly stated on page 185, “Oppenheimer thought of a line from ancient Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad- Gita, a dramatic moment in which the god Vishnu declares: “Now I became death, the destroyer of the world.” This textual evidence proves that when the scientist first created the bomb they were thrilled, but what they used their love of physics to accomplish it would cause great devastation to them and to others. We agree with the scientists that at first the bomb was a great idea to end the war, but it became something that got out of hand. In the end, we can tell that with great power comes great responsibility, and this is a great lesson for us to learn.
The next perspective we learned about is the military perspective. The military perspective was that they encouraged the bomb to be made. Sheinkin explicitly stated on page 214, ”In other words, he wanted Oppenheimer to get back to the lab amd build more bombs, That’s was Leslie Groves expected, too-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 proves that the military did not have any plan on stopping the bombs being built and would do anything to get more and more. Our group feels that the military was wrong because the military used the atomic bomb to destroy entire cities such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki and wanted to prove the U.S. military had many atomic bombs, but they did not have to do it in this matter. Overall, we understand that the military was trying to end the war and show their power, but they did not take into consideration all the innocent lives lost.
Then, Sheinkin wrote about the political perspective so that we understood our leaders’ thinking process. They wanted to make a powerful bomb before another country can make the bomb. Sheinkin explicitly stated on page 232, “If the Soviets got the hydrogen bomb first, American voters might blame the president who’d let it happen.” This textual evidence proves that they needed the bomb before other countries to end the war. We can tell that they wanted the bomb for the good of the American people. In the end, we disagree with their perspective about bombing other countries, but we understand that they did it for America.
Last, there is the view of the Japanese civilians. They thought the bomb was extremely barbaric and they were absolutely devastated. Sheinkin explicitly stated on page 196, “I stood there dumbfounded…. I heard children crying, buildings collapsing, men and women screaming”. This evidence shows that they were petrified by the destruction. We can see that it took many by surprise, and they are petrified by the memory of August 6, 1945. In an earlier blog, we discussed that is was a given that civilian lives are going to be lost in war, but in this case America had a choice. Those were hundred of thousands of lives lost to win a war.
In the end, we believe that we should know and understand everyone's perspective before judgements are formed. Many Americans felt that the only choice they had was the use of weapons of mass destruction and did not want to stop. We believe weapons of mass destruction is always going to exist but it does not mean that we have to use the bomb against other people. We can not change the past, but we can learn from the past and understand everyone’s point of view.
Hello Johnna, Jesse, Allie, Gabe and Dason!
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the thought your group put into this question. I can tell by the contextual evidence and personal opinion that all of you considered both sides of the weapons of mass destruction debate. I strongly agree with your group’s stance that a person needs to know both sides of a topic in order to make an educated decision regarding the topic. I believe this is a wonderful lesson to learn and apply in life. Often times, as humans, we quickly respond to a situation without knowing both sides of the debate. In some instances, such as a light hearted question, it doesn’t make a big difference what we choose. However, in a situation like the one presented in Bomb, it is crucial to know both sides of the debate and make an informed decision. Humans tend to steer clear of topics that are uncomfortable and refuse to learn both sides due to beliefs. Beliefs and feelings are the two things that lead us into irrational choices. Using facts and evidence is the best way to make an informed decision. I hope in reading this book, and doing the debate, all of you are able to understand how to make informed decisions by looking at both sides of the situation. Well done Group 4!
Hello Mrs.Wellum!Can your believe that it is fourth quarter already?
ReplyDeleteWe hope to make informed decisions by looking at all sides as well as the pros and cons.We look forward to blog five.
Group 4 Blog 5
ReplyDeleteThe summary means that the atomic bomb was one of the most dangerous weapons in history; unfortunately, the atomic bomb still affects us today because there are more powerful and advanced bombs. In the book, Bomb: The Race To Build-and Steal- The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, Sheinkin explicitly stated on page 236, “And if you think atomic explosion in Asia wouldn’t affect Americans, consider this. A study published in Scientific American in 2010 looked at the probable impact of a ‘small’ nuclear war, one in which India and Pakistan each dropped fifty atomic bomb. The scientist concluded that the explosions would ignite massive firestorms, sending enormous amounts of dust and smoke into the atmosphere. This would block some of the sun’s light from reaching the earth, making the planet colder and darker- for about ten years. Farming would collapse, and people all over the globe would starve to death. And that’s if only half of one percent of all the atomic bombs on earth were used.” This textual evidence proves that the atomic bombs affects us more than we thought, and could still wipe out our existence. In the beginning, scientists may not have realized that the atomic bomb would get this out of hand, and this shows us that it is so important to always think about the consequences. In the end, Dason, Jesse, Allie, Gabe, and I believe that the bomb will never go away, but we can learn from our past and not make the same mistakes.
Blog Question #5 Reply
ReplyDeleteHello Johnna, Jesse, Allie, Gabe and Dason!
The topic of this question is a frightening one and I think your group is correct in your thought that scientists could not imagine the scope of damage an atomic bomb would have when they first built it. Knowing what we know now about the dangers of the atomic bomb, it makes you wonder why countries still have nuclear weapons. There are many threats to our civilization that do not include atomic weapons. If someone were to clear out the internet it would cause major chaos to hospitals, cities, and communication. The technology to do this is out there, but because people enjoy calmness and humanity, they choose not to use the technology. I would say this is similar with the atomic bomb. We, as humans, appreciate what we have in life enough not to destroy it. I hope everyone in your group has learned ways to appreciate your life a little more through reading this book. Thank you for all the thought you have put into your posts and for taking this project seriously. I appreciate all of you!
We have learned so much from this project. Thank you for helping us learn through the blog discussions.
ReplyDelete