Group 8

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?


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?

16 comments:

  1. Blog #1 Group 8

    Levi, Quinton, Emma, Maci, and I thank you for spending time with us and helping us understand what happened during this time in our history.

    Question #1
    Gold provided sensitive information to the Russians because he thought he was helping Black and the Soviets. In the book, Bomb: The Race to Build -and Steal- the World's Most Dangerous Weapon, by Steve Sheinkin, he explicitly stated on page twenty-four, “He was thankful to Black for getting him a job and wanted to repay him by helping.” This textual evidence explains that Gold thought he was helping the Soviets with their community. One can infer that Gold was one who wanted to make others happy and not let them down. We also know this because Gold had “‘an almost puppy-like eagerness to please.” Even further on page twenty-five, Sheinkin stated, “Here was a chance to do something nice for Black and help the Soviet people.” We can infer that Harry Gold did not care or think about the consequences. Because of this, his choices had really negative consequences. These consequences ruined him, his family, and put our entire country at risk. Spying on his country for another was just plain stupid. What are your thoughts?

    Question#2
    Spies could be in Crawford County anywhere at anytime. People who do not think there are spies in Crawford County are wrong. Spies are spies; they are very secretive and sneaky and unfortunately, they are everywhere. We know this because the industry we have in Crawford County spends a lot of money protecting their products. Why else would they spend money on security if it is not a problem? Even in the book, Harry Gold was working in a soap factory, and he got precious information. So, it is so likely that there are those who want our secrets, and that is why money is spent to secure these facilities. Officer Schmidt, you are an officer of the law. We are positive you know this answer! What do you think? Spies...in Crawford County?

    Levi, Quinton, Emma, Maci, and I look forward to reading your responses.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi guys, I'm glad to be able to participate, read your opinions, and share my thoughts.

    #1 - I think initially, Harry's primary motivation to help the Russians was centered around the money. He was then very grateful for the job opportunity, and he wanted to show how appreciative he was by pleasing Tom. Later on, I believe he continued to help the Russians because he felt threatened and blackmailed. It seemed to me that Harry was very naive regarding the seriousness of what he was doing.

    #2 - I agree with you guys. I too think there could be spies from other countries in this area. Even though Crawford County is a relatively small area population-wise, as you point out, industries such as Marathon, Hershey, and The Flying S could be high value targets. Competitors could definitely be interested in illegally obtaining confidential information for their own financial gain. Also, while I believe foreign terrorist organizations such as ISIS and Al Queda are more likely to target heavily populated areas, Marathon certainly could be a target due to both what oil stands for politically and due to the high potential for injuries and damage should an attack on the refinery occur. There's a reason they have such a formidable fence and 24/7 security. Even the few times I've had to enter the refinery on duty and in a fully marked police vehicle, it was not easy!

    Great job on the first questions guys...I look forward to the next.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Maci, Quinton, Emma, Levi, and I thank you for responding to us. We appreciate the time you have spent helping us learn and become more improved students and better yet more improved writers. We feel safe with our security because if it is hard for you to get in, then it will be hard for others to get into the refinery as well. We are pleased with your responses, and we can hardly wait to work with you on our next blog!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Blog #2 Group #8

    Maci, Emma, Quinton, Levi, and I believe that the word ‘haunt’ means something that can come back and ruin your future. Sheinkin used foreshadowing at this point in the book to signal to the readers regarding Oppenheimer’s future. 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.” This textual evidence proves that Oppenheimer had a chance to tell his boss about being approached by the Soviets, but he chose not to tell. One can infer that Oppenheimer did not want to lose his chance of being a top scientist so he chose not to tell Groves; he most likely thought he would be fired or even charged with treason. In our best judgement, the decision Oppenheimer made may affect him later on and may hurt his reputation by making people think he is a spy. This, ultimately, is probably what Sheinkin is trying to tell the readers. What do you believe?

    We look forward to your reply.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I believe he used the word "haunt" here to indicate that Oppenheimer's decision would become a constant source of regret and guilt for him. Have you ever withheld information from someone (perhaps mom or dad) knowing you should probably tell them? I know I did when I was younger, and I would often feel very guilty about it (and end up telling them eventually). I definitely think he used that phrase in order to foreshadow what may come next in the book...and it definitely made me want to keep reading! I think Oppenheimer was very worried about his reputation. Today in 2019 most people are very comfortable expressing their views and opinions whether they are popular views and opinions or not. However back in Oppenheimer's day being supportive of Communism was very taboo, especially for someone in a position such as his. But ultimately, as most of you have likely heard before, honesty is the best policy. Most people learn that at a young age, but as a police officer I deal with plenty of adults who still haven't learned that valuable lesson.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you for your blog two response. You asked the question, "Have you ever withheld information from someone (perhaps mom or dad) knowing you should probably tell them?". The answer to this question of course is a big fat YES! Sometimes, we feel guilty and some times we don't. Like you, we do tell sometimes. So, we can understand why Oppenheimer did what he did. We feel that the honest thing to do would have been to tell. It would have been difficult, but it would have been the right thing to do.
    We look forward to blog three.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Blog #3 Group #8

    Quinton, Levi, Maci, Emma, and I learned that twenty-six Norwegian civilians were killed when the ferry was sunk, and this makes us feel as if it was something that had to be done. Even though it was not an easy thing to do, sacrificing all the innocent civilians, the Allies had to do it for the greater good. In the book, Bomb: The Race To Build -And Steal- The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, on page 113, Sheinkin stated, “Terrified and screaming, civilians and German soldiers tumbled and leaped into icy water, grabbing for chairs, oars, life vests.” This textual evidence backs up our claim by proving why it was most likely a difficult choice to make but, we could not let Hitler get his hands on that heavy water. We feel badly that those civilians suffered, but it to stop Hitler it was necessary. Even now, our group understands that our military has to make difficult decisions, and if it is for the greater good, then so be it. What are your thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sorry that I tend to wait until just before the deadline to respond...I can be quite a procrastinator (but don't tell anyone).

    I agree that in order to sink the ferry and slow the German nuclear bomb efforts the deaths of the twenty-six Norweigan civilians was likely unavoidable. I believe that injuring or killing any non-combatants in a time of war is tragic. In the 1940s bombs were literally delivered by gravity (and careful aiming of course). Preventing collateral damage was not easy. However now, and for the past decade or two, much "smarter" weapons are in use which enable very accurate targeting. Therefore, I believe there is much less tolerance for collateral damage now than seventy years ago...and rightfully so.

    Keep in mind, however, that many of our current enemies know that we are very averse to this collateral damage and try to use this against us. I have heard of many instances in which insurgents have intentionally surrounded themselves with innocent women and children (using them as human shields) in order to protect themselves from our precision weapon strikes.

    ReplyDelete
  9. We do not mind if you procrastinate on the blog. Don’t tell our teachers, but we tend to do that too! We do agree that now that there are “smarter” weapons that make collateral damage less tolerable. The accuracy of today’s weapons is amazing and also scary! It is sad to think that there are people and groups who will use innocent women and children as shields. Thank you for responding to us, and helping us further understand this question.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Blog #4 Group #8

    It is important that we understand the different perspectives regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction, because if we know all sides of the story we can understand the feelings that all who were involved with the atomic bombing . In the book, Bomb: The Race to Build -and Steal- the World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, Sheinkin explains the following perspectives: scientific, military, political, and civilian (Japanese).
    To begin, the scientific point of view was that they felt excited and thrilled at the beginning, but soon they felt disappointed and terrified about the dangerous weapon that they just helped create. In the book, Bomb: The Race To Build And Steal The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, by Steve Sheinkin, on page 213, the author explicitly stated, “Oppenheimer was torn by the attention. He relished the fame, but was terrified by the thought of what he had helped create-a world with atomic bombs.” This proves that Oppenheimer felt sickened and felt devastated that he helped create this weapon of mass destruction. Oppenheimer did not mind the attention he was receiving, but he did not want any fame from what he helped create. He knew the power the bomb. It is important to understand this perspective because it teaches us the realities of war.
    Next, the military believed that the execution of the threat had to be done even if the lives of civilians were lost. In the book, Bomb:The Race To Build -and Steal- The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, Steve Sheinkin explicitly stated on page 194, “This was Japan’s eighth largest city, and the location of an important army base.” This textual evidence proves that the military was aiming for an army base, but they continued with the mission even if they killed innocent people. This perspective is important to understand because the military completes these missions so they are the ones who put their lives on the line for us.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Not only that, the political perspective was that the bomb was needed to keep the U.S. in power and to save the popularity of the president. Sheinkin explicitly stated on page “Truman saw it differently. The dictator Joseph Stalin was proving to be ruthless and untrustworthy.” This evidence shows that Truman felt it was useful to have these for power and dominance. One can infer that Truman felt that Stalin was going to attack the United States after he made a bomb so it would be useful to have more than one. This is important to understand because knowing a politician’s view on weapons of mass destruction help us figure out who to vote into office. We must pay attention.
    Most powerful of all, the Japanese civilians felt the bomb was barbaric. Sheinkin explicitly states on page 196, “He passed the people with horrible burns, their faces swollen, their blackened skin hanging in strips. Bodies on the ground, and floating in the river.” This textual evidence backs up my claim by proving the true reality of the devastation and despair that was caused by the atomic bomb. One can infer that the Japanese civilians hurt mentally, as well as physically, which probably caused anger as to why this happened to them. All in all, it is important for us to understand that there are still weapons of mass destruction, and we do not want to be victims like the Japanese civilians.
    All in all, Steve Sheinkin made us look at all the views so we can understand where we stand on the issue of weapons of mass destruction. Sheinkin could have only told one perspective, but instead he told all sides in order for us to understand the whole story. If we understand the entire issue, any issue, we can make educated decisions, especially in regards to the future leaders of our country.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I believe that the scientists and U.S. military both initially thought they were just doing what they had to do to protect our country, however after seeing the devastating effects of the atomic bomb I'm sure they couldn't help but question what they had done. I personally wish that weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) had never been created, however since they they do exist and several countries possess them it's important to understand why they're possessed and in what situations they would likely be used. I truly hope that the U.S. would only use WMDs again in a defensive manner, and not offensively. But I do worry that countries such as North Korea or even terrorist organizations could use them unnecessarily to attempt to make political and/or religious statements. I believe the U.S. must take the lead in doing everything we can to prevent the unnecessary use of WMDs globally.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your response, and helping us better understand the book. We also wished that weapons of mass destruction never existed, but we hope that they are used wisely, if it comes down to needing to use them. We need to be proactive and aware of what is going on in other countries.

      We look forward to blog 5.

      Delete
  13. This summary means that weapons of mass destruction will forever and will always will be apart of our society; most likely...they never go away. In the book, Bomb:The Race To Build and Steal The World's Most Dangerous Weapon, Steve Sheinkin explicitly stated on pages 235 and 236, “By the mid-1980s the two sides had a total of 65,000 nuclear bombs… together the United States and Russia now have about 22,000 atomic weapons. Most of the world’s atomic bombs are still in the hands of the United States and Russia.” One can infer that weapons of mass destruction are apart of our lives now and there's really nothing we can do about it. To this day, the bomb had advanced, and we will continue to deal with even more and more advanced bombs as time goes on.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yes, I think that's exactly what he meant when he wrote "it's a story with no end in sight." Regardless of whether we as individuals or we as nations are pro-WMD or anti-WMD, we must work to carefully regulate the manufacturing and possession of these devices. We must also by mindful of the fact that these weapons are already possessed by many different nations, and any diplomatic efforts we can make to limit their continued production into the future would be well worth it. Thanks guys...it was fun blogging with you.

    ReplyDelete
  15. We thank you for spending your time with us, and you are much appreciated for doing this project along with us. We agree that with the regulation of producing weapons of mass destruction. Again, thank you for blogging with us.

    ReplyDelete