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 #9
ReplyDeleteThank you, Mr. Quick, for giving us advice on our blog. Iva, Lotty, Victoriya, and I appreciate all of the help we can get.
Question #1
Harry Gold provided valuable information to the Russians because his family was desperate for money, and he was offered a job by Tom Black. In return, Gold desired to do his best to please Black because Black was presenting him with a job, which was difficult to achieve in this age due to The Great Depression. Steve Sheinkin explicitly states on pages twenty-four and twenty-five, “He was thankful for Black for getting him a job and wanted to repay the debt. Also, Gold had what he described as ‘an almost puppy-like eagerness to please.’ Here was a chance to do something nice for Black and help the Soviet people.” This textual evidence backs up our claim by explaining why Harry Gold provided the precious material to the Russians. To hypothesize, Harry Gold desired to repay a favor; yet, he was oblivious to the damage he was causing. Steve Sheinkin also explicitly stated on page twenty-five, “The chemical processes Black wanted didn’t seem so secret, and if the information could really help the Soviets build a better society, why not share it? Who could it hurt?’’ This textual documentation supports our claim by demonstrating Harry Gold’s philosophy. In the end, Gold felt as though he was indebted to Tom Black; he was obligated enough to be a traitor.
Question #2
Could there be a spy in Crawford County? It is preposterous to assume that spies cannot exist in a rural community! Spies are secretive and deceiving… hiding one’s true identity. Occasionally, people are oblivious to the major indications of an individual’s characteristics. In Crawford County, there are numerous factories/companies that play a major role in our economy. Marathon plays a primary position in the petroleum vocation. For example, Steve Sheinkin informs his audience how the Soviets dispatched spies to large facilities to harvest paramount information. Spies are everywhere, not just the massive cities. The point being, spies could exist in all cities… in any decade… under any circumstances. What are your thoughts about spies?
Lotty, Victoriya, Iva, and I are excited to read your
responses.
Hello Madison, Lotty, Tori, and Iva,
ReplyDeleteI am looking forward to communicating with you over the next few weeks to discuss this book and what we can learn from it. Your responses to the first two questions are insightful and well-supported. I think we are going to have a great conversation!
I agree with you that Harry’s primary motivation was providing for his family which as you pointed out in your response was very difficult during the Great Depression. He felt an obligation to do as he was asked because Black had helped him and rationalized that the information he was sharing wasn’t really that secret and would help other people. Once Harry agrees to share the initial information, he can incrementally be drawn in to sharing more and more information. As you noted, “He was oblivious to the damage he was causing.” To illustrate how spies might develop an asset consider this question: Even though Harry had a puppy-like personality and felt indebted to Black, do you think he would have complied if the Black had come right out and said “I’d like you to provide secret information that will eventually lead to your countries enemies being able to develop an atomic weapon”?
In your response to question#2, you observe that it would be silly to assume that just because we are in a rural community that there could be no spies. You are absolutely correct. Spies can be anywhere. Some targets of spies are obvious and some are not. As you pointed out in your response, spies could target a large corporation like Marathon for multiple reasons – perhaps to steal technology that could be used for other purposes (whether good or evil) or to gain knowledge that could help them in an attack on our country by disrupting our access to the fuel that is produced by Marathon. Another example is Flying S, a company south of Palestine which is a manufacturer of aerospace components. Do you see any obvious signs that local companies such as Marathon or Flying S are concerned about the security of their facilities and potential susceptibility to infiltration by spies?
Have a great day and I look forward to continuing our discussion!
Sincerely,
Mr. Quick
If Harry Gold knew Tom Black’s true intentions, Gold would not have betrayed his country. Reason being, if Gold wanted to provide for his family and keep them safe, why would he give a country information that would kill his loved ones? He would not; no amount of money can save one’s life in the event of an attack. As for your response to question two, concerning security in large corporations, Marathon, Flying S, and other companies do take security extremely seriously. We know for a fact that Marathon makes their employees provide identification to gain admittance to the plant. As for Flying S, we are unsure of security measures, as we have only seen the outside of the facility.
ReplyDeleteThank you, for your insight on this topic. Victoriya, Lotty, Iva, and I look forward to your responses for future blogs.
Blog #2 Group #9
ReplyDeleteHaunt. What does it mean? It all depends on how one interprets the context. ‘Haunt,’ as established in the sentence, “It was a decision that would haunt him for the rest of his life.’’ means to reveal to the reader the signs of misfortune to come. This method is identified as foreshadowing. On page forty-nine in the book, Bomb: The Race to Build- and Steal-the World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, Steve Sheinkin explicitly states, “Thanks to a report from the FBI, army intelligence officers knew all about Oppenheimer’s past association with Communists.’’ This textual evidence justifies our claim by describing a previous instance in which Steve Sheinkin utilized foreshadowing. To infer, Sheinkin sought to enlighten his audience that doom is on the horizon for Oppenheimer. In one’s judgement, Sheinkin may be displaying turmoil that may follow Oppenheimer’s encounter with the Communist, Haakon Chevalier. Billions of interactions occur each day; it only takes one instance to ruin…to devastate… to haunt one’s life forever.
Victoriya, Lotty, Iva, and I welcome your opinion of Steve Sheinkin’s usage of the word ‘haunt.’ We appreciate the time you reserve out of your day to respond to us.
Hello Madison, Lotty, Tori, and Iva,
ReplyDeleteWithout looking up a definition of the word “haunt,” my initial reaction based on the context of the sentence is that the author intends to establish that it is a decision he will come to regret and that this regret will revisit him continuously throughout the rest of his life. I think that you are absolutely correct that Mr. Sheinkin intends to foreshadow the impact of this interaction on the rest of Oppenheimer’s life. It is scary to consider that, as you mentioned in your post, out of billions of human interactions that occur every day, some of those are going to have a negative on the individual(s) involved – perhaps even for a lifetime. Do you see any similarities between this situation with Oppenheimer and the situation with Harry Gold and Tom Black?
Nice job on your post! I look forward to reading the next one
Mr. Quick
Thank you for your response and thank you for your support in us.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to your question, "Do you see any similarities between this situation with Oppenheimer and the situation with Harry Gold and Tom Black?" We do see similarities between Oppenheimer's and Harry Gold's situations,but we also see differences. Oppenheimer is haunted by the fact that he might be taken off of the most important project to him because of something he participated in many years before. Harry Gold doesn't regret that he betrayed his country; he regrets that he can not get out of it. Could we be on the right track?
Blog #3 Group #9
ReplyDeleteOn the Hydro, a ferry transporting heavy water for German scientists to use on the atomic bomb, Knut Haukelid and his commandos observed from the shore as their bomb went off; the ferry boat immediately sank, killing twenty-six out of fifty-three civilians. Our thoughts on this complicated topic are diverse. One would grieve the loss of his/her family if his/her family was aboard this boat. It is just as horrendous to lose twenty-six lives as it is to lose 26,000. Steve Sheinkin explicitly states on page 110 in the book, Bomb: The Race to Build -And Steal- the World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, “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. Send our best wishes for good luck in the work.’ ” This textual evidence justifies our claim by informing how British intelligence was deeply remorseful for the loss of civilian lives; yet, they were willing to risk it for the greater good. It is tragic to have to risk any innocent lives in the act of halting world-wide domination, but, it may also be the only way to save billions of innocent lives. In one’s judgement, this is an appalling way to act out because it results in grief and misery; either way, no one can win. In the end, no one’s life possesses more value than another.
Tori, Lotty, Iva, and I would like to know how you would react if you were informed a family member died in an act to save the world? We look forward to reading your response.
Madison, Lotty, Tori, and Iva,
ReplyDeleteYou’ve written another excellent response! I am so impressed with your understanding of these complicated issues and your citation of text within the book! Keep up the great work
Regarding our question for Post #3, you state that your “thoughts on this complicated topic are diverse.” I completely agree. This is the question that I have struggled with each year that I have participated in the blog project. Logically, it seems reasonable to consider the “math” of the situation and come to the conclusion that sacrificing the lives of 26 lives to help divert a threat that could potentially harm hundreds of thousands is acceptable. However, when I start to question myself more deeply, I always become more conflicted. Most humans would agree that taking another human life is wrong in almost all cases is wrong. What bothers me is that at some point the “math” makes it more acceptable as we start thinking about human beings as numbers rather than individual humans that have families and are loved. For example, in this situation, most would probably be somewhat comfortable with the trade-off of 26 innocent lives lost for hundreds of thousands of potential lives saved. Would people still be comfortable with the numbers if the innocent lives were 26 children? Would it make a difference if they were 26 elderly people who had lived full lives? Would 1,000 innocent lives lost for 100,000 saved still be OK? My point is, once we divert from the idea that taking another human life is always wrong, some judgement has to be made and the line has to be drawn somewhere and another human has to make that decision. I cannot even imagine being the person with that task.
Mr. Quick
Blog 3 Response
ReplyDeleteOur thoughts on the topic still remains divided. Tori and Iva lean towards the fact that it is more suitable to lose twenty-six lives instead of thousands or maybe even millions. While I believe that the “math’’ is unacceptable under these circumstances. I believe that in this case twenty-six is equivalent to millions. However, Lotty is torn between both perspectives, she believes that the loss of any number of lives for any reason is appalling, but she also believes that grieving over twenty-six lives is better than losing thousands. This topic is controversial and some believe in the, quote unquote, “greater good” but some cannot wrap their head around killing anyone.
We all agree that we cannot imagine being the person to make those types of decisions.
We look forward to blogging with you in the future.
Sincerely,
Tori, Lotty, Iva, and I.
Blog 4 Group 9
ReplyDeleteIt is important that we understand the different perspectives regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction because if one is not informed of such matters history is bound to repeat itself. In the book, Bomb: The Race to Build-And Steal- The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, Steve Sheinkin presents four main points of views; political, military, scientists, and Japanese civilians. Steve Sheinkin presented the readers with all of the perspectives so the readers had an opportunity to draw their own educated opinion.
To begin, politicians were more worried about having acceptance from the American voters than they were of innocent lives being killed. The presidents during WWII did have many pressuring determinations, such as to go forward spending the money on the atomic bomb, to be in the war, who to target, and many more. Harry Truman, the president towards the end of WWII, made the courageous decision to advance and drop the uranium bomb, Little Boy, on Hiroshima. Steve Sheinkin explicitly articulates this on page 232, “And, as always, there was always a political angle. If the Soviets got the hydrogen bomb first, American voters might blame the president who’d let it happen.” This textual information justifies our claim by informing us that President Truman himself thought of the well being of his position in office rather than innocent civilians who would be killed. One can infer that we need to understand this moment in history because if we, as the new generation of voters, do not understand these events, we may put someone in a government position who might damage… or even destroy our nation. All in all, when we vote, we need to carefully consider the viewpoints of each candidate to try to ensure we are electing a person who has our country’s best interests at heart.
Also, the military perspective is a complicated perspective for any non-military personnel/family to understand. The military felt a sense of pride and horror when the atomic bomb was dropped. In the book, Bomb: The Race to Build-And-Steal The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, Steve Sheinkin explicitly states on page 198, “‘I’m proud of you and all of you people’ Groves said.” Sheinkin also states on page 197, “Robert Lewis picked up his pencil and made a note in his logbook: ‘My God, what have we just done?’” This textual evidence supports our claim by explaining that they were proud that the bomb was success because that meant their mission was a success. These men and women are human beings, so we could only assume that they would feel remorse or horror while killing other human beings. All in all, we need to respect the military because they are making very hard decisions while protecting you.
Next, the scientists felt a sense of pride and horror. On page 200, Sheinkin explicitly states, “Almost everyone was feeling the same strange mix of pride and horror. That night Oppenheimer went to a party in one of the men’s dorm, carrying in his hand a message for Washington with more details on the destruction in Hiroshima. As he showed the note around, the mood in the room darkened. The party broke up early. As Oppenheimer walk home, he saw one of his scientists bent over in a bush, vomiting.” This textual evidence supports our claim by showing how the scientists felt after they realized that what they had created will kill millions of people and destroy entire cities. To infer, although they were proud of their creation in the beginning, they wanted it to disappear after they realized what it was capable of. Ultimately, it shows us that these men and women took pride in their work, but they also were human by showing all of their emotions.
DeleteFinally, the Japanese civilians felt pain and devastation from the atomic bomb being dropped. The primary source, www.atomicheritage.org, states, “A six year old boy, in Hiroshima at the time of the bombing recalled, “‘Near the bridge there were a whole lot of dead people… They were bleeding from their faces and their mouth and they had glass sticking in their body. And the bridge itself was burning furiously… The details and the scenes were just like Hell.’’’ This evidence backs up our claim by describing the gruesome scenes that innocent men, women, and children had to bear witness to. To infer, what occured on the days of August 4, 1945 and August 9, 1945 shook the ground that we all stand on both literally and figuratively. History had been altered and could not be taken back. In the end, decisions not only destroyed buildings; but also destroyed lives.
To end, it is important to see all perspectives in any situation. If one listens to a one sided argument he/she cannot form an informed conclusion. When 9/11 occured, other countries celebrated. United States civilians felt violated, but we had done the same thing to the Japanese civilians. Seeing all perspectives could save the world. We need to become educated and knowledgeable in these matters so we can help in the safety of our country.
Tori, Lotty, Iva, and I would like to thank you for all of your feedback on our blogs. We look forward to blogging with you in the future.
Tori, Lotty, Iva, and Madison,
ReplyDeleteI am so impressed with your response to question #4! You did an excellent job of thoroughly examining and explaining the perspectives of different groups of people whose stories are described within the book. This is not an easy thing to do and is becoming more and more uncommon in this age of social media where we are bombarded with information but it is difficult to sort into fact and opinion. No matter where you fall on the political spectrum you can even find “news” and “research” that agrees with your own views. We are not compelled to try to understand the viewpoints of others because it is so easy to find others that agree with us and reinforce our views.
Context and perspective is so important to our understanding of the actions and opinions of our fellow humans. I’m sure you have heard the Native American proverb “Never judge a man until you have walked a mile in his moccasins.” The implication of this proverb is that you cannot truly understand another human without living his or her experiences. Is it really fair for us to judge the actions of people who lived 75-80 years ago during a World War in which hundreds of thousands were dying (most estimates put U.S. casualties alone at over 400,000)? While we have had tragic losses in recent history with 9/11, military action in the Middle East and other areas, and terrorist attacks which are no less important or heartbreaking, most of us alive today could not fathom the constant fear and devastating loss of lives that occurred during World War II.
As I watched your class during the debate yesterday, I was examining my own feelings on weapons of mass destruction. I wish that they had never even been conceived as an idea let alone developed, produced, and ultimately deployed. However, we cannot go back in time and prevent that from happening. When I put myself in the position of the scientists, government leaders, and military leaders during that time and consider that it really was a “race” for survival to develop the technology first and consider this against the backdrop of a worldwide war that had taken hundreds of thousands of lives – I am fairly certain that I would have come to the same conclusions they did and I would have done my part to help. We cannot “uninvent” the weapons, we can only deal with the current reality that they exist and some of our allies have them but some of our enemies have them too. This is where your last paragraph is so important – we must understand others if we are to prevent history from repeating. .. Super job!
Sincerely,
Mr. Quick
Mr. Quick,
ReplyDeleteTori, Lotty, Iva, and I have enjoyed reading your responses to our blogs. We all appreciate your input about these controversial topics.
I cannot speak for Tori, Lotty and Iva, but I know that I have heard the Native American proverb that you mentioned. We all believe that one cannot judge another's actions when he/she have not lived a day in their life.There's no way to justify the actions of the making of the bomb, as much as one can try, because we have not walked in their shoes. We agree that history cannot be undone, but we also believe that history MUST not repeat itself. That is why it is so important to be educated and understand other's view points.
Thanks for coming to the debate! We look forward to blog 5.
Blog; 5 Group; 9
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Steve Sheinkin’s summary on page 236, we developed the understanding that we are involved in the never ending race of weapons of mass destruction. When we turn eighteen we will be the individuals held accountable for electing the people in control of our future. On page 236 in the book, Bomb: The Race To Build- And Steal- The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, Steve Sheinkin explicitly states, “It’s a story with no end in sight. And like it or not, you’re in it’’ This textual evidence justifies our claim by explaining the circumstance that the generations before us have placed on all future voters’ shoulders. One can infer that this scenario may not be on the forefront of one’s mind, but inevitably, it will always be in the background. Overall, this is the world we live in, and the only way out is death. We created this condition of constant fear that we must live in and there is no escaping from it. Common sense tells us that we have two choices, we can either not vote and hope for the best or we can cast our vote for those that will do the right thing for our country.
Tori, Lotty, Iva, and I have enjoyed blogging with you. We would like to know your interpretation of Steve Sheinkin’s summary. We look forward to reading your response, as always!
Madison, Lotty, Tori, and Iva,
ReplyDeleteI have really enjoyed communicating with you to discuss these questions from Bomb. I am very proud of you for the amount of thought and effort that you’ve put into this activity. In your last post, I agree that in our system of government a well-informed and active electorate is essential and you are absolutely correct that as you become adults you will share in the responsibility of setting a direction for our country. As we discussed in a previous post, we cannot go back and change history to create a different reality. Weapons of mass destruction cannot be “uninvented.” Therefore, regardless of our personal and ethical feelings on these weapons we have to function in a world where the weapons do exist. That is my interpretation of what Mr. Sheinkin is saying in his summary. Thanks again for some great discussions! Stay engaged and keep asking great questions as you get older!
Sincerely,
Mr. Quick
Thank you for all of your help with the blog. We learned so much from you!
Delete