Comparing The Atomic Bomb And Speech To The Association Of Los Alamos Scientists

That fact that the atomic bomb had to be dropped at all is a shocking fact to accept. In the modern era, it is challenging to understand the sentiments of America's leaders during that time period. The passages "A Petition to the President of the United States," "The Decision to Drop the Bomb," and "Speech to the Association of Los Alamos Scientists" illustrate the thought process of American citizens and the government very effectively. They each go into the miniscule details in order to assist the readers in understanding what compulsion the government had to drop the bomb, and how civilians reacted to this. It is due to passages like these that people in the modern day can continue to acknowledge America's past and decisions. The primary

Oppenheimer, the director of the U.S. project that developed the first atomic bomb. Granted, he played a great role in the development and utilization of this weapon, but this speech he gives, shows the reader that he regrets ever contributing towards this weapon. He states that "the very existence of science is threatened, and its value is threatened." The fact that science is being misused in order to invent gizmos that can cause catastrophic damage is what Dr. Oppenheimer speaks out against. He does a splendid job at getting to the point after an engaging introduction. He goes on to explain what people who go into science as a career expect, and how this can be corrupted by government intervention. He effectively makes his argument and supports it with details about the life of a

In this, the group of scientists contend that while the war must end as soon as possible, concluding it with the dropping of the atomic bomb is not the means to go about the situation. They argue that "the development of atomic power will provide the nations with new means of destruction" (5). Simply dropping the bomb sounds easy, however having the weapon itself at the nation's disposal represents the first step in a game of losses. There is no good that can come about using a lethal weapon, even if it is being used to end a war. There are much simpler ways to end the conflict than dropping the atomic bomb. These scientists have clearly proofread their letter several times. It is emotionally gripping and clearly expresses a derogatory point of view towards the atomic bomb. They acknowledge why the government would want to drop the bomb, following this up with reasons as to why the governmental interest is invalid. This is an impactful persuasive piece which forces the readers to strongly consider what the scientists are advocating for.

The third article, a contemporary source, does not take a side. It is simply stating the facts on what happened in 1945 and does not lean one way or the other. The authors state the various biases that existed in that time period, however they do not explicitly make clear whether