How to Get a Nuclear Bomb (2006)
theatlantic.com
How to Get a Nuclear Bomb (2006)
1–10 of 20 posts
Re: How to Get a Nuclear Bomb (2006)
#2"Hiroshima was destroyed in a flash by a bomb dropped from a propeller-driven B-29 of the U.S. Army Air Force, on the warm morning of Monday, August 6, 1945."
Nice use of subtle patriotism here. Wouldn't it have been a little more impartial to write it as below?
"Hiroshima was destroyed in a flash by the U.S. Army with a bomb which was dropped from a propeller-driven B-29, on the warm morning of Monday, August 6, 1945."
Re: How to Get a Nuclear Bomb (2006)
#3"Hiroshima was destroyed in a flash by a bomb dropped from a propeller-driven B-29 of the U.S. Army Air Force, on the warm morning of Monday, August 6, 1945." Nice use of subtle patriotism here. Wouldn't it have been a little more impartial to write it as below? "Hiroshima was destroyed in a flash by the U.S. Army with a bomb which was dropped from a propeller-driven B-29, on the warm morning of Monday, August 6, 194…
I don't agree that the difference between the two phrasings changes the partiality of the sentence.
Re: How to Get a Nuclear Bomb (2006)
#4"Hiroshima was destroyed in a flash by a bomb dropped from a propeller-driven B-29 of the U.S. Army Air Force, on the warm morning of Monday, August 6, 1945." Nice use of subtle patriotism here. Wouldn't it have been a little more impartial to write it as below? "Hiroshima was destroyed in a flash by the U.S. Army with a bomb which was dropped from a propeller-driven B-29, on the warm morning of Monday, August 6, 194…
I don't agree that the difference between the two phrasings changes the partiality of the sentence.
In both sentences Hiroshima is the object. The subject in the original sentence is the bomb but in my edited sentence the subject is the U.S. Army.
Talking of partiality (and the sentences use of passive voice)
"Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (1994) recommends the passive voice when identifying the object (receiver) of the action is more important than the subject (agent), and when the agent is unknown, unimportant, or not worth mentioning"
Re: How to Get a Nuclear Bomb (2006)
#5Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't agree that the difference between the two phrasings changes the partiality of the sentence.
In both sentences Hiroshima is the object. The subject in the original sentence is the bomb but in my edited sentence the subject is the U.S. Army. Talking of partiality (and the sentences use of passive voice) "Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (1994) recommends the passive voice when identifying the object (receiver) of the action is more important than the subject (agent), and when the agent is unknown…
I think this is a really small nitpick which does not change the partiality of the sentence. Both phrases attribute the ultimate responsibility to the US Army Air Force (not 'US Army', which is incorrect) and it could be argued that as it was the bomb itself which did the actual destroying it should be the primary subject.
Re: How to Get a Nuclear Bomb (2006)
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
In both sentences Hiroshima is the object. The subject in the original sentence is the bomb but in my edited sentence the subject is the U.S. Army. Talking of partiality (and the sentences use of passive voice) "Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (1994) recommends the passive voice when identifying the object (receiver) of the action is more important than the subject (agent), and when the agent is unknown…
I think this is a really small nitpick which does not change the partiality of the sentence. Both phrases attribute the ultimate responsibility to the US Army Air Force (not 'US Army', which is incorrect) and it could be argued that as it was the bomb itself which did the actual destroying it should be the primary subject.
Oops, right about the US Army Air Force mistake. My bad.
Also, agree it might be nitpicking but for me the dropping of the A-bombs and associated killing of a crap load of civillians is one of last centuries most conveniently forgotten topics. So treatment of the subject has a tendency to get me riled up!
One last question though...Can inanimate objects really be responsible of anything?
Re: How to Get a Nuclear Bomb (2006)
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is a really small nitpick which does not change the partiality of the sentence. Both phrases attribute the ultimate responsibility to the US Army Air Force (not 'US Army', which is incorrect) and it could be argued that as it was the bomb itself which did the actual destroying it should be the primary subject.
Oops, right about the US Army Air Force mistake. My bad. Also, agree it might be nitpicking but for me the dropping of the A-bombs and associated killing of a crap load of civillians is one of last centuries most conveniently forgotten topics. So treatment of the subject has a tendency to get me riled up! One last question though...Can inanimate objects really be responsible of anything?
Cute how people react these days. Strategy, which in the end is what currently (mostly) keeps the world at peace, is discarded.
And what is to take it's stead ? Politically motivated assigning of blame. In reality the America-Japan situation is morally much more complex than given credit here. America used, with reluctance, weapons it developed from a blueprint stolen from enemy forces that intended to use it against New York (ie. from Hitler). And they used it against a country that had invaded half of East-Asia, and was running genocides, rape campaigns, and all sorts of fun stuff all over the place. Does "the end justify the means" is an interesting discussion, but it is not even considered here : all that matters is showing one's political colors.
American government bad ! And while the Japanese government was far worse, let's just not mention that. Let's also neglect the reasons things were done, and let's not go anywhere near the result of those actions. After all, while the act itself is definitely in the "not OK" department, you can hardly feel sorry for the enemy in this case. The reasons the action was taken are at the very least very serious reasons, worthy of extensive discussion in any judgement. And the result of those actions ... well, frankly, look at what happened ! What could possibly have been a better (realistic) outcome ?
And being against nuclear weapons is very stupid considering that it is well documented that those weapons were indeed what kept the Soviets from attacking America. Without nuclear weapons, WWIII would have followed WWII after a decade and a half at most, probably less. That much is a certainty given historical evidence released at the fall of the Soviet union ...
But of course we can't have the American government, now totally different from what it was in 1945, escape blame for an absolute moral standard, can we ?
After all, that's the important part. Blame.
Here's what I want to say : if you judge with absolute moral standards, we all deserve the death penalty. Laws, even moral laws, while useful as a baseline, are a very bad idea when people use them in absolute terms without context.
So don't.
Re: How to Get a Nuclear Bomb (2006)
#8Nuclear is not as scary as bioterror.
I'm a college senior, and last spring I and two class teammates were able to re-engineer virus Phi X 174 in only 10 weeks, starting from zero knowledge of genetic engineering. Then we payed DNA 2.0 (a DNA synthesis contractor) to build us the custom virus for only $2k.
Also: on the third day of class, the prof showed us the complete genome of Ebola, and that based on DNA 2.0's price per length, it would only cost $20k to make.
Re: How to Get a Nuclear Bomb (2006)
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
In both sentences Hiroshima is the object. The subject in the original sentence is the bomb but in my edited sentence the subject is the U.S. Army. Talking of partiality (and the sentences use of passive voice) "Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (1994) recommends the passive voice when identifying the object (receiver) of the action is more important than the subject (agent), and when the agent is unknown…
I think this is a really small nitpick which does not change the partiality of the sentence. Both phrases attribute the ultimate responsibility to the US Army Air Force (not 'US Army', which is incorrect) and it could be argued that as it was the bomb itself which did the actual destroying it should be the primary subject.
it's a small nitpick, sure, but he(?) is right - it does change the partiality of the sentence.
i didn't notice when i read the text; now that it has been pointed out to me, i find it interesting. thanks, iftn.
Re: How to Get a Nuclear Bomb (2006)
#10I strongly considered stopping reading at "Uranium is the heaviest element on earth"...