The Breakdown Of The Atomic Energy Act Of 1946

     When the first atomic bomb was detonated in Alamogordo New Mexico on June 16, 1945, all the scientists involved in the Manhattan Project understood the great destructive power of radio-active isotopes. Although the atomic bomb was a very destructive force our world would not be as good without it. Because of the government funding involved in the project coupled with the need for an atom bomb, much research that otherwise may not have occurred took place in the US. The Manhattan project opened the door to nuclear advancements and applications.

By September, 1944, before Roosevelt’s death, the threat of a nuclear arms race and possible retaliation for the use of this weapon is already a point of concern. The Office of Scientific Research and Development’s memorandum to Secretary of War Henry Stimson outlines some of the dangers the United States and Great Britain face in continuing the secret development of this “art”. Realizing this technology in the hands of the Soviet Union or other countries, especially defeated enemies, would make highly populated cities especially vulnerable. They also concluded that there was a high possibility of a “major power, or former major power undertaking this development.” The threat of the Soviet Union or Germany developing this weapon was a

Counterintelligence is one of the most vital areas of the United States intelligence system, and is heavily intertwined with our history, laws and ethics. According to the National Security Act of 1947, counterintelligence (CI) is defined as “information gathered and activities conducted to protect against espionage, other intelligence activities, sabotage, or assassinations conducted by or on behalf of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations or foreign persons, or international terrorist activities.” It consists of five activities and functions: operations, investigations, collection, analysis and production, and functional services. In this aspect, CI is unique in that it is both an activity and its product. U.S. intelligence agencies, including the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) collect and analyze both CI information and foreign intelligence. There are many counterintelligence activities that the United States is involved in, as both CI and foreign intelligence play an important role in countering threats to our country’s national security. Among these most controversial and misunderstood activities are counterespionage and disinformation.

As a person, sometimes, is hard to make decision that can change history, it is even harder for the president of the United States. When you are the president and there’s a war occurring you must understand that every decision you make impacts the country in every way. When another country attempts an attack on your country, as a president you need to make the best decision to overcome the attack and to protect every citizen of the country. These are the decisions that President Franklin D Roosevelt had to make it, however, when he passed away, Harry Truman had control power of the country and knew that he had to avenge Pearl Harbor. Before Truman can avenge Pearl Harbor, Albert Einstein endorsed a letter to President Roosevelt alerting him that there was an “extremely powerful bombs of a new type” and that the U.S. should begin a similar research. Eventually, this became the Manhattan Project, discovering nuclear fission as a weapon. In this essay we are going to speak about the decision that Truman made to drop the bomb, some arguments, and the interpretation.

The nature of the Atomic Bomb created a global and theoretical set of stakeholders that few other ethical dilemmas reach. In many ways this use of nuclear technology created the Cold War and the global fear of a nuclear Armageddon. At that time every citizen of the globe feared how the use of nuclear weapons would harm them and their world. The future is also a stakeholder in this conversation. The effects of nuclear fallout were not well understood at the time. Nuclear aftermath could last for decades and even longer, effecting the health and livelihood of all living things for generations to come. The information that could be collected and research opportunities created after a nuclear weapon detonation would be studied for centuries and will change medicine and research forever. Future citizens and scientists were also stakeholders in this decision.

2.4 Perspectives: The atomic bomb → cold war In August 1945 two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan; Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Atomic bomb finished World war two but did it lead to the Cold War between USSR and the US? David McReynolds believes that the bomb was to show strength and power, as that is why the US dropped the bomb. President Harry S Truman’s perspective states that the bomb was dropped to end World War 2, so he could bring his troops home.

After exiting on 175, you cross State and Main Street. Lurking off in the distance is one of two large scoreboard screens with the block M and blue painted on it. Downtown Ann Arbor was as busy as a bee. There is nothing like gameday in this city. Every single place is filled with people all wearing the colors of maize and blue. Sidewalks in this city are lined with every shop open selling anything with the block M on it. The smells of every kind of barbeque you can imagine fill the air from everyone tailgating.

They came, unwarned. On the 7th of December 1941, the Japanese executed a full-fledged attack on Pearl Harbor. They mercilessly created havoc, with attacks that caused the sinking of eighteen American ships, as well as 170 aircrafts. The casualties were dreadful, with 1,177 of those lost lives had been of the crewmen. The very next day, President Roosevelt declared war on Japan, and thus the United States’ involvement of World War II. Americans of every state were absolutely enraged and bent on their will for vengeance against the Asian country. Within the shadows of galvanized America, Robert Oppenheimer had set his infamous Manhattan Project into action. This project was so disclosed that only a limited number of men truly knew of its purpose. The clandestine project held prior securities to the point in which famous scientists had to use codenames in order to visit Los Alamos, even wives were kept in the dark, and only key scientists could bring their wives along with them. (Source D) This project had been the discreet creation of the Atomic Bombs. Time and time again, this topic had never really dissipated, its controversial who, what and whys prompting generations to debate its palpable purpose. Was the aim really focused for the “good of all?” Was it for America’s self-preservation and wish to promptly put an end to all of the suffering? Many Americans to this day still believe and argue for the usefulness of the atomic bombings, that the droppings were justified.

After World War II, a new enemy was in the horizon: technology. In the 1940’s, the United States was the leader of the “Free World” paving a path and setting an example for the rest of the world to follow (Maland 191). Americans believed the misconception that “American society was sound, and that communism was a clear danger to the survival of the United States and its allies” (Maland 191). The U.S. maintained a policy of containment by fighting communism wherever it may be, and in a show of might in 1952, they detonated the first hydrogen bomb (Maland 192). Only a short year later, the mighty Soviet Union announced that they too had the Atom bomb (Maland 192). And, when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957, the United States became alarmed that they were falling behind in science and technology. Because the Soviets had the same capability to annihilate the world with the bomb as the United States, tensions between the two countries increase daily. But, this new war tactic brought into question man’s ability to make decisions of nuclear proportions with

When people hear the term “nuclear energy”, the first thing that jumps to their minds is most often “danger”. Who could blame the world for their intense fears of nuclear power, especially after reading the reports from Dr. Ira Helfand and the American writer, David Biello? Dr. Helfand’s article, “Radiation’s Risk to Public Health”, attacks the nuclear energy with facts and concerns like those of the National Research Council BEIR VI report. Whereas Dr. Helfand supports his claims with scientific evidence, David Biello only had a script from a discussion that followed the Fukushima crisis. David Biello’s article, “How Safe Are U.S. Nuclear Reactors? Lessons from Fukushima”, he uncovers secret concerns and future plans about the incredibly disastrous incident. Although David Biello used credible sources and attempted to appeal to ethos, logos, and pathos, Dr. Ira Helfand contains an authority in his education and knows a great deal more about nuclear power and definitely has the best representation of ethos, logos, and pathos.

The decision to drop the atomic bomb, made by President Truman, was largely influenced by political factors rather than military factors. Traditionalist historians argue from the military perspective that the bomb was used to end the war as quickly as possible and with as minimal causalities as possible. Revisionist historians, on the other hand, argue the political perspective where they believe that the bomb was dropped as a diplomatic tool to intimidate the rising superpower that was the Soviet Union. In 1945, there was little reason to doubt the traditionalist perspective; however, in retrospect, with the evidence now gathered and available, it was very likely there were other strategic reasons that played a larger role in the decision Truman had made. By observing the historical timeline, the Cold War began shortly after World War II. Truman was aware of the rising power of the USSR and the threat of the spread of communism into Europe and Asia. The fear of this threat was what likely influenced him and Congress to use the bomb more so than the desire to end the war more efficiently.

Firstly, the atomic incidents of Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and Chernobyl in Russia are often mentioned as examples for nuclear plants being unsafe. In both cases failures of workers led to a meltdown in the reactors and increased radiation in the surrounding area (Henderson 12-17). And as the recent disaster in Japan shows, a nuclear crisis cannot only be caused by human mishaps, but also by unpredictable and untamable natural hazards. Consequently, nuclear crises cannot be predicted or prevented completely. Nuclear plants are, furthermore, considered uneconomical because in the eighties the construction costs of nuclear plants were underestimated and exceeded the estimation by $100 billion (Henderson 103). Therefore, the nuclear power opponents are arguing that nuclear power is burdening the American economy unnecessarily. According to the nuclear physicist Jeff Eerkens, antinuclear groups are also claiming that nuclear power is not necessary for the future since renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal power will be providing sufficient energy for the United States, and are at the same time much cheaper than the costly nuclear power plants (Eerkens 20). Over all, opponents consider nuclear power to risky and inefficient to “deserve further support from U.S. taxpayers” (Henderson 104).

Robert Elias' book, 'Victims Still';, presents a very controversial stance that the victims' movement is, perhaps, not at all. Elias suggests that all the programs, laws, and institutions that have been created in the 1980s and 1990s have done absolutely nothing to help the victim. Elias also offers explanations as to how the victims' movement doesn't help victims, what the real causes of crime are, and how crime should be controlled.

There are definitely people who will be voting for Donald Trump and for everyone's sake, I hope that's out of ignorance. For those people, I'd like to shine a light on why he should not become President.

During my junior year of high school, my history class had to create and complete a trial about a historical event and this experience helped shape my attitude towards school because it reminded me that through hard work, great rewards are gained. This trial was one of the requirements for my junior year history course. The class was divided into two groups; one group represented justification and the other group represented unjustification. I was part of the unjust group. My group’s task was to argue that the atomic bomb was an unjustified event in history and provide evidence such as witness testimony, facts, stories, and photos as to why we believe that statement to be true. Two honor students in our group acted as lawyers and the rest of