Commenting on Classmates Discussion About Scientists and the Decision to Bomb Japan

I have provided two of my classmates discussion the instructions are below and I have provided my discussion

When responding to peers, choose a peer who selected the same topic as you by looking at the title of the discussion posts. In one to two paragraphs, compare and contrast the source you described in your initial post with the one described by your peer. Are the two sources’ theses or arguments compatible? Do they use the same or different primary sources? Is one source more reliable, in your estimation, than the other? How do these two sources, combined, add to what you know about the research topic

1.)The secondary source that I chose to use is Scientists and the Decision to Bomb Japan by David H. Frisch. The lens that the article is using is Economic as it discusses the National and International Business Strategies on if they should drop the atomic bomb military style without a demonstration first to notify Japan of the attack to test the performance of it. The article also talks about finding the area size for a demonstration capable of keeping the damage minimal. It also talks about determining if the use of the bomb will be worth the lives of civilians in order to end the war. General Groves states from his book, “Now It Can Be Told” “To enable us to assess accurately the effects of the bomb, the targets should not have been previously damaged by air raids. It was also desirable that the first target be of such size that the damage would be confined within it, so that we could more definitely determine the power of the bomb.”

http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/ehost/…

2.)When thinking about the type of lenses this author possibly chose, my mind falls on the covering all three lenses. The way Frisch speaks it seems obvious that he is from a small town and doesn’t really understand the thought process of those higher up and how the got to that conclusion of just bombing them instead of doing a test run. “Although my special experiences were quite limited, Los Alamos was a rather intimate community, so I hope to have in reasonable perspective the feelings of many who were there” (D. Frisch, 1970). I would use this same quote for the social aspect of his argument as well. He lives in a very intimate town where most people are like minded. The government lenses are him talking about how he basically doesn’t understand what the exact reasoning was for the two bombings to go off so close together. The way he phrased it made me think he was talking partial conspiracy. “Perhaps a demonstration would have been followed by too short a pause before a very destructive bombing to allow the Japanese government time to absorb the facts, as Hiroshima seems to me to have been followed too closely by Nagasaki” (D. Frisch, 1970). This author I used for my own projects for this course because his view seems to make sense to me and what I feel about the bombings. I also think that made it easy to see what type of lens he may be looking out of.

Frisch, D. H. (1970). Scientists and the Decision to Bomb Japan. Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists, 26(6), 107-115.

http://ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,url,cpid&custid=shapiro&db=ahl&AN=21569493&site=ehost-live&scope=site