Question

We, the undersigned scientists, have been working in the field of atomic power. Until recently, we have had to fear that the United States might be attacked by atomic bombs during this war and that her only defense might lie in a counterattack by the same means. Today, with the defeat of Germany, this danger is averted and we feel impelled to say what follows:

The war has to be brought speedily to a successful conclusion, and attacks by atomic bombs may very well be an effective method of warfare. We feel, however, that such attacks on Japan could not be justified, at least not unless the terms which will be imposed after the war on Japan were made public in detail and Japan were given an opportunity to surrender.
If such public announcement gave assurance to the Japanese that they could look forward to a life devoted to peaceful pursuits in their homeland and if Japan still refused to surrender our nation might then, in certain circumstances, find itself forced to resort to the use of atomic bombs. Such a step, however, ought not to be made at any time without seriously considering the moral responsibilities which are involved.
The development of atomic power will provide the nations with new means of destruction. The atomic bombs at our disposal represent only the first step in this direction, and there is almost no limit to the destructive power which will become available in the course of their future development. Thus a nation which sets the precedent of using these newly liberated forces of nature for purposes of destruction may have to bear the responsibility of opening the door to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale.
If after this war a situation is allowed to develop in the world which permits rival powers to be in uncontrolled possession of these new means of destruction, the cities of the United States as well as the cities of other nations will be in continuous danger of sudden annihilation. All the resources of the United States, moral and material, may have to be mobilized to prevent the advent of such a world situation. Its prevention is at present the solemn responsibility of the United States—singled out by virtue of her lead in the field of atomic power. . . .
In view of the foregoing, we, the undersigned, respectfully petition: first, that you exercise your power as Commander-in-Chief, to rule that the United States shall not resort to the use of atomic bombs in this war unless the terms which will be imposed upon Japan have been made public in detail and Japan knowing these terms has refused to surrender; second, that in such an event the question whether or not to use atomic bombs be decided by you in light of the considerations presented in this petition as well as all the other moral responsibilities which are involved.








DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. How would you sum up the scientists’ purpose in petitioning the president?



2. How would you describe the tone of the petition?



3. Under what circumstances do the writers say that use of the atomic bomb against Japan might be justified?



4. What “solemn responsibility” does the U.S. bear, according to the scientists? Why?



5. What does the petition add to your understanding of the Atomic Age and the present nuclear threat, as outlined in the Upfront article?

Answer 1

1. The scientists purpose in petitioning the president was informal if this is and english term of purpose. If this is for the whole as a purpose than it is to forwarn him not to make brash decisions.

2. The tone is somber and serious.

3. Under full warning and after the choice has been scruninized with attention to moral detail.

4. To prevent people going mad with the power of atomic bombs in the case that they may become available elsewhere.

5. The United States scientists thought further ahead then I ever knew they did in this patent. The Atomic Age was a solemn event and precautions were taken to attempt a more peaceful means.

Step-by-step explanation:

I really want these points what is wrong with me. XP