You are on page 1of 4

In my opinion one of the best tools ever created by man has to be the atomic bomb.

It is given a bad name by many people due to its destructive nature but if they looked at it as a political weapon rather than a military one they might glimpse the good side of nukes.

Nuclear weapons have always been given a bad name. Even Einstein who's actions ensured the first atomic bomb was built during World War II had grave doubts about this new weapon. Einstein was one of the greatest pacifists of the 20th century - He never agreed with wars and weapon development at all but he reluctantly decided that the atomic bomb had to be built by the US before Germany built it. I find it hugely ironic how a German Pacifist came to be helping to build humanities most powerful weapon which at that time looked likely to be used against Germany. Anyhow, the atomic bomb was built and a few busy decades later we had developed many other nuclear weapons and were stockpiling them, our leaders parading them about to show us how big they were. Im sure you have heard from the media, of the effects of nuclear weapons and their high level of destruction - of life and structures. Im sure you know, that all the nuclear weapons on this planet could wipe it out many times over. Im also sure that you've heard all the fanatics screaming that the end is nigh and that the world must disarm all its nukes at once - for if they dont we will end up destroying ourselves. Well that is all very pessimistic stuff. Im sure that many of you will have strong negative feelings about nuclear weapons after hearing that sort of stuff all your lives. But have you ever heard the good side to nukes? When is a war not a war? When its the cold war. It might have slipped some peoples minds that the cold war was one of the most amazing events in history. We had two hostile powers eyeing each other up and yet never actually entering full blown conflict. Has that ever happened before? You see nukes might have the potential to kill us all but so far all they have done is saved millions of lives. If the US and the Soviet Union hadn't possessed arsnals of "evil" nukes you can guarantee that the cold war would have turned into world war III. All over the globe we now have a moderate peace - Unlike throughout the rest of history we do not fear major wars between large powers. China, Russia, Europe and the US - none of these are likely to declare war on each other in the forseable future. The only countries we fear now are relatively smaller and less developed ones. This is a major shift. Many people have deluded themselves into thinking that this level of

More diaries by PotatoError Hackers: Misunderstood To all you Windows Criminals The financial time bomb Too controversial for Adequacy A big HI! from Linuz Zealot Linux Zealot Tells a Story Why the GNU licence is a good thing Why copying copyrighted music isnt wrong. Okay I'll pay for music Poz techie seeks same. T-count above 10000. Human behaviour - my thinking on it Patenting of hyperlinks Question The little things What is god? awww Iraq, Israel, Palestine and Afghanistan The consequences of Determinism What IS adequacy all about???? Where are we going? Secret World

Indeed. (none / 0) (#1) by JoePain on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 09:12:56 AM PST

Einstein (none / 0) (#2) by Anonymous Reader on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 09:19:12 AM PST Once wrote a letter in which he expressed that he thought building the bomb before Germany did might be a good idea. That was the beginning and end of his contribution. I fail to see how he in particular is in any way relevant to this poorly written essay, or how you can reasonably say that he 'helped'. (Admittedly, his scientific work was also relevant in its construction, but since said work was completed well before anyone, including Einstein, had any conception of the possibility of building any weaponry with it, that link is incidental.) --Anonymous Reader #24601

*sigh* i knew this would happen (none / 0) (#3) by PotatoError on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 09:49:14 AM PST Didnt you read the first sentence of the main article? "Even Einstein, who's actions ensured the first atomic bomb was built during World War II" Does that sound like I believed that he in any way took part in building it? Or does it sound like I was talking about his actions (the letter) which made sure the bomb was built during World War II? I guess your main problem was when I wrote that he "came to be helping build the atomic bomb". Keep it simple, keep it short I thought. Its so much easier to write that Einstein helped build the atomic bomb than to write a long paragraph about how actually, he only wrote a letter to Roosevelt urging him to start production of the atomic bomb but that this was an important factor in the bombs production. All that einstein stuff was off topic anyway so I kept it short. At the time of writing I thought someone would pick me up on it but then I thought no, noone would be that trivial. But YES!! ARGGH. Funnily enough if I had used the phrase "helped to build" instead of "helping build" you wouldnt have had a problem as you would have assumed I was refering to his past work on energy. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

My point (5.00 / 1) (#4) by Anonymous Reader on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 09:57:23 AM PST is that Einstein is completely irrelevant to the article. Your response seems to agree with this. Obviously, Newton's work was necessary in the bomb's construction. So was Maxwell's, and Euclid's, and Descartes'. Why didn't you mention any of them? The whole article is just as poorly organized, I shan't belabour the point further.

You might also like