Question

Leo Szilard and Edward Teller, originally friends and colleagues, found themselves on the opposite side of the debate as to whether the atomic bomb should be used in warfare, as it appeared that Germany did not have a bomb after all. These differing opinions are laid out in the above reading assignment, which consists of a correspondence between the two men, in addition to Leo Szilard's petitions to U.S. President Harry Truman.

In your opinion, which scientist had the more convincing point of view?

Your response must include at least two specific points made by each man, followed by your critical analysis of these points (in other words, why you agree and/or disagree.) The response should be at least three paragraphs long -- an introduction, followed by summaries and critical analyses of both Szilard's and Teller's opinions. At least one direct quote from each scientist should be used to support your position.

Answer 1

Atomic or nuclear bomb is something very powerful, destroying weapon that it can easily destroy a big state or small country like japan within minutes.

When the nuclear bomb was used againt japan on Hiroshima and Nagasaki the qhole kcities were destroyed.

The problem with nuclear bomb is not that it is very destructible weapon. The problem is, its effects are not limited for certain tine, but thetly last for many years. Even today, sone kids who take birth in affected cities are born handicapped. The nuclear bomb starts its chain and the product of nuclear fission enters in food chain, in our foods, grains and the chain continues so once such a weapon is used everyone has to suffer from it.

In ideal manner its production should be stopped.

When asked “Dr. Einstein, why is it that when the mind of man has stretched so far as to discover the structure of the atom we have been unable to devise the political means to keep the atom from destroying us?”] That is simple, my friend. It is because politics is more difficult than physics.

— Albert Einstein