Chemistry Boon or Bane

A ncient A tom Bombs Ancient Atom Bombs Fact, Fraud, and the Myth of Prehistoric Nuclear Warfare Contents I. The Myth of Ancient Atomic Warfare 1 II. The First Ancient Atomic Bomb Theories 4 III. The Tesla Death Ray 13 IV.

If nuclear weapons are used in war sustainable life on this planet will be ended. Nuclear Weapons have only been used a few times in the history of this earth. The few times nuclear weapons were used the amount of damaged they caused was devastating. The first country to use nuclear weapons was the United States during World War II. On August 6, 1945 an atomic bomb nicknamed “Little Boy” was dropped on Hiroshima killing between 90,000 and 166,000. Then on August 6th, 1945 the second atomic bomb nicknamed “Fat Man” was dropped on Nagasaki killing 60,000 – 80,000 people. These statistics show how devastating nuclear weapons were when they were used and how they can be if they are used again. This paper will examine the Dangerous effects of

These ventures into atomic agriculture and medicine were primarily fueled by organizations like the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and were used to justify a reason for atomic research that did not revolve around atomic weapons. This concern about the uses of atomic energy is further reflected in Eisenhower’s “Atom’s Peace” speech when he says, “Against the dark background of the atomic bomb, the United States does not wish merely to present strength, but also the desire and the hope for peace.” This quotation shows the need for peaceful applications of atomic energy.

Technology has allowed for the furtherance of warfare, from the invention of gun powder to the splitting of the atom. These findings have propelled the leap of numerous nations’ in the ability to wage war against each other. Of these discoveries, the splitting atom spawned an invention that would hurl the world from conventional warfare into the nuclear age. These ideals were the brainstorming of some of the greatest minds in America and abroad. These scientists began to formulate the creation of the atomic bomb, a device that would change the world in ways that had never been imagined before.

Few inventions have shaped war as much as the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb enabled massive indiscriminate destruction on a scale the world had never seen. The offensive capabilities of the atomic bomb were terrifying and many believed a nuclear war could destroy the world. Bernard Brodie, Albert Wohlstetter, Thomas Schelling, and André Beaufre describe the state of war the atomic bomb introduced in the Nuclear Age. Their writings show that atomic bombs changed warfare by changing the focus of arms development to avoid conflict and threats against civilians were now used to force surrender.

The book Bomb: The Race to Build–and Steal–the World’s Most Dangerous Weapon is a thrilling, fast-paced story that refines a great deal of history into interesting and understandable literature for practically any age reader. The author, Steve Sheinkin, writes to tell the story of the first atomic bomb, the people who made it possible, and those who challenged its progress. Any person who is interested in science, history, or would like an enjoyable, quick read could read Bomb and easily understand the basics behind the creation of the atomic bomb. Along with the science and mathematics of the atomic bomb, Sheinkin adds the suspense and intrigue from the viewpoints of espionage agents from the Soviet Union, Germany, Great Britain, and the

Much credit should belong to scientists for making important technological and medical discoveries in the world. In Bishop,'sEnemies of Promise," well known scientists point out views regarding their belief in science. Representative George E. Brown, Jr., who has been trained as a physicist admits that "his faith in science has been shaken." He feels that as our knowledge of science increases, so do the occurrence of social problems. Brown, Jr. Feels that the progression of science should lead to diminishing social problems rather than an increase.(238) The real question is, is science to blame, or are the humans creating science to blame? Critics such as Brown and Lamm "blame science for what are actually the failures of individuals to use the knowledge that science has provided." Frankenstein, The Modern Prometheus, is a good example of a myth about a scientist who took science to an extreme.

Inventions have been accomplished due to the vast technology that is in place. Technology has led to the advancement of warfare in most parts of the world. The same technology has resulted in inventions that range from gunpowder to the atom that is splitting the environments across the borders. These inventions have led to some countries being able to leap over other weaker countries when it comes to war. Among all these inventions, the atomic bomb stands out as the most lethal weapon. The splitting atom has launched the whole world through its conventional warfare that led the world to change their perspectives to ushering in a new era of the nuclear age. The world atomic bomb is so vivid to the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima (Madaras 99). When one mentions these two places and the splitting atom, a person is able to picture a city that was torn apart and the masses of people that were killed by the United States ' actions of using the bomb in these two cities. Thus, this paper tries to examine if it was necessary for the United States to drop the atomic bomb on the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in order to bring an end to World War II.

Take a moment and imagine yourself as a scientist. You’re in the Alamogordo desert. Your hands are sweating but not due to the heat. You’re waiting to see the first detonation of the weapon you developed – the atomic bomb. You’re asking, will it work at all? Will this one detonation destroy the entire world? Then moment of truth, it detonates; you are temporarily blinded by a bright light and you realize the tremendous power of this one weapon. The weapon is indiscriminate and destroys everything in its path. Now you ask yourself, “What have I done?”

Though people questioned why acts of war were committed, they found justification in rationalizing that it served the greater good. As time evolved, the world began to evolve in its thinking and view of the atomic bomb and war. In Hiroshima, John Hersey has a conversation with a survivor of the atomic bomb about the general nature of war. “She had firsthand knowledge of the cruelty of the atomic bomb, but she felt that more notice should be given to the causes than to the instruments of total war.” (Hersey, 122). In John Hersey’s book, many concepts are discussed. The most important concept for the reader to identify was how society viewed the use of the bomb. Many people, including survivors, have chosen to look past the bomb itself, into the deeper issues the bomb represents. The same should apply to us. Since WWII, we have set up many restrictions, protocols and preventions in the hope that we could spare our society from total nuclear war. The world has benefited in our perspective of the bomb because we learned, understand, and fear the use of atomic weapons.

Nuclear weapons provide a great and purposeful value clearly worth the time and money spent on them in the 1940’s. The research in nuclear weapons has lead to many discoveries and ideas that still influence the world today. These ideas have led to the

The first use of nuclear weaponry in warfare occurred on the morning of August 6, 1945 when the United States dropped the atomic bomb known as “Little Boy” on Hiroshima, Japan. The result was devastating, demonstrating the true power of nuclear warfare. Since the incident, the world has been left fearing the possible calamity of another nuclear war. Joseph Siracusa’s Nuclear Weapons: A Very Short Introduction explains aspects of nuclear weaponry from simply what a nuclear weapon is, to the growing fear from nuclear warfare advancements in an age of terrorism. The book furthered my education on nuclear weapons and the effect they place on society, physically and mentally.

What is Science? When it comes to the word ‘science’ most of the people have some kind of knowledge about science or when they think of it there is some kind of image related to it, a theory, scientific words or scientific research (Beyond Conservation, n.d.). Many different sorts of ideas float into an individual’s mind. Every individual has a different perception about science and how he/she perceives it. It illustrates that each person can identify science in some form. It indicates that the ‘science’ plays a vital role in our everyday lives (Lederman & Tobin, 2002). It seems that everyone can identify science but cannot differentiate it correctly from pseudo-science and non-science (Park, 1986). This essay will address the difference between science, non-science and pseudo-science. Then it will discuss possible responses to the question that what should we do when there is a clash between scientific explanation and non-scientific explanation. Then it will present a brief examination about the correct non-scientific explanation.

In today’s day and age many people around the world have become dependent on what seems like useless or needless things such as the internet and television. This is one of the negative effects of science and the technology that comes with it. Some of these technologies seem harmless, like cellphones and computers, but it seems as the years progress people want more and more power, literally and figuratively. The element uranium is a perfect example; this element has the power to do well in generating power for millions of people, and the power to do wrong in nuclear warfare.

As people, we come with earlier knowledge and understandings on subjects and topics of study, “Science” being one of them. We make presumptions, based on either reasonable evidence or that our thoughts and ideas are known as true by others. Through this we have come to understand and define science as its aims, leaving its definition, whether consciously or unconsciously, unchallenged. We have taken advantage of the label that we have set for science, as well as its goals, and failed to look at them further.