A Critical Review of Leo Szilard’s Petition to the President
Leo Szilard’s Petition to the President represents the ideas of the scientific community leading to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A group of individuals who during their time took into account more than the ending of World War II, but the future repercussions as well. Szilard presents a petition that brings to light an argument revied by 69 scientists and himself, all expects in nuclear technology in order to prevent the President of the United States from plunging the world into a state of nuclear fear. As well as an appeal to the emotional and logical thinking of the American people and leader of the free world. The following will evaluate the effectiveness of Szilard’s petition, and the efficient use of persuasive appeals.
A summary of Szilard’s petition is necessary. In the beginning of the petition Szilard states that “Discoveries of which the people of the United States are not aware may affect the welfare of this nation in the near future.” (par. 1). The effects of an Atomic bomb are unknown and using such a powerful, unknown resource will effect America more than has been considered. Szilard petition does not present facts and statistics to depict the effects of a nuclear arms race, but provides expert experience from those who help develop the technology and know the extent of its destructive capabilities. To gain an understand of the credibility of Leo Szilard and how his knowledge can be considered accurate, a review of his past must be presented. …show more content…
Szilard did not being his career voice against the effects of nuclear energy. In an article by Bess, Szilard helped to pioneer the possibility of nuclear power. Also, participant in the Manhattan project, and was one of the original patent holder of the splitting of the neutron Szilard understood the effects of a nuclear reaction (11). In the statement “Until recently we have had to reckon with the possibility 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.” (par. 2) Szilard’s goal remained to provide the allies with a counter measure when the axis unlocked the technology, and not to be used to initiate a nuclear war. With the liberation of atomic power, that “today with this danger averted” (par. 2). It is time to speak of restraint. Taking away from the emotions of a nation in the midst of a war. Szilard presents the logical connection between introducing nuclear weapon as an unnecessary offensive weapon. That once introduced as more than a counter measure will increase the likely hood of enemy nations will follow. If America becomes the first to weaponized nuclear power “as an instrument of war it would be difficult to resist for long the temptation of putting them to such use.” (par. 5). The presentation and potential nuclear strike with such weapons was enough to dissuade other nations from using them. Then, Szilard connects the position that the bombs are unnecessary during “present phase of the war against Japan” (par. 1). Believing that Japan was not close to the ability of using nuclear technology as a weapon, and Japan was not given adequate time to formulate a proper retreat plan or to surrender. Additionally, the face of war is growing ever more intense and violent. Szilard states “The
Leo Szilard’s Petition to the President represents the ideas of the scientific community leading to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A group of individuals who during their time took into account more than the ending of World War II, but the future repercussions as well. Szilard presents a petition that brings to light an argument revied by 69 scientists and himself, all expects in nuclear technology in order to prevent the President of the United States from plunging the world into a state of nuclear fear. As well as an appeal to the emotional and logical thinking of the American people and leader of the free world. The following will evaluate the effectiveness of Szilard’s petition, and the efficient use of persuasive appeals.
A summary of Szilard’s petition is necessary. In the beginning of the petition Szilard states that “Discoveries of which the people of the United States are not aware may affect the welfare of this nation in the near future.” (par. 1). The effects of an Atomic bomb are unknown and using such a powerful, unknown resource will effect America more than has been considered. Szilard petition does not present facts and statistics to depict the effects of a nuclear arms race, but provides expert experience from those who help develop the technology and know the extent of its destructive capabilities. To gain an understand of the credibility of Leo Szilard and how his knowledge can be considered accurate, a review of his past must be presented. …show more content…
Szilard did not being his career voice against the effects of nuclear energy. In an article by Bess, Szilard helped to pioneer the possibility of nuclear power. Also, participant in the Manhattan project, and was one of the original patent holder of the splitting of the neutron Szilard understood the effects of a nuclear reaction (11). In the statement “Until recently we have had to reckon with the possibility 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.” (par. 2) Szilard’s goal remained to provide the allies with a counter measure when the axis unlocked the technology, and not to be used to initiate a nuclear war. With the liberation of atomic power, that “today with this danger averted” (par. 2). It is time to speak of restraint. Taking away from the emotions of a nation in the midst of a war. Szilard presents the logical connection between introducing nuclear weapon as an unnecessary offensive weapon. That once introduced as more than a counter measure will increase the likely hood of enemy nations will follow. If America becomes the first to weaponized nuclear power “as an instrument of war it would be difficult to resist for long the temptation of putting them to such use.” (par. 5). The presentation and potential nuclear strike with such weapons was enough to dissuade other nations from using them. Then, Szilard connects the position that the bombs are unnecessary during “present phase of the war against Japan” (par. 1). Believing that Japan was not close to the ability of using nuclear technology as a weapon, and Japan was not given adequate time to formulate a proper retreat plan or to surrender. Additionally, the face of war is growing ever more intense and violent. Szilard states “The