1. Study Source 7. According to this source, how serious was the Soviet nuclear threat?
According to Source 7, the Soviet nuclear threat was very serious. This was because the Soviet Union would gain even more atom bombs and drop the bombs on US bombs to hurt the USA even more. Also, there was little chance that America would be able to hurt the USSR back because Britain was not a stable enough place to send atoms bombs out from.
2. What measures is Source 7 calling for?
In order to save America from the atom bombs of the USSR, Source 7 is calling for air warning systems to be improved and put into place. It also calls for a intense civilian defense group that would be trained very well and easily used with the military. According to the source, these are th eonly things that could save the USA.
3. How would you describe the tone of Source 7? Use examples of words and phrases in the text to support your answer.
The tone of Source 7 is pessimistic. According to the source, the Soviet Union is capable of anything and any way they could hurt the USA is possible. This is shown by how it ends with the statement that the "atomic capability of the USSR can be expected to grow to a point where [...] the possibility of a decisive initial attack cannot be excluded". The fact that it could not be excluded supports the pessimistic state of mind surrounding the source in which anything bad that can be imagined could happen, even if it would be excluded as an idea if the writer was thinking realistically. Also, the statement that "it is doubted whether such a blow, even if it resulted in the complete destruction of the contemplated target systems, would cause the USSR to sue for terms or prevent Soviet forces from occupying western Europe". This blow is referring to how the USA could hurt the USSR with their bombs. The way the source dismisses any hope from an attack by the USA shows that there is a pessimistic view because, basically, no matter what anyone does, the USSR's takeover of other countries cannot be stopped. The third statement that shows how pessimistic the source is is the view that "Britain with its present inadequate air defense" could never be enough to stop the USSR. This is, again, showing the view that the USA could just never stop the USSR. Clearly, Source 7 has a very pessimistic tone.
4. Study Source 8. What criticisms are made of Source 7?
Source 8 criticizes Source 7. Source 8 states that Source 7 exaggerated facts in order to make the USSR's power seem limitless and like the USA could never defeat them without more weapons. Source 8 states that the report only said this so that more money would be given to defense and unnecessary weapons would be made. Those are the criticisms Source 8 made of Source 7.
5. Do you think the author of Source 7 wanted to increase tension and the risk of war? If not, what were his motives?
Source 7 did want to increase tension and the risk of war. The increase tension would come from the fear of the USSR that the source creates and this fear is create by telling people that it would be very difficult to beat the USSR. The call for civilian defense is alo almost like a call for a draft or preparation for a domestic military and both of those indicate war. Also, if the USA implemented that or made more weapons, the USSR might feel threatened and start a war. The author of Source 7 might have wanted to create this tension and rick of war because the document was created by the American National Security Council, which is a defense organization that would have its budget increased if there was a risk of war. That is why the author wanted to increase tension and risk of war.
According to Source 7, the Soviet nuclear threat was very serious. This was because the Soviet Union would gain even more atom bombs and drop the bombs on US bombs to hurt the USA even more. Also, there was little chance that America would be able to hurt the USSR back because Britain was not a stable enough place to send atoms bombs out from.
2. What measures is Source 7 calling for?
In order to save America from the atom bombs of the USSR, Source 7 is calling for air warning systems to be improved and put into place. It also calls for a intense civilian defense group that would be trained very well and easily used with the military. According to the source, these are th eonly things that could save the USA.
3. How would you describe the tone of Source 7? Use examples of words and phrases in the text to support your answer.
The tone of Source 7 is pessimistic. According to the source, the Soviet Union is capable of anything and any way they could hurt the USA is possible. This is shown by how it ends with the statement that the "atomic capability of the USSR can be expected to grow to a point where [...] the possibility of a decisive initial attack cannot be excluded". The fact that it could not be excluded supports the pessimistic state of mind surrounding the source in which anything bad that can be imagined could happen, even if it would be excluded as an idea if the writer was thinking realistically. Also, the statement that "it is doubted whether such a blow, even if it resulted in the complete destruction of the contemplated target systems, would cause the USSR to sue for terms or prevent Soviet forces from occupying western Europe". This blow is referring to how the USA could hurt the USSR with their bombs. The way the source dismisses any hope from an attack by the USA shows that there is a pessimistic view because, basically, no matter what anyone does, the USSR's takeover of other countries cannot be stopped. The third statement that shows how pessimistic the source is is the view that "Britain with its present inadequate air defense" could never be enough to stop the USSR. This is, again, showing the view that the USA could just never stop the USSR. Clearly, Source 7 has a very pessimistic tone.
4. Study Source 8. What criticisms are made of Source 7?
Source 8 criticizes Source 7. Source 8 states that Source 7 exaggerated facts in order to make the USSR's power seem limitless and like the USA could never defeat them without more weapons. Source 8 states that the report only said this so that more money would be given to defense and unnecessary weapons would be made. Those are the criticisms Source 8 made of Source 7.
5. Do you think the author of Source 7 wanted to increase tension and the risk of war? If not, what were his motives?
Source 7 did want to increase tension and the risk of war. The increase tension would come from the fear of the USSR that the source creates and this fear is create by telling people that it would be very difficult to beat the USSR. The call for civilian defense is alo almost like a call for a draft or preparation for a domestic military and both of those indicate war. Also, if the USA implemented that or made more weapons, the USSR might feel threatened and start a war. The author of Source 7 might have wanted to create this tension and rick of war because the document was created by the American National Security Council, which is a defense organization that would have its budget increased if there was a risk of war. That is why the author wanted to increase tension and risk of war.
6. Do the criticisms in Source 8 mean that Source 7 is not a useful historical source? Explain your answer.
The criticisms in Source 8 do not mean that Source 7 is not a useful historical source. One value of Source 7 is that is shows what the government thought the USSR was possible during the 1950s and that could be useful in understanding why the USA made decisions after this report because it was created in 1950. Also, this source is valuable because it shows the tone in which the US government presented the USSR and issues with nuclear weapons, which shows what type of reaction they wished to receive from Americans reading the report. Therefore, Source 7 is valuable because of its exaggeration and incorrect statements because those can be used to evaluate the American reaction to the nuclear threat.
No comments:
Post a Comment