Summary and Answered Questions on the Szilard Petition

The Szilard petition.

The first version of the letters is much more direct in its way of delivering the message to the president. There are some passages in the first text which uses a more agrresive language than the second. Ex. Letter one, line nine: “The destruction of Japanese cities, by means of atomic bombs may very well be an effective method of warfare” and in the second text it says: “attacks by atomic bombs may very well be an effective method of warfare” In the first letter it also says that atomic bombs firstly are for “Ruthless annihilation” whilst the second letter uses the words: “it will provide nations with new means of destruction”. You can see by these examples that the first letter uses much more agressive phrases than the second. I also think that the second letter tries to hit the presidents morality, and by explaining what an atomic bombing could do, trying to give him a guilty conscience. I think the moral factor in letter two is used so much ...