A Hole in the World Rhetorical Analysis
The earth shakes as a loud crash roars across the city. The people look toward the sky as a cloud of smoke and fire engulfs the building above. About twenty minutes later, another disorientating crash happens, but this time to the tower next to the first. White smoke, debris, and human bodies start falling from the sky, while people scramble for shelter. What started out as a normal Tuesday morning turned into a day that will be remembered in every American’s heart, September 11th, 2001. On October 1st, 2001, The Nation publishes Jonathan Schell’s “A Hole in the World” about the recent events of 9/11 and nuclear warfare. Jonathan Schell used ethos, pathos, logos and a combination of pathos and ethos to …show more content…
He uses the previous actions of 9/11 to show that this is only a small taste of what could happen and explains that only very few people knew about nuclear dangers before the terrorist attack. Now, terrorists are using common technologies to cause harm to people, and how they can make their weapons from scratch or get them from the countries that have stockpiled them over the century. He brings up the treaty of the Bush Administration with antinuclear defense, but it was overturned because Russia threatened to abandon nuclear arms regulations. Schell asks questions pertaining about what resources the United States should spend its time and money on, and then he answers the questions with his opinions and push to develop protection by international relationships. To conclude his argument, he brings up Aristotle’s view of man, that humans are political and technical animals, and the image of 9/11 to show that to fix the problem, Americans have to return to our promises and fix the ones we broke. Schell restates that Americans now have been warned of these capabilities of …show more content…
First, Bush wanted to end the Antiballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, it bans antinuclear defenses, which Schell explains the faults (381). This would have thrown away all rules on nuclear warfare and made the world into a war zone; if one country would argue with another, then a country could bomb the other and take over it. Americans angrily urged for revenge or someone to pay, but removing the treaty would cause a bigger problem, and looking back at Hiroshima: regret and remorse. Next, Hiroshima used both ways to convince the reader to acknowledge the past. The mention of Hiroshima to Americans will cause controversial feelings; some will feel guilty for bombing innocent people, some will feel pride for ending the war, but quite a few will feel a mix of both. Americans destroyed another country to end a war; even though it to prevent more loss of life; Americans were the terrorists and chose who died. Many people still have mixed feelings on Hiroshima and this essay reminds them about the guilt of destroying human life in order to save more lives. Schell uses this example to point out that if America bombs Afghanistan because of 9/11, it will be a repeat of Hiroshima. He also uses it to assimilate the feelings of guilt and regret of Hiroshima with the potential bombing of another country. He also uses the logic about our past knowledge of Hiroshima as a warning sign, which can only happen if the audiences
The earth shakes as a loud crash roars across the city. The people look toward the sky as a cloud of smoke and fire engulfs the building above. About twenty minutes later, another disorientating crash happens, but this time to the tower next to the first. White smoke, debris, and human bodies start falling from the sky, while people scramble for shelter. What started out as a normal Tuesday morning turned into a day that will be remembered in every American’s heart, September 11th, 2001. On October 1st, 2001, The Nation publishes Jonathan Schell’s “A Hole in the World” about the recent events of 9/11 and nuclear warfare. Jonathan Schell used ethos, pathos, logos and a combination of pathos and ethos to …show more content…
He uses the previous actions of 9/11 to show that this is only a small taste of what could happen and explains that only very few people knew about nuclear dangers before the terrorist attack. Now, terrorists are using common technologies to cause harm to people, and how they can make their weapons from scratch or get them from the countries that have stockpiled them over the century. He brings up the treaty of the Bush Administration with antinuclear defense, but it was overturned because Russia threatened to abandon nuclear arms regulations. Schell asks questions pertaining about what resources the United States should spend its time and money on, and then he answers the questions with his opinions and push to develop protection by international relationships. To conclude his argument, he brings up Aristotle’s view of man, that humans are political and technical animals, and the image of 9/11 to show that to fix the problem, Americans have to return to our promises and fix the ones we broke. Schell restates that Americans now have been warned of these capabilities of …show more content…
First, Bush wanted to end the Antiballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, it bans antinuclear defenses, which Schell explains the faults (381). This would have thrown away all rules on nuclear warfare and made the world into a war zone; if one country would argue with another, then a country could bomb the other and take over it. Americans angrily urged for revenge or someone to pay, but removing the treaty would cause a bigger problem, and looking back at Hiroshima: regret and remorse. Next, Hiroshima used both ways to convince the reader to acknowledge the past. The mention of Hiroshima to Americans will cause controversial feelings; some will feel guilty for bombing innocent people, some will feel pride for ending the war, but quite a few will feel a mix of both. Americans destroyed another country to end a war; even though it to prevent more loss of life; Americans were the terrorists and chose who died. Many people still have mixed feelings on Hiroshima and this essay reminds them about the guilt of destroying human life in order to save more lives. Schell uses this example to point out that if America bombs Afghanistan because of 9/11, it will be a repeat of Hiroshima. He also uses it to assimilate the feelings of guilt and regret of Hiroshima with the potential bombing of another country. He also uses the logic about our past knowledge of Hiroshima as a warning sign, which can only happen if the audiences