1. In their article, “Time to Confront the Ethics of Hiroshima,” Hohan and Maley III write that, “We rightly expect Germany and Japan to confront painful episodes from their participation in World War

1. In their article, “Time to Confront the Ethics of Hiroshima,” Hohan and Maley III write that, “We rightly expect Germany and Japan to confront painful episodes from their participation in World War II. Now it's our turn.” What do they mean by this? Do you agree, and why or why not?

2. In another article titled, “Not Everyone Wanted to Bomb Hiroshima,” Hohan and Maley III discuss a number of individuals who opposed the use of the atomic bomb in WWII. Of these voices, which surprised you the most and why?

3. In yet another article titled, “Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent,” Hohan and Maley III writes that some believe that because we weren’t there in WWII, we won’t have any right to offer our views on the use of the atomic bomb. They also talk about how some see criticism of our use of the bomb as unpatriotic. How do they work against these two arguments? Do you agree, and why or why not?

4. You guessed it, Hohan and Maley III again. In their article, “Journalists and the Bomb,” they criticize modern news outlets for uncritically supporting the assumption that our use of the atomic bomb was necessary and justified. How do they juxtapose this coverage with coverage of the event around the time that it happened? In your educated opinion, are modern journalists or post-WWII journalists more accurate in their coverage, and why?