Would FDR have nuked Japan?

Status
Not open for further replies.
By this point and the carnage on Okinawa I doubt FDR would have thought twice about using nukes....
Given what we know about FDR, he would have been more than willing to use nukes. He was in favor of using force to resolve a hostage situation at an internment camp. (Wallace had to talk him down by pointing out what we did there could affect US POWs.)
 
Nukes were going to be used - no matter what the decision re: Downfall would be. After all plan for Downfall called for preparatory nuclear bombings before landings.
 

Rex Mundi

Banned
There is no reason that anyone, having invested so much in the development of the weapon would not have used it. There is no moral grounds to not use the weapon, when there is even an iota of a chance that it will end the war without an invasion.

Of course he would use it.

Come now. Whether or not you think it is morally acceptable to use nuclear weapons on civilians is immaterial. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, and I don't particularly care to argue over it; but we both know that there are many who would disagree with you and that the chances of either side changing their minds on an internet message board are nil. What you're saying doesn't further the discussion.
 
It appears that the consensus is pretty unanimous that he would have used the bomb (except maybe the OP, whose unstated opinion seems to be that FDR would not have from his word choice)
 

Japhy

Banned
Come now. Whether or not you think it is morally acceptable to use nuclear weapons on civilians is immaterial. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, and I don't particularly care to argue over it; but we both know that there are many who would disagree with you and that the chances of either side changing their minds on an internet message board are nil. What you're saying doesn't further the discussion.

I'm not trying to change anyone opinion, sorry but I was trying to frame what the though process would have been for any American President. They paid for it, and lets be honest, they would use it so long as there was even an iota of a chance that it would prevent any further US casualties. No President could afford to be President the day after the war has ended, with an invasion having taken place with massive casualties involved, and face the nation and say "We could have ended it sooner, but we didn't".

Hell I'm no fan myself of using the Bomb, but I view it as hideously necessary.
 
Suppose we somehow delay the death of FDR by a few months - let's say he dies on September 1st, 1945. Would he really have nuked Japan, or he would simply carry out Operation Downfall? I know it has been discussed before, and I do have my own views, but I would like to listen to the differing views of yours.

No, youre thinking of Teddy. FDR wouldnt have nuked Japan, he would have had the Airforce do it for him.:)
 
You don't spend the modern day equivalent of hundreds of millions of dollars, your finest engineers and scientists, and massive resources to develop a weapon and then NOT use it.

Looking back, with more than sixty years worth of distance, it's very easy to see the moral dilemma in using the atomic bomb. In 1945, as the war was still going on and American soldiers were dying, I really don't think it would have been seen in the same light. There would have been much greater controversy if after all the expense and effort FDR has opted not to drop the bomb. After what was done to Dresden and Tokyo, the A bomb would have been seen by the public as just a much more efficient way to kills Japs and level their cities.

It is always a mistake to look at the actions of the past and expect the people of the time to think and behave as we do now. America of the 1940's was not as uncivilized as say Ancient Rome, but they weren't as concerned about atomizing civilians as we are now.

FDR would, without any doubt, have used the bomb.
 
Suppose we somehow delay the death of FDR by a few months - let's say he dies on September 1st, 1945. Would he really have nuked Japan, or he would simply carry out Operation Downfall? I know it has been discussed before, and I do have my own views, but I would like to listen to the differing views of yours.

Short answer - yes.

Long answer - yes he would have; unless due to butterflies, clear, convincing and incontrovertible evidence comes to his attention and convinces him Japan is, without question, on the verge of surrendering, so close in fact, that the nukes would be "overkill" and really not do much to hasten the end of the war.
 
I just had an image of FDR personally nuking japan in a flying wheelchair. It was Badass.

Untitled.jpg
 
Variation: that FDR is incapacitated by a stroke, and Eleanor is the only one who can understand what he is saying, the only one who could communicate his wishes to the outside. Maybe Roosevelt would have been willing to use the newly-invented atomic bombs on Japan, but would the more concerned Eleanor?:confused:
yes, it's a repeat of Wilson's illness, where his wife in effect was running the country, but it's still an interesting scenario.

This would have never happened. We have laws in place and Harry Truman would have been given the powers of the presidency, even if they were just temporary in the event suggested above.
 
This is an interesting post, and for the most part I agree that it makes sense, that what with all the expense of developing the bomb, and pressure to end the war in Japan, FDR would have been quite willing to use it. It'd be intriguing to look at his thought process, in comparison to Truman's, but the end result would probably be the same.:cool:
Where I like to speculate is Eleanor's part, what she would have thought, had she discovered any knowledge of the atomic bomb and its effects, so horrific but so effective, :eek:and -- here's the thrust -- would she have prevented its use if she could. It is a tad ASB, but something to muse on.
 

Cook

Banned
I am surprised that anyone would have any doubts on this matter. Not only was the option of dropping the atomic bomb expected to cost vastly less in terms of allied casualties than invasion, but also in terms of Japanese lives lost; expectedcivilian losses resulting from an invasion of the Japanese home islands vastly exceeded the estimated death toll from dropping one, or even a few atomic bombs. Of course Franklin Roosevelt would have used the bomb.
 
Clarify: I do think FDR would nuke Japan had he lived. I thought this would be a controversial topic that worths discussion, but my miscalculation has led to an unnecessary flame war indirectly targeting me. I apologize for asking this incredibly stupid question. Mods please lock this thread.
 
This is an interesting post, and for the most part I agree that it makes sense, that what with all the expense of developing the bomb, and pressure to end the war in Japan, FDR would have been quite willing to use it. It'd be intriguing to look at his thought process, in comparison to Truman's, but the end result would probably be the same.:cool:
Where I like to speculate is Eleanor's part, what she would have thought, had she discovered any knowledge of the atomic bomb and its effects, so horrific but so effective, :eek:and -- here's the thrust -- would she have prevented its use if she could. It is a tad ASB, but something to muse on.

Does anyone know whether Eleanor ever said or wrote anything in her later years about the dropping of the bomb?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top