Which presidents, or candidates could/would have nuked Japan?

Which of the named below would have nuked Japan to end WW2.

  • Obama

    Votes: 3 18.8%
  • GW Bush

    Votes: 13 81.3%
  • Bill Clinton

    Votes: 6 37.5%
  • Hillary Clinton

    Votes: 7 43.8%
  • Sarah Palin

    Votes: 11 68.8%
  • Mitt Romney

    Votes: 8 50.0%
  • Reagan, Ike, GHW Bush

    Votes: 13 81.3%
  • Jimmy Carter

    Votes: 3 18.8%
  • LB Johnson

    Votes: 10 62.5%
  • JFK

    Votes: 13 81.3%

  • Total voters
    16

kyzr

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2009
35,255
26,526
2,905
The AL part of PA
There are a few threads showing that they think that Palin would be a better "protector" of the US than some others.

Lets take a poll to see which presidents actually would have dropped "the bomb".
 
Palin would nuke South Korea if she had to
 
I hope none would, as a deterrent it's about having the ability, not using it other than as a last resort.
 
That's sort of like asking one of those "what if" questions isn't it? Pure speculation.
 
Palin would nuke South Korea if she had to

Obama would make sure he had support from senators from each of the 57 states.


See, I can be just as stupid as you, if not more so when the mood strikes.



I think a more interesting question would be who would have set up the Manhattan project. It consumed 1/4 of the economy for three years. I am sure Reagan and W would have said no. Obama would have, but kept Openheimer and Fermi out it, and staffed it with political bootlickers. Carter would have said no to the build a bomb part, but would have seen the advantage of building carriers with the tech. So he would fund the research but with tight financial controlls. Palin, I think likewise. This would be my position.

Once you have the device, you will use it. Unless someone might use it on you.
 
Of course, Japan was negotiating with the USSR instead of the US, in the months before Hiroshima. Truman had the specter of Japan surrendering to the Soviets instead of us. He also knew that the Soviets were about to declare war on Japan, thus giving them divvy rights.

Had Truman merely demonstrated the bomb offshore, let's say, instead of using it on Hiroshima, the USSR would have had the time to get their war declaration and invade, and we would have had not only a divided Vietnam and a divided Korea, we would have had a divided Japan as well.

Casualties? We killed three times as many people with our conventional firebombings of Japan than we did with the two nukes. No one seems to remember that.

I don't second-guess Truman on this, just for those who might have misunderstood my earlier statement.
 
Make it more simple. Which of those Satanist WOULDN'T have nuked them.
Answer ? Carter.JFK.Maybe Teddy Roosevelt. He'da rather fought than sucker punch.
 
I don't believe a lot of folks understand just how much damage we were doing with conventional means. Japanese construction used lots of paper and wood.

What worked in Dresden worked twice as well in Tokyo.
 
Make it more simple. Which of those Satanist WOULDN'T have nuked them.
Answer ? Teddy Roosevelt. He'da rather fought than sucker punch.
He'da rather have seen 250,000 American servicemen killed invading mainland Japan than see.... ZERO?

Prolly not.
 
I hope none would, as a deterrent it's about having the ability, not using it other than as a last resort.


At the time, it was a closely held secret and, not being known about, would have deterred nothing.

This was a real world decision. Given the method of all out war at the time, the entore country would have bombed to rubble and the civilian dead would have at least equaleed and probably exeeded the effect of the two Nukes even before the invasion. Fire bombing was a popular method to break the spirit of the enemy and LeMay had no qualms about ordering this type of weapon to be used.

The absolute devastation caused by the two bombs caused the Emperor to surrender, but his generals would have continued to fight lacking that order.

This prevented the loss of additional lives that an invasion would have cost and lacking the dropping of the bombs, the Japanese would have fought to the last man and the Japanese citizens would have killed themselves prior to being captured as they did in other invasion examples.

Hopefully, all of the names on the list would have dropped that bomb.
 
He'da rather fought than sucker punch.
The fight started with a sucker punch. You think it ended with one?
Sure did.
Who attacked ? The women and kids running the sushi shops in Hiroshima or the Nazi's that enslaved them.
I tell ya what. Set my bean fields on fire and I'll kill your grandkids school teachers. Fair deal ? Right ?

Like on 9/11 when they killed everyone in the planes including the 3 & 4 year olds, and then the 3,000 working in the WTC towers. We shouldn't have attacked the countries supporting terrorism, huh?? Just the few who planned the attack? Then we're not supposed to torture the ones we catch?! I like a prez who takes the gloves off when we're in a war with terrorists.
I also like when Obama ordered the snipers to take out the pirates, one of the high points of his presidency.
 
There are a few threads showing that they think that Palin would be a better "protector" of the US than some others.

Lets take a poll to see which presidents actually would have dropped "the bomb".

All of them would of nuked japan, put in Truman's shoes, with Truman's knowledge, with Truman's education every single person would of dropped the Nuclear bomb.

Anyone who thinks differently does not know history nor human nature.
 

Forum List

Back
Top