Of Nukes, Dogs, North Korea, & Necessary Evil































Patrice Ayme

Tags: , , , , , ,

10 Responses to “Of Nukes, Dogs, North Korea, & Necessary Evil”

  1. De Brunet D'Ambiallet Says:

    It seems to me that the preceding essay resonates with the critique you made of Camus’ Stranger in recent answers you made to comments. The Stranger is not sick, there are just people like that. Kim is the Stranger, but he has more than a gun. There are no treatment, just take him out.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Camus’ Stranger is feeling weird because of too much sun and heat (something whoever has lived in most of Africa is familiar with). So he undergoes some mental transformation enough to nudge him into insanity.
      Such mental transformations can be much deeper when the environment has been transformed in a much more conducive-to-aggression ambiance, for much longer.
      Yes, just take him out, or prepare if he is not.


  2. Omnnmei Says:

    omnnmei wrote:

    Where did you get this crap?

    Cite a RELIABLE source or be known as a typical fact-free TE blowhard spouting nonsense.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      You are ignorant of an important part of history. It is important, because it changes many perspectives, and interpretations. So you are angry, because, if true, it shows you have understood, and know, nothing important on that primordial subject.

      I am a philosopher not an electronic encyclopedia. Just a biological one, which makes me superior, because I concentrate on superior, most meaningful facts. For example, I know very well the entire subject of the collaboration between Hitler and plutocratic leadership… which made Hitler possible. Indeed. Quite enraging for people like you, who have been played all along.

      There are hundreds of references, you can start by googling: “Patrice Ayme XYZ” where XYZ is what you want to know. Generally it works.

      You can also read the following American book: “In the Garden of the Beasts“. The Tiergaten was where the French ambassador and the US anti-Nazi ambassador, Dodd, were meeting, to avoid Nazi listening: their embassies were thoroughly bugged. FDR replaced Dodd by a pro-Nazi (he did the same in London).
      The book: “IBM and The Holocaust” is also a must.


  3. Gmax Says:

    Many Americans feel as you do, yet they don’t know why. So they will vote TRUMP. Make no mistake: I am a registered Democrat but HRC is a terrible choice.

    Obama’s neglect of Korea is his worst failure


  4. tom Says:

    The counter-argument runs as following: Stalin, Mao or Ahmadinezad was no angel either; Yet the West did not engage militarily and many will argue that the result is millions that did not die. There may be hope that Kim will not strike (this will mean his own obliteration) and at some point N.Korea will also change from within, either via an uprising, coup, or peaceful succession such as Franco, Pinoset or tsausesku. Of course the suffering of the N.Korean population will continue and the key issue is that criteria for intervention are not widely agreed upon. Why for instance intervene when Saddam annexed Kuweit, but not when Turkey invaded Cyprus? Why bomb Yugoslavia for ‘oppressing the majority in Kossovo Albanians’, who were of course super nice to the minorities and not Turkey or Syria for oppressing much more the Kurds? So when should intervention occur? When the offending side has nukes? IMHO, it is too late then, it’s much better to do so BEFORE they get them. When they have oil (as in Kuweit)? When the regime is brutal? Thacher was quite friendly to Pinochet. When we have economic interests in doing so? When we feel like it? No matter what the reason, two things need to be done: Convince the public that blood (our own troops as well as the inevitable enemy soldiers and -inevitably-civillians) are worth it (it’s always easy to make such calls when someone else’s life is at stake) and pay the price. This also means rebuilding (see for instance Iraq and Afghanistan), and having in mind that to someone who has lost his civillian family as a collateral damage, all the citizens of the countries that bombed them are no less evil or terrorists. All of which is not to say that one should never intervene(as the Hilter example illustrates), but that there should be a clear thinking and understanding or when and why (not necessarily as a checklist, but at least in general considerations). This is lacking today and as a result people are quite reluctant to support anything but -relatively cheap in OUR human lives- air strikes. The alternative, to intervene on behalf of justice and human rights is Extremely costly, as the Korean wars and lately even Iraq and Afghanistan showed and will take very large investments in lives and expenditures.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      All the state to state relationships are, more or less, evil. In the case of Turkey and Cyprus, the answers, are, first, military: to stop Turkey, one had to go in all-out war against Turkey… Which is huge (80 million right now) and part of NATO.
      So it’s pretty much a case by case thing.
      In the case of Assad, there may not have been a plan B (who, among the Alawites, to replace him with).

      In the case of Kim, one can always pray for a successful coup. There were some already. They failed. That’s exactly what I prescribe.
      In the worst case, with KIM, it will be nuclear war. That’s new.

      Kim, if he has the choice between being eaten by dogs, and threatening a nuke war, will chose the latter. So it has to be made clear to the leadership in Korea that, should Kim engage in nuke action, his country will know 100 Hiroshimas in minutes. And one has to be ready to deliver. Only the public knowledge of this will encourage (and excuse!) Kim’s generals and colonels to attempt a successful coup. Because the scenario is like that of Hitler and his generals in 1937, as I related… Sanders, Trump and Clinton are all tougher than Obama, so there is a good probability this more meaningful course will be followed.

      5 days after this essay was published, the Obama administration announced sanctions on banks dealing with North Korea (within 60 days).
      So Obama is finally moving… ;=)


  5. tom Says:

    Thanks Patrice for a very blunt answer. Basically the rule of thumb is ‘intervene where it’s cheap to do so’, which is basically school bully rules. With Kim, it’s no longer cheap to do so, if he does have the capability of a nuclear strike to say NY or LA. It would have been much cheaper to destroy nuclear facilities early on, as Israel did with Saddam’s program. Even this, as Iran demonstrated is not terribly effective against a determined regime. If your analysis of Kim’s personality is correct, this is much more ‘dealable’ than a regime with nukes that believes that the great Allah’s will is to exterminate all nonbelievers and if they die doing so, they go to hell and are rewarded with plenty of virgins and rice….


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Tom: General economics has general physics as a particular case. IMHO, what I call the Principle Of Least Axiomatic Reason flows from the Principle Of Least Action.
      The Israeli strike against the Osirak French built reactor was very effective one way, but it was probably too early, considering other factors. It was part of an obscure dance of influential circles in Israel, France, the USA (the USA wanted to have its way, and it was not the French way; the French way had given Israel the Bomb… So the French, to keep influence had to be a bit nice to Iraq). It contributed to the fall of one more Arab secular pseudo-republic into ever worse decay.

      The case of Iran was something else. Iran is a gigantic country with a gigantic history. A civilization onto itself, unfortunately under a theocratic, anti-Iranian, dictatorship (which it may get pacifically out of).

      Striking Kim the Israeli way was not an option for a number of reasons, mostly that it would be a very bad example. However, once Kim has a credible attack capability on the US mainland, the US should certainly, first establish defense rings around the West Coast cities. Then prepare for a pre-emptive war. To avoid all of this, the US should do what the Obama administration finally did five days after my essay: start the process of preventing banks from interacting with North Korea.

      It’s true that one could make a deal with Kim, where he goes back to Switzerland and swimming on the French Riviera. On the other hand, he is just one guy, so he could go any direction on the spur of the moment. This is exactly why the dirtiest means should be used to make Kim see the light, or to get out of the way.

      One has to avoid situation where blackmail becomes a way of life, as it has become with Great Britain inside the EU. As for the Jihadists, witnesses, Jihadists themselves, inside the Islamist pseudo-Caliphate, all agree that the upper echelons do not believe into anything they preach (such as cutting off hands of smokers: top Jihadists smoke themselves behind closed doors). In other words, be it Kim or the top Islam fanatics, they all play a game, they know where civilization is, just they are trying to find what they can get away with… Quite a bit like the Brexiters…




WordPress.com Logo


Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: