Jeffrey LewisMissile-palooza

The wits are out with their own doctored images of Iran’s recent missile launch.

This is my favorite so far, but there are lots at Boing Boing, Danger Room, and the Economist.

Warning, there is some sort of recurring theme about kittens that makes me vaguely uncomfortable.

Comments

  1. Dazz

    Utterly Fabulous!!! LMAO.

  2. Ak Malten (History)

    hmmm, jeffrey, now you got me scared! Ha, ha!

    Nice work !

    But the background of all of this, including why these rockets were flying, is scary indeed !
    We have to try and prevent this from happening and thus the next US led illegal war of aggression from starting in the first place. The Iranian are not warning us for nothing !

    Ak Malten

  3. Sid (History)

    the kittens are from the ‘Lolcat’ meme, not necessarily discomfiting.

  4. Major Lemon (History)

    Iranians are a threat. Threats tend to be scary.

  5. hass (History)

    Yes funny but who can forget this other bit of graphic fun and games ?

  6. John Weaver (History)

    It must be very comforting to the Israelis that only 75% of the Iranian missiles would land on them!

    Mutually Assured Destruction only works as a strategy when the enemy values its people’s lives as much as you do your own. Fundamentalist Muslims seem not to be afraid of death, so MAD does not work with them. I could well imagine that some Iranians would happily exchange 10m “martyrs” for the eradication of Israel and the adulation of the Muslim world.

    The only sure way forward for Israel is a pre-emptive strike to remove the WMD (or the Iranians!).

  7. Tom H

    We’re attacking another country, then. Pass the popcorn.

  8. Yossi

    hass, why don’t you show a more recent work of art and ask how many poles were there originally?

    John Weaver, your sincere caring for my country is very much appreciated but any serious study of Iranian government, even the famous NIE, concludes they are very rational and pragmatic. MAD is certainly going to work with them and that’s why I sleep very well although I live in Jerusalem. I don’t think a pre-emptive strike is necessary, on the contrary I think that such a power balance will make our region more sane.

  9. Andrew Foland (History)

    John Weaver—

    as I recall, in the Second World War, the Japanese Air Force made heavy use of kamikazes who “seemed not to be afraid of death”. Nonetheless MAD (or, in that case, AD) did indeed “work with them.”

    In short, don’t mistake the actions of outlier fanatics for the actual calculations being made by their leaders (or, for that matter, for the sentiments of their publics at large.)

  10. John Weaver (History)

    Yossi: It will all be down to the man with his finger on the button. You really are sure?

    Andrew Foland: The Kamikaze pilots were a spent force by the time the decision was taken to nuke Japan. This was Assured Destruction; there was nothing mutual about it. If the Japanese had instead developed a deliverable nuclear device, and threatened to use it in retaliation to US forces landing on the Japanese mainland, then this would have been MAD and the war would have ended in a negotiated truce.

  11. Katherine (History)

    Some more instant classics here: http://www.geekologie.com/2008/07/more_iranian_missile_photoshop.php.

    I’m fond of the “Attack of the Clone Tool.”

  12. peter (History)

    I can’t help but note that the doctrine of MAD [Mutually Assured Destruction] does not pertain to the Iranian/Islraeli situation. It only works on a simple schoolyard seesaw where each actor is roughly equal in nuclear power. Otherwise the doctrine is destbilizing. Just look at Israel: Its nuclear capability has only served to *DE*stabilize the region, completely anathema to the intent.

  13. ritzl (History)

    ROFLMAO. I haven’t laughed this hard on a political subject since, well, ever. Thanks.

    Truth.

  14. Major Lemon (History)

    Peter, destabilizing effect of imbalance of power is only destabilizing if the equation: threat = intentions x capabilities is grossly mismatched one element either side. Israel has capability but its intentions are not expansionist as Irans are. Iran is the cause of the instability, not Israel which is in co-existence mode. It makes no difference to Iran whether Israel has nukes or not. Iran being expansionist has aggressive intentions and may soon have a nuclear military capability unless someone does something about it.

Pin It on Pinterest