Kamikaze part deux

Reading my post of tuesday I find that I ignored the first rule of rational decision-making and thought, namely sleep. Yes, serious issues are always best dealt in the morning, after a sound sleep. I'm not really impulsive, but I guess I got carried away yesterday. Am I taking back what I said in the previous post? No, I still believe that kamikaze flights are a lunatic idea. But as to the end-of-the-world scenarios I proposed - well, we aren't quite there yet, and an officer asking questions isn't a sure sign of pandemonium either.

So... I intend to do a rational analysys of why I believe the idea of kamikaze warfare is a bad one. Devoid of feelings and bias? No; these are all parts of me, and they co-shape my thoughts and actions. But I'll try to keep it in the realm of the understandable and relevant.
I'll start with the pro's - why is kamikaze warfare viable?

• an airplane (being of a substantial size and mass) has a huge destructive force
  
• a pilot is able to asses the situation more accurately then a computer (deciding upon which information from the battlefield is important and which not)
  
• combining the two one gets a weapon that is most likely to destroy any important target of a reasonable size
  
• history shows that such attacks are fairly effective (check the wikipedia article on kamikaze fighters)
  

Ok, I'll admit a kamikaze pilot and his airplane are a formidable weapon; not opponent, mind you - just a weapon.


Now, is there something to oppose the idea of using kamikaze fighters? Indeed, there is.

• it's not for the budget-conscious (fighter jets and the schooling of pilots cost amounts of money we can hardly imagine; apart from that I'd like to know how the military chiefs intend to sell the idea of destroying airplanes worth millions of dollars on every mission to the buying public)
  
• if we choose to believe the theory of the army being in the service of weapons manufacturers, we can only imagine they feel like experiencing christmas every day; this is costing the taxpayer money which could be used more reasonable
  
• terrorist don't use war ships; I wonder, then, if it's sensible to use a waterhose to blow out a candle or an airplane to eradicate a solitary car
  
• bombing technology is very advanced today; I may be overdoing it a bit when I say that they can bomb a sandwich from your hand, but it is not that far fetched
  
• humans have an instinct for self-preservation; would there be enough new pilots to keep up a fleet? Is it even reasonable to expect pilots wouldn't resist such orders?
  
• lest but not least - the moral justification of such attacks
  

We will ignore the moral justification for wars (of for the war on terrorism for that matter) at this point, and just look into kamikaze flights. The Japanese employed kamikaze pilots only as an act of desperation - they were loosing the war, that was apparent to all but the most obtuse. The war against terrorist is far from being lost, so from this viewpoint there is no moral justification - we can hardly claim we are defending our homeland and countrymen from certain death.

But the gist of my argument lies in the fact that human life is disregarded here. Such disregard has no justification whatsoever.

I am quite aware that war is a dangerous venture, and lives are at stake everyday. Nonetheless - everything has to be done to protect the lives of the soldiers taking part in the action. They opted to defend the homeland, and, if necessary, part with their lives if there is no other option. But that means they will fight to save their country AND survive themselves; this stems from our survival instinct, or call it a natural right, whatever - such an absolute decision is in the sphere of the individual. That individual being the soldier he can be ordered on a very dangerous mission where the objective is to fight and come back alive (even if this fails or is not expected; the difference is that dying is no an integral part of this mission); but a decision to make the ultimate sacrifice for his country is his own.

Long post, I know. But desperate times seek desperate measures. Kolatkar