Destruction of Security and The Instillation of Fear

     In Japan’s Kamikaze Pilots And Contemporary Suicide Bombers: War On Terror the author, Yuki Tanaka, shares the connections which drive suicide warfare. Tanaka first talks about the Japanese Kamikaze pilots during World War II. He gives much background information to the source and training of the kamikaze pilots. This effectively creates ethos early in the essay because the reader senses Tanaka’s knowledge of the fighter pilots. Tanaka also keeps an unbiased stance when he mentions the two differing views regarding the kamikaze pilots. This allows Tanaka’s article to be accepted by more people since he does not take the side of the military or the families of the dead pilots but just states the facts of WWII.
     [Tanaka] also uses pathos in his article when he talks about the psychological themes that allowed for a kamikaze pilot to accept their mission. (Tanaka 296) This helps the reader connect on a cognitive level with the pilots. Most people can relate to the pilots’ views regarding sacrificing their lives for their family and friends. These themes also help the reader see that these fighter pilots were not unstable and wishing to die. They were people who needed support and comradery to see through a mission of this magnitude.
     Tanaka starts to create logos when he talks about the contemporary suicide bombers. He starts off by talking about the differences between the kamikaze pilots and the suicide bombers: the introduction of civilian targets. Tanaka shows how the two wars, under different circumstances, can be the same. That is if Japan had the opportunity of civilian targets. This lets the reader easily accept the comparison when some of the major elements are different. Tanaka starts to form his purpose at this point in the article with the introduction of the United State’s military actions brought into the comparisons as well. This forces the reader to see the mentality of the current warfare and how it is no different than that of kamikaze pilots or suicide bombers. Once the reader makes that connection, Tanaka’s next lines are the most important when trying to break the reader’s current opinion of the US’s war practices. “This similarity is not surprising. This is because the indiscriminate bombing of civilians conducted by military forces is nothing but state violence against civilians, that is, it is state terrorism.” (Tanaka 298) Tanaka has successfully stripped the possible high opinion the reader may have of the United State’s actions and shown them to be on the same scale as the opposing side.
     At the end of the article is where Tanaka states his purpose and challenges the reader to think. He brings it back to the beginning to show that the contemporary warfare is not new but has been adapted from its origins. Japan’s desperation to end the war created kamikaze pilots. US’s response was Hiroshima. Now the cycle is continuing and we are so willing to accept that our end is not the problem because it’s “legitimate military operations.” (Tanaka 300) In the end it is still the same and we need a change; terrorism is terrorism no matter if it’s civilian driven or military driven and Tanaka’s purpose is to challenge the reader to think of a more effective way to deal with warfare so needless people do not have to suffer. After reading the article and following Tanaka’s logical connections I am able to see the desperation and fear on both sides of the war. Finding a solution though is not easy. If you were to be the leader for change on the war against terrorism, what would your solution be?