Why do people keep calling these "Kamikaze"? The point of the Kamikaze was that there was a human pilot inside, who was going on a suicide mission. These are just inanimate things. Drones, cruise missiles, whatever, NOT kamikaze.

Or else I will start calling all bombs, artillery shells, all munitions that destroy themselves at the target, "kamikaze":

"Germany has agreed to send more kamikaze ammunition for the Gepard anti-aircraft systems, along with a number of IRIS-T kamikaze anti-aircraft missiles, and 50 Taurus kamikaze cruise missiles." "The US have announced that they would deliver 15,000 new kamikaze artillery shells to Ukraine."

See how silly that is? /rant

[–] AstroTechie@lemdro.id 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Honest question, what should they call it?

To me, it makes sense that they don't want to call it a missile unless it has a rocket or other type of powerful engine. Drones are things that I expect to have the ability to return to base, and to have a propeller engine, so if any of those is designed to not return then calling them kamikaze makes sense no?

[–] Hopfgeist@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

I find "loitering munitions" fine, people should just get used to correct non-sensationalist terminology. Or maybe sacrificial drones, or cruise missiles, although these traditionally have no loiter phase. But Kamikaze has the very strong implication of a human sacrifice, I find equating that with a single use or expendable drone to be in poor taste. Cruise missiles have been "smart" at least since the late 1980s, so that's nothing new, either. Just because this one can fly in circles for a while does not make it more sacrificial than faster, straight-flying ones.

Just my opinion.