A "symbol" gains its importance on what sort of feelings and emotions the people get from a visual image. The "swastika" is a form derived from many ancient cultures as a symbol of the moon and the sun. It is also a Chinese character pronounced as 'wan' meaning "full".
When we go to India and look at all the wondeful temples with the swastika symbols here and there, do we think to our selves "oh crap! Indians must love the Nazis, too!" ??
Of course not. Only an idiot would insist it is in anyway affiliated with Nazism. People recognize a symbol from the overall context, not from the "shape" alone.
..
...and the exact same kind of idiocy, I am sensing from some of these posts.
As milenko said, implementing an "official" Kamikaze system is a non-issue. Military simulation games are controversial as it is, we don't want to go any further than as it is.
Implementing a kamikaze attack system would mean:
1) justifying extreme suicidal attempts as a regular military tactic
2) encouraging "suicide" as a way of militaristic resistance
3) encouraging underskilled pilots to go kill themselves to earn score and recognition
..
Guess what, all three things are exactly what happened in Kamikazes of real-life. So tell me again how this is "different".
Encouraging people to "act" in a way with a certain purpose, with a certain meaning that almost exactly matches a historically tragic event ... and because the difference is "it is not real", that makes it OK?
