Well written. I’d like to add my 2 cents regarding the "Kamikaze".
While I agree that it might sound distasteful to some, there’s one thing in the back of my head. Something that maybe the editors of the New York Times have thought about thenselves, too.
Many still believe that the Kamikaze pilots were forced into their death against their will.
While it may be true for some, the majority of these men were volunteers, chosing a heroic death and martyrdom in order to protect those they love and their country.
Similar to the ritualized suicide "Seppuku" 切腹 of the ancient Samurai in order to restore honor.
If I remember correctly, there even was a sad story about one of these pilots.
Men with families were forbidden from flying a Kamikaze mission. A wife drowned herself and her child(ren) in a river, so her husband could partake in this "heroic mission".
I’m not up to date on the historical accuracy of this. That’s just what I think I remember.
So it’s not a "suicide mission" per se, but an honorable title for those who are willing to give their health and their lives in order to protect those around them.
I don’t want to justify their choice, nor do I want to disagree with your article.
But I hope that I was able to offer a different point of view. I’m sure none of the editors at the New York Times mean any ill intent with their choice of words.