11/02/2014 Newsnight

The floods are bad, getting worse and could get worse yet. As the

water rises the politicians scramble to avoid accusations of

indifference. The fear is that political fortunes will be made and

lost in the water. Being seen to do nothing is not an option. You see in

them films where people are hanging on by their fingertips, that is us

at the moment. Not a single politician visiting flood victims

can do much more than offer reassurance. What would happen if

they just said, sorry, it is an act of God?

Years behind schedule, way over budget and still not even working

properly, why is Britain spending ?2. Five billion on an unproven new

aircraft? And this:

This is their big day, they prepare for their last flight. Japan seeks

international protected status for the last letters of World War II

kamikaze suicide bombers. We talk to one of them. TRANSLATION: I never

look back with regret. The people who died did so willingly, if they

were force I had would not collect this stuff. They must not be

forgotten. What does a British sailor on the receiving end of

suicide attacks think? It must be serious because prominent

politicians of all parties are slopping around in wellies doing

their best to look ais theive in the face of environmeal conditions which

vividly demonstrate the limit of their powers. The floods even forced

the Prime Minister to hold his first news conference for months today. He

warned there might be worse to come but said money would be no object in

the relief effort. We spent the day in Chertsey, Surrey. So it

continues, swathes of the Thames Valley are now under water. The

second time some residents have been flooded out this year. In the winter

sun the bridge at Chertsey might look picturesques, but roads are

closed off and dozens of houses cut off. Somewhere on the other side of

this vast inland lake are the Parsons family. Where are you? The

other side of the bridge on the south side of the river, they closed

that off. You won't get across Chertsey scam bridge. Not at the

moment. You won't get across that. They called the BBC today to say the

media are ignoring their part of the world. We set out to find them.

River levels here are well above all-time records, the next 48 hours

will be critical. So this is the back garden then? This is the back

garden. There is the other pump, pumping. On our way we run into this

man, in his 70s, working nonstop and still smiling after just an hour's

sleep. Two pumps and dozens of sandbags are now the only things

keeping the River Thames from his kitchen. You see in films where

people are hanging on by their fingertips, that is us at the

moment. We're just hoping we can get through it, that's all. It has been

a very stressful time. We're doing all we can. We have had the fire

brigade come down, the army come down and the police. But we can't do

no more. A few doors down the staff at the local garage are bailing out.

Flooding here has damaged machinery and chased away customers. How much

do you think this will cost the business? Well, apart from the work

we are losing I think this will cost about ?15,000-?20,000 minimum, by

the time we have everything repaired. You better hope you are

insured? That is something we have to look into. Hopefully there should

be something there. At the moment we are looking at quite a bit. Then at

the end of the road two new rivers collide, the current is too much to

wade through, we hitch a lift from a four X four. Best of luck. So we

have just been given a lift across that road which you can't walk down

at the moment. We made it to Doreen's, who we spoke to her on the

phone. This is her daughter's house, they are own house is down here.

Doreen? Hello The house is still dry at the moment, but the river is a

few inches off the electrical supply, if it hits that they will

have to move out. We never knew, we knew we were near the Thames, but we

were told at that point the last time it flooded was 1947. People

will say you have a house next to rave that is the risk you take? That

is fine, we acknowledge, that you know. It is near a river, this is

not just near the river it is the water table and it is coming down

from the mountains and like a snowball effect really. And nobody

expects this really. We head back across the bridge as the river

continues to rise. For some it is too late. In a house backing on to

the river, the Smith family is moving out as the army moves in. We

have kids from 16-8 months old. All stressed in their own way. A series

of new storms are make their way across the Atlantic, the people

living in this part of England will hope to miss the worse worst of it

and hope for cleaner skies. Ronald Regan said the scariest words

were "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help", David Cameron and

others were out to disprove that maxim today.

You will have seen a lot of VIP wellies if you have been anywhere

near the floods this week. There was a time not so long ago when those

living along the Thames Valley or the south west of England could open

their door without bumping into a party leader. Those times are long

gone. Now the politicians have turned up they are getting an

earful. As Sky News captured on camera. What will it take for you to

understand we are seriously in need, do I need to take you right down to

the end where we need people. Do I need to do that, I'm asking you,

what do we we need to do? Politically the water is now the

only game in town, and today in view of worsening weather the Prime

Minister cancelled next week's trip to the Middle East and said money

would be no object to Britain's recovery from the floods. A lesson

learned perhaps from 2007 when, with his own constituency under water he

was in Rwanda. This time round a whistle stop tour of all the worst

affected areas so he could see the damage and the problems firsthand.

Berkshire has, to my calculations, seen at least three politicians in

the last 24 hours. The army has now been moved in to help. There is

anger from locals this may be flash-in-the-pan interest, but they

are British and mostly they are just getting on with things. The quiet

stoicism of the residents, something at odds with the political frenzy we

have seen over the past few days. The prime ministerial time devoted

to these floods has been substantial. David Cameron has been

out and around for some 48 hours now. We hear there are more trips to

come. Politically he knows how sensitive this territory is. He

can't afford to hear dark mummurings of Catriona, the crisis that brought

President Bush to his knees. This image of George Bush staring

down at the devastation shows him detatched from the suffering. It is

the kind of mistake David Cameron can't afford to make. This evening

he gave his first Downing Street press conference for 238 days.

Emily? REPORTER: We have seen a frenzy of political visitations to

the flood plains in the last couple of days. Do you accept you recognise

the seriousness of this problem too late? I think the visits do matter.

We should be co-ordinated with the emergency services so we are not in

any way getting in the way of their work. So I repeated my question, had

he recognised the seriousness of the situation too late? I don't think

so. Because Cobra was stood up straight after Christmas with the

first floods, and I think what has become more and more apparent is the

persistence of this bad weather. Remember weebles wobble but they

don't fall down? That is how the blame game is working so far. Eric

Pickles blames Chris Smith, Owen Patterson blamed Chris Smith, then

the underinvolvement, today the Environment Agency workers were

praised but not their head, Chris Smith. This is not a time for people

to leave their posts but for people to knuckle down and get on with the

important work of running their organisations and departments that

they have do. You don't need a degree in semi-otics to suspect that

long-term that is no ringing endorsement.

The fine line for leaders between showing their involvement, their

concern and making themselves overly, personally associated with

the cause that is produce pictures like this day after day after day.

As a former presidential adviser once said, "never let a certificate

crisis go to waste, but where there is flooding it is all too easy to

get into deep water". With us now is Anne McIntosh the

Conservative Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

committee. And Ben Bradshaw, the Labour MP and cabinet minister in

Gordon Brown's Government. What do you make of the fact that the

Government is being blamed for a lot of this? I don't think the

Government is being blamed. As the Prime Minister said I think we have

all got to come together. We had flooding, not on this scale last

year. But what those who have been flooded and those who live in fear

of being flooded are wanting to see is everybody to come together. And I

think just praise the volunteers, the emergency service, the military

who are out there. Yes, the Government can give leadership, I

would say the Government have shown leadership throughout. And have now

brought in the military. But it is very difficult to pump the water out

of such a vast area when there is nowhere to pump the water too. To.

That is fair point, it is an act of God? We have had the wettest winter

for a very long time. I welcome the new urgency that the Government

seems to be displaying. I welcome the new language David Cameron

using, that he will give all the money needed. However, I think we

need to judge them on their delivery. We had floods in the south

west a year a we were promised money after that to improve our rail

resilience among other things, that money hasn't materialised. People

are justified in asking those questions, and also about the

overall Government strategy when it comes to flood defence, funding of

flood defence and funding of resilience against climate change.

Your own committee did worry about the impact of cuts on the

Environment Agency, isn't that correct? I just think there is a lot

of confusion, and a great deal of obfuscation over what the money is

there for. Everybody understands what money is being spent on

physical flood defences, we are trying to get to the bottom of what

money is being spent on maintenance and revenue. I'm a big fan of

drainage boards in non-flood times, to actually keep the water channels

running smoothly and we have the Slow The Flow Project that has

protected the town of pickering in my own constituency. There is a lot

you can do. This money argument is a hard one for you guys in the

opposition to make, given today that David Cameron said money is no

object? That is great, but let's see the delivery. He has said this

before, we were promised money after last year's floods that was not

delivered in the south west. I'm welcoming what he said today. I

welcome the new urgency, I hope that leads to a complete reassessment of

how we deal with the threats from climate change and the resilience of

the transport infrastructure and floods defences. I think flood

defences were cut significantly when this Government came to power. We

had the major floods of 2007, we have the Pitt Review and we don't

need another public inquiry or review, we need the recommendations

implemented. The point is the flood defences held this time the flood

defences held probably now we will need to see whether they need

substantial repair. It is the day-to-day regular maintenance of

major and minor water courses that can prevent silt forming and banks

being full of vegetation so the water doesn't flow away. What is

clear this time is we have had every type of flooding, we have had

coastal flooding, tidal surges, river flooding, we have now had

ground water flooding in the Thames. Everything is being chucked at us.

It is covering such a large part of the country, it is literally all

hands on deck. Literally all hands on deck? Volunteer, emergency

services and the military. And yet you see the Daily Mail saying money

should be taken away from the Department of International

Development because there is such a shortage of help for people at home?

That is a very popular argument. Can I just say, if you allowed the

drainage boards to keep the money they are currently putting into the

Environment Agency in Somerset, East Anglia and in North Yorkshire, if

they were allowed to do the work themselves, if the Environment

Agency then could do what they are good at which is doing the main

flood defences, then actually I think we would be in a much better

place than what we're currently doing which is not dredging between

floods. It is interesting to hear someone from your party talking

about "if we could do that" and "if we can do the other", the Government

can do it can't they? I'm not trying to enter into a blame culture here.

But dredging was dropped mid-2000s. You could have started it again? The

Government are doing seven pilot schemes tie low the landowners to do

the dredging on their own land. You can do what you like in Government?

This is what we are doing, I believe we can go back to that. It is not

just about dredging, and Anne knows a lot of places dredging wouldn't

work. This is a strategic response to the fragility of our

infrastructure and country as a result of increased extreme weather

events due to climb mat change. Until the Government grasp that we

are not going to have a proper way of addressing the problem. You know

how it look, people see a couple of politicians beginning to score

points off one another over events which neither of them could properly

control? I hope we're not scoring points. I hope that we are trying to

edge towards a serious debate about what we need to do in the long-term

to address some of the problems that have caused what is happening now.

What we have seen today is, as the Prime Minister said, the country and

the party is coming together for the good of those who have been flooded.

What we are talking about is a long-term solution. One of the

reasons that people are slopping around up to their oxters in water

is there hasn't been the money to improve flood defences. This is not

a problem that affects part of the Ministry of Defence. Tonight

Newsnight can reveal that Britain is about to spend ?2. 5 billion buying

some fighter bombers for the Navy, encouraged by the man who used to be

the head of the Royal Navy, and now earns a tidy sum from the company

making the planes. We have more, explain? This is huge

for the Royal Navy, they have pinned their future, to a large measure, on

the future of these two carriers. ?6 bill I don't know-plus to build them

what will -- billion to build them and what will they fly off? They

have really only one choice, this F-35, we were expecting the first

production order to come this week, for various reasons to do with

Government schedule and contractual negotiations it hasn't. We have been

finding out what it will consist of. The F-35, the biggest defence

project. Britain is about to commit itself fully to its first production

aircraft. Along with the capability to land vertically, fly stealthily,

and combine sensors to the latest weapons has come delay, and a

trillion dollar global price tag. In Britain the Royal Navy has pinned

its future on the crane, and the aircraft carriers that will launch

it. There is so much riding on the F-35 for Britain, it is going to

replace the Harrier and the tornado. It is central to the future of the

Royal Navy and the military Aerospace sector of the economy. And

yet, the programme has been plaged by development problems, it is years

later into service, and the eventual cost to the UK is only just becoming

clear. As head of the Navy, Admiral Jonathan Band threatened to resign

if the new aircraft carriers weren't built. Now he's with the F-35's

makers, delighted that his dream is about to be realised. A production

order for the F-35 for me is an exciting moment. We are now by the

end of the decade have a credible carrier air capability which this

country can deploy. Importantly the current debate we have had and we

have seen about whether we're still up for the game in the UK, and

whether we are a serious player, with carrier air we certainly are.

Is that status? It is more than status, it is capability. There is a

status, obviously, in having these capabilities. But there is an

operational confidence in having operational confidence in deploying

them, it is the credibility that ownership of that gives you.

Britain's F-35s were first meant to enter service in 2012, that is now

slated for 2018. With 8. 4 million lines of software code, it is the

most sophisticated plane ever made. Last year the Pentagon estimated

that only 2% of that soft care -- software fully met its standards.

The biggest outstanding problem is block 2-B software, vital for

missile, radars and combat systems. Critics in Washington argue it will

never work proper low. . As an air-to-air fighter it is a

target, not a fighter. As an air-to-ground bomber its range and

payload are very modest. So far this aeroplane is not working as

advertised. It is almost a decade behind its initial schedule. Even if

it performs up to all of its performance promise, the design is

so modest it will still be a huge disappointment. The Pentagon and the

manufacturers insist early snags have been solved, and testing

proceeds apace. The aircraft has gone to sea too, part of a plan to

get it into service with the US Marines late next year. But even if

that deadline is met, will the aircraft be capable of much more and

take off and nding. Trying to look at all the mission profiles from the

Navy and marine corp, as well as the British, Italian, Israeli, South

Korean requirement, all these different air forces have their own

say because they put money in. It lip crease the complexity. As for

the price tag, Britain's first four planes will cost $95 million, or ?58

million. The price of buying aircraft with spares and an initial

manufacturers service package is much higher. The Pentagon estimate

is $253 million, or ?154 million per plane. We can reveal that Britain

will pay about ?2. 5 billion for the first 14 aircraft, the initial

support package and maintenance ma sillties for the -- facilities, for

the future fleet. Little wonder that a cost-minded Defence Secretary is

moving gingerly, ordering the first 14. Or that the planes' champions

insist that an eventual buy of 48, suggested by MoD, just isn't enough.

If we are going to continue to have one aircraft carrier available. 24/7

and 365. And put as much capability as that deck size will give u 48

aeroplanes won't be enough. My estimation is we will buy well north

of that. The squadron is meant to be in play in 2018 and operational on

the carrier in 2020. That may be achievable. But to get a fully

functioning aircraft with the whole array of RAF weapons working on it

will take longer. That could be a decade from now, even on the more

optimistic projections that we have been given. Political and industrial

logic him -- militates in favour of committing now. For the F-35 will

sustain thousands of high-tech UK jobs. But some other partners are

still delaying, waiting for costs to come down and the plane to meet its

performance targets. The combat systems are not mature. If you look

at Australia and Canada, long-term partners in the F-35 programme, both

deciding to go for an interim buy, in the case of Australia, F-18

super-hornet, to keep them tidied over through the capability gap, and

then intend to purchase F-35 probably ten years down the line. So

far Britain has only pledged to buy one third of the F-35s it once said

it wanted. This country's commitment remains tentative, due to worries

about cost and performance. But with orders expected any day, it is a

commitment about to become irrevocable.

Have we got this straight Mark, this country is paying ?2. 5 billion for

handful of planes which have not yet been properly proved and promoted to

us, to man we paid an Admiral's society and now works for the

manufacturers. Is that right? They have got themselves into the

position where this is the only aircraft they can put on these huge

ships, they are committed to the huge ships. The ?2. 5 billion

includes quite a lot more than 14 planes. Certain long lead items for

other aircraft, maintenance spares and all the rest of it. This will be

extremely important aircraft and expensive, and you wonder about the

political courage that would need to happen to send them into battle with

the limited weapon fix. Is there a concern about how this will look?

There is a concern, they have considered the wider ramifications.

The have been bitter interservice battles over the years about the

carriers and aircraft. I put earlier today to the Defence Secretary the

point that it could be hard to justify this in a time of austerity.

Yes, this is an expensive aeroplane, we knew it would be an expensive

aeroplane, it comes an incredible capability. The world's most

sophisticated aircraft, with stealth capability. Able to penetrate enemy

defences without with very little radar signature. It makes it a verse

style piece of equipment. It will provide a back bone to our air

forces, including our carrier projection for many years to come.

How worried are you that this thing might not work as advertised, it

might take longer to get it works? I'm not worried. I have looked at

this report and I have looked at last year's report and previous

years report These reports have to be understood in context. This is a

complex project and identifying issues in the development of the

aircraft that in the overwhelming majority of cases are already well

known about, well established and for which mitigation or resolution

strategies are already under way. Will it enter service as a fully

combat-capable aircraft. We understand many of the most capable

weapons the RAF has will not be integrated on to the aircraft by

2018, even 2020? Well by 2020, when we expect to declare an initial

operating capability, we will have a comprehensive weapons fit. Now I

can't tell you at the moment, because we're still in negotiation

and this requires agreement of partners across the project, whether

for all purposes we will at that stage be using specific UK weapons

or whether for some functions we may be using US weapons to be replaced

at later stage in the aircraft's development by dedicated UK weapons.

But the capabilities will be there, delivered by one or other of the

weapons systems. When you look at the risks involved, isn't there an

argument for waiting. Now you would like me to wait to order the jets

for the carrier, so that you can then run a headline that says

carriers have no jets to fly off them. I'm very clear that we have

invested, the British taxpayer has investmented over ?6 -- invested

over ?6 billion in aircraft carriers. My job is to get the

aircraft flying and operating from them, as quickly as we can so that

this huge additional capability that we will have with these carriers and

Joint Strike Fighter can be available and deployable as soon as

possible. T decade's long soap opera in which the Church of England

decides whether women are capable of spiritual leadership, one of the

rare examples of a soap opera continuing in production year after

year, despite the fact that audiences are falling through the

floor, staged a new episode today. The end is at last in sight,

apparently. Sooner than many had predicted too. For a vote in the C

of E General Synod will half the time the church has to spend

consulting on whether having a pair of breasts disables you from having

being a bishop. The first female bishop could be appointed by the end

of the year. I'm joined by Rose Hudson-Wilkin, Chaplain to

Parliament, andly thely thely the, director of the evangelical group

Reform and member of the General Synod. Is that a fair assessment? I

don't think I would say open opera, but I will let you have your day. It

could be by the end of the year? I believe in miracles, who knows. Do

you think it will be by the end of the year? It could do, but we have

to wait for the diocese to vote, we have to wait for Synod to vote, I

wouldn't like to put a bet on it. It has stopped the opponents dragging

this out interminably, hasn't it? I don't think the opponents have been

dragging it out interminably, I think there has been a desire for a

very long time for us to find a solution, which means the Church of

England can remain a broad church that it has always been. It has been

square pegs and round holes, which just does not fit together. And it

has been going on for a very, very long time. Perhaps the end is nigh.

The reality is the diocese spends a long time, already, discussing it,

42 out of 44 dieies said -- diocese, said "yes". Even the two that didn't

say "yes", the majority of people did want it. So you know, I'm

delighted that we are finding a way through in this process to make it

possible. Are you going to give up the ghost now? Absolutely not, the

really important thing to remember is this is about theological

conviction. It is about, for me I represent part of the church that's

growing, we certainly don't see falling numbers, we are seeing our

congregations growing, we are having to start new congregations in new

churches, I don't think we are going anywhere. Aren't you a bit bored

with the way the Church of England is just obsessed with sex and gender

issues? I don't think the Church of England is obsessed by those things,

personally we're onesed by Jesus Christ, you may only get us on to

Newsnight to talk about sex and gender but we preach Christ week in

week out. You genuinely see your congregations increasing?

Absolutely, fantastic. The churches I represent, 30% of them have

planted a new congregation or church in ten years. I don't belong to

boxes that says I'm this tradition or that tradition, and I'm also

seeing growth, the spirit is moving, is it really is moving. And I just

think we have spent an enormous amount of time debating this issue,

and it is about time that we move on to more important things. How much

damage did the vote last time against women bishops do, do you

think? Huge damage. The church looked absolutely ridiculous. It

really did. It looked ridiculous, it looked irrelevant, I hope that we

can redeem ourselves. How do you explain the fact that congregations

seem to be growing where this doctrine of not having women Clergy

and bishops is preached? Well, my experience in many places in this

country and elsewhere is that very often the leadership of the church

is the one that pushes this and the people in the congregation are not

necessarily in tune with what the message is there, in terms of as she

says we're preaching Jesus, but in terms of not having women in

leadership it is not always the congregation that is pushing it. I

think that is incredibly patronising tone to be hones. We are very

lay-led in our church, certainly there are people within our church.

Lay-led but not female-led. Why isn't she fit to be a bishop, she

looks perfectly respectable? Not female-led. We have male and female

leaders within our church. You do? But the final incumbent is a man.

This is part of the, one of the nonsenses of the legislation that we

have been looking at today, is that the canon also say that the women

bishops are fathers in God, we can't change that. And personally I find

it very difficult, Rose you can be many things, but I can't see you

being a father? I think we're playing with words there, I really.

Do I think, and I think that is irrelevant, we're all made in God's

image, both male and female, if we're made in God's image then God

is part of who we are, we are part of God. So that's not a problem for

me. It really isn't a problem what people call me. I think God created

us male and female and wonderfully, it is typical of the Church of

England that just as the rest of society is recognising that men and

women have different gifts and bring different things to the table and

need to be used in different ways, the Church of England is flannel in

the 60s burning bras and trying to be feminist. The church has always

recognised that we come to the table with different roles, we are not

trying to be men, we're not, I'm actually disturbed by what you have

just said, it doesn't make any sense. I think the church is trying

to live in this world, not in the past. We're going to leave it there.

Thank you very much. There is a real spat going on in the Far East

between Japan and China. The Japanese are trying to get a

collection of letters from kamikaze pilot, included on a register of

documents vital to history, with a cultural organisation. The register

already includes such things as the diary of Anne Frank, and the Chinese

believe that for Japan to try to get letters from suicide bombers

included is to try to beautify aggression. Before we talk about it

we report from Tokyo. What exactly are the kamikaze letters? What do

they contain, and why are they so important that Japan wants them to

be world heritage status? To try to find out I will see the man who

started the letter collection, and who himself survived not one but two

kamikaze missions. For thieves us who grew up after the war -- those

of us who grew up after the war it is hard to comprehend the kamikaze,

it has become synonymous with irrational and terrifying. They were

formed in the last months of the war. Most of the pilots were between

17-20 years old. Their job was simple, to slam their planes into as

many allied ships as possible and to halt the invasion of Japan. (Greets

in Japanese) This man was 19 when recruited into the special attack

squadrons. Today the cheerful 89-year-old looks nothing like a

fanatic. Why did he volunteer to die? TRANSLATION: Common sense says

you only have one life, so why would you want to give it away like that?

But at the same time all of us wanted to volunteer. You have to

remember that was the time when we were being attacked by the American.

Japan needed us to be warriors, to stop the invasion. Our minds were

cement we had no -- were set, we had no doubts. On his first mission his

engine broke down and he was forced to ditch. The second was called off

because of bat weather. And so unlike so many of his comrades he

survived. When you look back at all the people who died, doesn't it feel

like a wasterades he survived. When you look back at all the people who

died, doesn't it feel like a waste? TRANSLATION: I never look back with

regret, the people who died did so willingly, that is why I collect

because they were not forced. I have committed my life to maintaining

their memory. In the late 1970s they began collecting letters and photos

from the families of kamikaze pilots across Japan. Many like this one

expressed pride in the coming sacrifice.

But others expressed clear doubt. One young Lieutenant wrote:

Close to an old airfield near his house in central Japan we came

across this memorial to the kamikaze who flew from here. The names of

those who died are carved on the back of the stone. There are dozens

of memorials like this scattered across Japan. When I first came

across one of these kamikaze memorials in Japan, I was taken

aback. It felt like a shrine to fanaticism, to blind loyalty to the

Emperor. So To some on the far right of politics in Japan the kamikaze

are held up assen ideal of manhood. That is why the issue is potent

today. To most Japanese it is not about glorifying Japan as military

past, it is more about rembering the young men who sacrificed their

livesselflessly to -- selflessly to defend their nation. The issue today

is not what the men did many years a it is the inability of many in

Japan, including at the highest levels of Government, to examine Hon

least that dark episode in Japanese history. Giving the kamikaze letters

world heritage status help that process or hinder it?

We have have a sailor from the ships attacked by the kamikaze, and

Yuichiro Nakajma, whose father was one of the kamikaze pilots. What was

it like? You didn't face them unless you are a gunner on the weather

decks. You were aboard the ship in your place of action. Your action

stations. Which could be anywhere in the ship. And suddenly you heard on

the pipe that kamikazes were in the area. The next thing you knew the

guns were opening up and they were firing to shoot kamikazes, or hit

them near enough to blow them off course. And then suddenly a big bang

and they hit the ship. What did you imagine the pilot of such a plane

was like? You couldn't imagine it. You could understand what they were

doing, they were fanatics, and you know, that's all there was to it.

You couldn't understand or I couldn't, as an ordinary person.

They just had the guts to do it. Would you say your father was a

fanatic? I wouldn't say so, I think he had very little choice. Japan was

entering a desperate phase in the war. It was clearly obvious to those

in command that the situation wasn't favourable. So as a military tactic,

I think it was the wrong one to take. But they took the decision and

educated their men in the way that they wanted to, so that they could

justify these suicide missions as a valid means of attack. You better

just explain how it was that your father is a kamikaze pilot and

survived the war? He had been drafted from university, he had

orders to prepare his aircraft, wait for command to take off with his

squadron, on the tarmac, and the base commander in the meantime sent

up a reconnaissance mission to see where the American fleet had come to

in relation to Tokyo Bay. This aircraft had a faulty radio, but the

commander had no other choice because there was no other aircraft

to send. He told the engineer to fix the radio on board, the radio

couldn't be fixed because neither radio communication came back nor

the careful itself, it was found shot down after a few days. As a

result my father's commander couldn't issue an order for my

father to fly, which is how he found out that he wasn't going to go on

this mission. We were just, they were young men? They were young men.

Executing a desperate tactic in extreme circumstances? Japan by then

knew they were losing the war. And they began to get more and more

desperate and those were the sort of things that were happening in

greater numbers. Some of the planes, the kamikaze planes had a job to

fly, but once they got off they could easily hit the ship if they

weren't blown off or shot down before they got to it. Once you come

to that realisation though, that these were just young men, called up

to fly these planes, country in desperate circumstances, and

according to some of those letters we saw there, these men thought they

were dying for their country. Does it make you feel differently about

them? Not me personally. Why not? I couldn't, just couldn't understand

how they could do it. The same thing is happening today with these

children they are dressing-up and making them into bombs and they are

walking into buildings in the Middle East. That's the sort of thing that

they were doing. How do those children get to be like that, they

know they are a bomb, they know they are going to be decimated and go

off. These were extreme circumstances, you must have thought

about this quite a bit. How do you answer a question like this,

transferring it to Japan. Well I guess for desperate situations call

for desperate measures. I'm in no way justifying the Imperial Army.

You have said you thought it was completely wrong, you have said

that. That raises the question whether it is appropriate these last

letters from these kamikaze pilots do have the status on the UNESCO

register? They represent the outpouring of humanity by these

pilots who knew their fate and the next day two or three days time.

They will be perishing in the sea. I think it is a great record, in no

way, as you said, it is not a glorification of the war effort at

all. It is more a record of what they felt in the last days of their

lives, their love for their family, their belief that unless they did

this terrible things may happen to those remaining in Japan. Therefore

this was their mission. However wrong that mission might be. This is

what they have been taught to believe in. And they were there,

many case, without any choice. That is all for tonight. Spare a thought

before you go for what is left of the rolling news anchorman who asked

the actor, Samuel L Jackson, about the car advicement he had filmed --

advertisment he had filmed. The piece was made by another black

actor, Lawrence Fishburn. This is a short extract of what happened. I'm

not Lawrence Fishburn. That was my fault I know that. We don't all

lookalike, we may be all black and famous we all don't lookalike. There

is more than one black guy doing a commercial. There is it is, no

question about that. I'm the "what's in your wallet" black guy, he's the

"credit card black guy", Morgan Freeman is the other guy. You won't

confuse him. I have never done a McDonalds and Kentucky Fried Chicken

advert. I know that is surprising! The