Holding targets at risk is fundamentally different from destroying targets.
Hypersonic anti-ship weapons allow China to hold US carriers off the coast of Taiwan "at risk", but it doesn't mean they have to destroy them to be effective.
I know you're trying to dunk on this press release, but it's actually a specific phrase that has real meaning in the defense world.
Exactly. Words, when used precisely, can carry be used to infer a significant amount of intentions behind the text.
In this case, holding targets at risk implies a strategy of deterrence, a desire for peace and the de-escalatition of conflicts, as opposed to initiating the first strike with the intention of destruction.
I understand deterrence. I am commenting on the doublespeak. "Holding a target at risk" here exactly means wielding a credible way to destroy said target.
I would argue that replacing the phrase:
> ...weapon designed to hold high-value targets at risk in contested environments from standoff distances
with:
> ...weapon designed to destroy high-value targets in contested environments from standoff distances
leaves the meaning of the quote and overall press release completely unchanged.
This is a logical and normal term in strategic military planning, the concept of knowing that your own important thing will almost assuredly be destroyed in a retaliatory strike, should you be the one to initiate the war. See also the last 70 years of cold war era mutually assured destruction calculus.
This is one of the reasons why highly advanced anti ballistic missile systems are seen as very dangerous because they upset the parity of two nuclear ICBM armed states being in approximate equal capability with each other.
ICBM missile solo, not something you really want to blow up, but it would be cool if you could eliminate it within minutes should it start to pose a risk.
How would the Russians react? Would they launch extra nukes just to be "safe"? Maybe we should build a weapon that ~enhances the yield of their nukes, so that they figure sending one is enough!
There's some truth to it. These missiles won't be used for bombing the Middle East. They'll be used for things like demonstrating to China that an invasion fleet in the Taiwan Strait is vulnerable. If they ever have to destroy a target it will be because that primary strategy failed.
boc|3 years ago
Hypersonic anti-ship weapons allow China to hold US carriers off the coast of Taiwan "at risk", but it doesn't mean they have to destroy them to be effective.
I know you're trying to dunk on this press release, but it's actually a specific phrase that has real meaning in the defense world.
PradeetPatel|3 years ago
In this case, holding targets at risk implies a strategy of deterrence, a desire for peace and the de-escalatition of conflicts, as opposed to initiating the first strike with the intention of destruction.
bertjk|3 years ago
I would argue that replacing the phrase:
> ...weapon designed to hold high-value targets at risk in contested environments from standoff distances
with:
> ...weapon designed to destroy high-value targets in contested environments from standoff distances
leaves the meaning of the quote and overall press release completely unchanged.
walrus01|3 years ago
This is one of the reasons why highly advanced anti ballistic missile systems are seen as very dangerous because they upset the parity of two nuclear ICBM armed states being in approximate equal capability with each other.
The cold war never really ended.
bamboozled|3 years ago
ICBM missile solo, not something you really want to blow up, but it would be cool if you could eliminate it within minutes should it start to pose a risk.
baybal2|3 years ago
[deleted]
drewm1980|3 years ago
throwawaylinux|3 years ago
zardo|3 years ago
Maybe not out of any kind of tactical necessity. But quite possibly just to show off the new missile, depending on the commander in chief.
throwawaysleep|3 years ago