[alecnotthompson]

This is disgusting.

> we can make sure the United States is prepared to stop a conflict and save countless lives

> building something incredibly cool and want to make a positive difference in geopolitics

Someone has never used their critical thinking skills. MLK Jr said the US is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world. These missiles won't be used against rogue states, they'll be used to kill innocent people and children in the poorer countries that aren't behaving like the empire wants.

[eightysixfour]

> These missiles won't be used against rogue states, they'll be used to kill innocent people and children in the poorer countries that aren't behaving like the empire wants.

They’re antiship missiles. Are there innocent children on missile cruisers somewhere I am unaware of?

[LorenPechtel]

Cruisers? These are meant for stuff like destroyers. Wimpy stuff that can't put up the defense a cruiser could.

I do agree, however, that anti-ship missiles will always be aimed at military targets. You use missiles to penetrate hostile airspace. If you don't need standoff capability you can put more boom on target cheaper with a laser guided bomb.

[benreesman]

There are only a few places you could live and not live under the umbrella of safety that the United States Military offers.

If you don’t and are safe, you live under one of a very few other umbrellas.

It’s easy to be stridently principled under the protection of the people you’re criticizing.

[janalsncm]

This is conflating different things. Most people want the US to be able to defend itself and potentially others. But almost all of the military conflicts the US has been involved in lately have had dubious value to that end.

Once you build a better weapon, you can’t control how it will be used anymore.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

Yeah, that's what the mafia guys will tell you when they come round to collect their protection money. "We keep you safe". What they don't say: "... from people like us".

[switchbak]

I agree that the cheer leading for military products strikes me as disconcerting.

But let's keep this in perspective. A cheap anti-ship missile available in large quantities has a very focused purpose in the near term: to deter China from an invasion of Taiwan. Such a prospect would be tremendously bad for the entire world, and turning Taiwan into a missile toting equivalent of a porcupine might be worth it if it prevents such a disastrous invasion.

[SkyPuncher]

The deaths you describe won’t be changed by these type of products.

These types of weapons are critical in actual, legitimate wars where enemies have air defense systems, large front lines, and thousands or hundreds of thousands of troops. Particularly, if air defenses are present, you have to evade them or overwhelm them. The Russia-Ukraine war has largely demonstrated the later wins out.

The American airstrikes on defenseless “assets” in foreign nations will continue to use high value, precision weapons. The strikes are generally limited in nature and unlikely to be intercepted by air defense systems.

[cameldrv]

It’s an anti-ship missile. Firing at a warship has the least chance of collateral damage of any target I can think of.

[fnord77]

What's to stop our allies who buy them from repurposing them for striking apartment buildings?

[janalsncm]

> complete worldwide peace

Aside from the fact that complete worldwide peace has yet to happen, it is also worth mentioning that this period also coincided with nuclear proliferation. If Iraq had nuclear ICBMs they would not have been invaded.

[grahamjameson]

Is the worldwide peace in the room with us now?

[switchbak]

"any other take is frankly disingenuous" - come on now, you're basically saying "I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me is just wrong". Not really top notch argumentation there.

Many have said that the US military adventurism and support for 3rd world despots has made the world a more dangerous place. I think there's plenty of room to debate such ideas instead of discarding such dialogue so rashly.