[boc]

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.

[PradeetPatel]

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.

[bertjk]

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.