I love the phrasing used in this press release.
> hypersonic weapon designed to hold high-value targets at risk
We don't destroy targets anymore. We hold our targets at risk.
> hypersonic weapon designed to hold high-value targets at risk
We don't destroy targets anymore. We hold our targets at risk.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
The questions that you seem to be posing sarcastically were really, truly discussed seriously from 1959 through 1989.
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.