Lockheed Martin's CEO is that their products are for the defense of the US and it's allies. I've been consulting, and I've heard that line a thousand times. It's what all US defense firms say, unless they're "advancing jet technology" .

The exact line varies around the world. "Investing in the certainty of commonwealth" I thought was a pretty nice one.

Nobody sane boasts their products are used to kill, except the well known parties (and if you want to kill large amounts of people with Western weapons, that is incredibly expensive, difficult and will NOT happen by accident. There is 10x the focus in weapon design that these weapons never fire unintentionally than on the firing itself. Russian "multipolar" weapons, on the other hand, are weapons that by comparison are designed for genocide. It goes for every weapon type, but just compare an AK-47 and an M16. They look similar, and look like they serve similar purposes but they don't - at all. M16 requires perfect ammunition that is well maintained and properly stored and transported or it will refuse, safely, to fire. Giving an idiot an M16 and telling him to "deal with the infidels" simply doesn't work - by design. An AK47, by contrast, will fire your sister's dirty socks if need be and will kill with those. Probably the shooter or whoever is next to him but it will kill someone if you pull the trigger. Or if it just gets too hot. See the difference? And this goes for almost all such weapons, including nukes. Pakistan's/Russia's/... nukes are designed to cause a nuclear disaster if they're activated. EVEN if they have to do it on a Pakistani military base. I mean they'll try to fly to India first, but if that fails ... they'll blow. If they don't blow up correctly they'll spread radioactive material. US nukes are designed ... to safely dispose of the fissile material unless they get to the very end of the targeting solution)