Reply #12: Two possible reasons [View All]

1) Simple curiosity; better to have the information out there than not to in most cases. While I admit that the implications and spin are getting silly at this point - equating "Fooian made" with "the forces of Foo are attacking our allies!" - one of the purposes of media is to provide information. The make and possibly origin of stuff like this would count as such. In short, people just might be interested; I tend to be, did some looking as a result of that, and ended up knowing a bit more about Hezbollah's arsenal all around. Simple curiosity counts for something.

2) Sometimes the source of a weapon does point some fingers as to its creators' intent. I don't know enough to know if that's the case here or not, but it often really can matter, if just for the sake of backchannel diplomacy reminding folks to please keep an eye on who they sell their ordnance to. A fifteen-year-old weapon built by one country being used would be one thing; a one-year-old weapon built by another could mean something else entirely. If the missile that hit that Israeli ship was, say, an unlicensed Exocet built last year in Argentina, that would raise a whole lot of eyebrows and probably result in some nervous explaining in various embassies. That's obviously about as hypothetical as things come, but I imagine you see the point.


You're still right, of course, that the fact that the weapons are being used at all should outweigh their origins most of the time. I'm just saying that their origins aren't entirely irrelevant. They're worth noting; they're not worth having talking heads bloviate for hours over them unless something weird's going on, though.