I am pretty receptive to the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument, but we are taking a big leap from pen to llms/artificial intelligence. I am sympathetic to some of your other points, but I simply must reject this analogy.
The moral and ethical scale of the issue makes this far different than someone buying a pen.
If Lockheed could brick its planes if the US planned to use them for military action it disagreed with (and showed some indication they couldn't be trusted not to do it), would they be a supply chain risk?
It is not the role of a defense contractors to have oversight and control power over the military they're supplying.
Purposes Anthropic already spelled out in contract form.
They don’t buy the product, and the product can’t be used in the things they do buy.
These blanket rules are very typical in large organizations.
Not to mention, they simultaneously said it was a supply chain risk and that it would continue to be used by agencies that were already using it in a critical capacity. Which makes absolutely no sense.
Anthropic isn’t a supply chain risk since they easy found someone else