What Karp's manifesto establishes institutionally is a rhetorical architecture that treats restraint as a position requiring justification rather than militarization. The document's fifth point — that the question is not whether AI weapons will be built, but who builds them [2] — is not a neutral observation. It is a closing argument disguised as an opening premise. Defense-adjacent firms that have avoided explicit alignment with military AI now face a choice Karp has made harder to dodge: engage with his framing on his terms, or be read as having already…