I reject the premise that the military can't request a change to the spec of military equipment they purchase. Obviously it was foolish to sign a contract that added any more restrictions than "all lawful purposes".

Huh? I'm trying to learn here. I don't have a dog in this race. :)

Suppose a buyer and myself agree on a contract for the production and purchase of 60,000 widgets of design C. Sometime later, they decide that they don't want design C widgets and insist upon design G instead. The buyer is in breach of contract -- not me.

Now, changes do happen. Buyers (people, businesses, and governments alike) can and often do decide to go in a different direction. It's the kind of thing that happens every day.

A new contract (or quite often, an amendment such as a change order) can be drawn up and -- if we can agree on the terms -- maybe I'll be producing design G widgets and everyone is happy. That also happens every day.

But one party (even the military) can't just unilaterally alter the terms of the deal, and I'm not obligated to agree to the new change at all.

At any given time, I can't be compelled to produce design G widgets unless I've previously agreed to produce design G widgets. That's illegal.

(Unless it has been made legal. We've definitely legislated that before, such as with the Defense Production Act in WWII that forced manufacturers to produce things like military trucks instead of other things like civilian cars.

But that definitely doesn't happen every day, and we aren't operating under those kinds of laws today as I write this in 2026. It can change -- and it can indeed change very rapidly -- but it has not yet changed.)