On the Iran war's first day, Lockheed Martin PrSM missiles burst over a sports hall in Lamerd, killing at least 21 people, seven of them children. In September, a UN fact-finding mission found reasonable grounds to believe the strike was the war crime of an indiscriminate attack, because of the weapon itself. Since Lamerd, Lockheed has announced it will quadruple PrSM production, won an $8.4bn contract increase and a $1.2bn award for the next version, and signed a rocket-motor deal to speed up output. This week, CEO Jim Taiclet called missile demand "permanent" from the Texas plant that supplies the PrSM. A UN war-crime finding that rests on the weapon's design is not a matter for the Pentagon alone. It reaches the company that designed the missile, marketed it, and is now multiplying it. Under the UN Guiding Principles, a business that learns its product is linked to grave harm must assess that harm, act to prevent it from recurring, and account publicly for what it has done. Expanding production is not among the recognised responses. Lockheed has published no review of Lamerd. It has not disclosed the lethal radius, which Airwars found to be about three times what its promotional material implied. It has not answered journalists' questions. What it has done is declare the demand permanent. Knowledge is what turns a supplier into a participant. The suppliers of Zyklon B were tried in Hamburg in 1946. Frans van Anraat was convicted in the Netherlands for supplying chemicals to Saddam's Iraq. In both cases, the crime lay in continuing to supply after learning how the product was used. Lockheed cannot say it did not know. The New York Times, the BBC, AP, Airwars and the UN have all put Lamerd on the record. Every contract signed and every capacity increase announced since then was made with that record in full view. Responsibility does not stop at the company. Institutional investors have their own duties under the Guiding Principles and the OECD Guidelines. Any fund holding Lockheed stock now holds a company whose flagship strike missile sits at the centre of a UN war-crime finding, with no remediation in sight. On Oct 22, Taiclet and CFO Evan Scott take questions on @LockheedMartin's Q3 results. Analysts should not let the call pass without asking: Has Lockheed conducted any review of what the PrSM did in Lamerd? Did it give the Army the true lethal radius before the missile was fielded? Does it treat the UN finding as a material risk that must be disclosed to shareholders? Will it suspend PrSM expansion until an independent investigation is complete? If not, on what basis has it decided that the Lamerd record has no bearing on how many more it builds? Taiclet says the demand is permanent. So is the record. Every PrSM leaving the line from now on is built with full knowledge of what the first ones did in Lamerd. @MorganLBrennan @AzmatZahra @airwars @defense_news @ValerieInsinna @AP @commondreams @RStatecraft @DropSiteNews @TuckerCarlson @MaxBlumenthal @TheGrayzoneNews @aaronjmate @ggreenwald @ryangrim @jeremyscahill @kenklippenstein @tparsi @ComicDaveSmith @scotthortonshow @Judgenap @DougAMacgregor @RealScottRitter @esaagar @krystalball @breakingpoints @jimmy_dore @mehdirhasan @jeffdachis @IRIMFA_SPOX