Memory safe languages are not a silver bullet either.
Basically, the borrow checker allowed writing memory unsafe programs without using the keyword unsafe.
Compilers for C, C++ etc. are well established but Rust is a relatively new language. There are many bugs to come just like this.
Using a memory safe language is not a silver bullet for writing memory safe code. The implementation of the memory safe language introduces bugs as well.
The distance between the usual consumer/b2b tech startup and the kind of company that sells software to the air force is even bigger than the distance between Google and the kind of company who hires Accenture.
Did you even read my comment? I very explicitly answered this.
Government purchasing requirements have an immense effect on industry. IME/PSP/TrustZone have 99% CPU coverage because NSA put "owner-inaccessible oversight processor with disjoint physical address space" into federal sourcing requirements.
They could easily have done the same with "memory-safe language". Note this is not the same as "must use Ada" which is obviously dumb. The IME/PSP/TrustZone req worked so well because they specified the feature not the implementation (and indeed it has been implemented three different ways).
But instead, NSA actively pushed in the opposite direction and funded all sorts of kludges to try to keep memory-unsafe languages kicking as long as possible.
They have actively sabotaged the national security of their own country.
Even if they wanted to, I highly doubt they could push the industry to do that. The industry does what it wants to do, and rewriting tons of software was far from its priorities.
There's also the fact that rewriting software tends to introduce a lot of new bugs.