All objects have stats.
Not ones related to Striking them: namely, things like saves or AC as opposed to things we know are meant to be attacked like hazards and vehicles. Strike is STILL an attack that targets a CREATURE by making a roll vs it's AC. A Strike vs other objects are missing the target and a number to roll against: If you remove those, it's not a Strike anymore. Having hp and hardness is jumping to the resolution phase with no pathway to getting there and even if you do, you can't really figure out damage as you don't know if you crit or not as you have no target number to roll against.
Can you Strike a creature without knowing it's AC? There is just as much in the rules allowing that.
How's an unattended object defending itself?
A Wall spell has an AC of 10... You think they are moving out out the way? You answer how it defends and you have your answer for objects.
The idea that you can't whack an object is asinine.
Again, not everything in game has to make sense in real life: a fireball doesn't ignite oil by default, you can catfall from the stratosphere and land unharmed and you can survive indefinitely without food or water... We aren't talking about reality here.
Secondly, there IS a mechanisms for damaging items: it's just not the way you like it. A Demolitionist can destroy a wall with explosives and blow open doors, gates and such but can't Strike them. If it's asinine, it's the game that makes it that way as no matter how you rule it, you're forces to male up the rules for it.
I think the farthest you can get with this perspective is that there aught to be more rules around it rather than this is the intent because the intent is clear that objects are able to be damaged and we have stuff that relates specifically to strikes that damage objects.
As I noted, there are objects that have stats for you to attack them: vehicles and hazards. As such, it's hard to claim intent IMO, especially when they have gone SO far out of heir way to avoid any kind of mechanics for it with normal items.
Just because Hazards happen to have ACs doesn't mean they're the only thing intended to be struck with these abilities. That's too specific and honestly hard to believe that it's the right answer.
I can't agree: the fact that they HAVE AC's means they are intended to be attacked on a regular basis and anything else is in the realm of DM fiat. Secondly, I refer once AGAIN to spells that target items. As such, Strike isn't needed for items to be attacked and damaged. Seeing an intent that items can be damage isn't the same as seeing that a particular type of attack is required for hat to happen.
In essence, even with objects not having AC, (which still has issues with what you say has intended means like disintegrate) it's a stretch to say it's not RAI that you can target objects in general.
RAI is that IF it happens, it's DM fiat: full stop. There is NO RAI that I can see as they could easily include how to use a Strike vs items but go out of their way to avoid it.
On spell rolls and spells that target items: most of those where removed, leaving disintegrate and the hydraulic spells. I agree, they have issues with AC. There are spells like rusting touch and shatter that just damage objects without a roll, which doesn't require any fiat.
Overall, I'd LIKE to see some guidance on these things so everyone starts on the same page even if it's presented as optional. I think in some situations, you should be able to Strike items but I can also see where there are situations where it would be problematic is you could always do so [IE, sunder and the like].