Ed Kyle wrote:
Consider who has decided to use such weapons in the past.
Hitler (V-1/V-2), Sadaam (Scud), and Nasrallah (short-range
rockets), among others. Folks who did not, or have not,
necessarily always exhibited sound strategic judgement.
But they did manage to kill quite a few people and cause a bit
of chaos.

They also dramatically failed to create internal pressure to seek a
peaceful solution, just like bombing in Kosovo failed, and like random
air strikes in Iraq failed, like Iraq and Iran failed to intimidate
each other by shooting missiles back and forth, and like sending
suicide bombers into Israel doesn't bring Labor back into power, and
like bulldozing houses in the West Bank hasn't produced a Palestinian
leader who actively looks for peace.

Strategic bombing to crush the enemy's will to fight (what you are
suggesting) has only worked once, when the US nuked two cities in three
days and indicated that they were willing to continue this for as long
as it took (a bluff, but it worked).

The mere presence of such weapons could have a powerful
impact on U.S. strategy far beyond their limited tactical
effect. Today, U.S. citizens don't expect their cities to
be attacked when the Pentagon bombs or invades another
country. How much would U.S. citizens reign in their
Pentagon if they knew that future such attacks would bring
missiles with conventional warheads raining down on them?

Probably not at all. Did killing 3000 people in New York make the US
reconsider it's policy of keeping a military presence in the Middle
East, or did it make them look for something to smash?

-jake