Ed Kyle wrote:

You are right about the historical results of strategic bombing.
But I wonder what the difference would be between today,
when the U.S. can attack at will with little fear of counterstrike,
and a future when more and more potential adversaries will
be able to counterstrike. And not just a one-day attack, but
over and over again for days and weeks and months.

Ed, this is sheer fantasy, unless you are assuming an American
President who is idealistically determined not to decisively strike
back, to the point of making political losses by his party inevitable,
and even perhaps to the point of risking impeachment. Under the
conditions you describe, the political pressure would mount on the
American President to use "whatever means necessary" to stop the
attacks -- and the most obvious means would be our own air and missile
power, including perhaps nuclear weapons.

You do not realize the extent to which George W. Bush _calmed_ public
outrage after 9/11. If he had wanted to -- if he had felt the threat
was severe enough -- he could have called for a nuclear attack on
Afghanistan, and done so to the cheers of the American population.
Under _repeated_ missile hits, the political pressure to strike back
with everything we could spare would be almost irresistible. I'm not
sure that President _Carter_ could have or even would have resisted
that sort of pressure.

This will
shift, though maybe only slightly, the balance of world power
I think, because it will limit U.S. actions.

I disagree. I think that the first time another country actually tries
it, we will see America return to unrestricted strategic, and possibly
nuclear, bombardment as a military tactic.

- Jordan