Ed Kyle wrote:
Jake McGuire wrote:

Right. Since killing small numbers of civilians to convince a country
that it needs to abandon some military venture has ALWAYS worked in the
past.

-jake

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.

Part of their lack of sound strategic judgement was using their
missiles in such a fashion.

But they did manage to kill quite a few people and cause a bit
of chaos. London's children and mothers had to leave town
again.

Not only did that fail to advance Hitler's war aims, but it resulted in
Jadis the White Witch losing control of Narnia.

Sadaam kept CNN busy chasing lost Patriots across
Arabia and Tel Aviv.

Um, so? How did this significantly advance his war aims?

Nasrallah's rockets all but shut down
the northern part of Israel for a month. The latter barrage
may have shortened the war and may play a role in the
downfall of a government.

The latter barrage _was largely responsible for_ the war in the first
place, and has probably convinced Israel that she now has to ensure
that Hezbullah never again is allowed to base within range of Israel.
Israel did not end her own attacks until she had assurances of an
international force whose main job would be to keep Hezbullah out.

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 rein in their
Pentagon if they knew that future such attacks would bring
missiles with conventional warheads raining down on them?

_Until_ such an attack was launched, American citizens would not take
the threat seriously. _When_ such an attack was launched, American
citizens would be demanding revenge and destruction of the threat, not
the "reining in" of the Pentagon.

And by the way, "the Pentagon" has very little to do with deciding
whether or not America goes to war ... do you know how the US system of
government actually works? The key decisionmakers are, in order, the
President, the Senate (especially the Foreign Policy committee), and
the House. The Joint Chiefs of Staff may influence the President's
decisions by their advice, but the President makes the decision to
launch or end military action, with the Senate and House having the
power to sanction or deny sanction to such actions.

- Jordan