phongn wrote:I know that's a joke, but "special weapons" almost invariably refer to nuclear ones.
Shit, I had not really considerdd that interpretation...
Considering my audience (ie, Shep), I should have realized my word choice.
I sacrificed explosive power for fuel-- not for range, but for maneuverability. I knew your cities were well-protected with AAA asset; therefore I didn't waste time on them. If I send TLAMS into your cities' airspace, they'll get swatted from the sky, and your population gets a big boost in morale.
If I can evade your less-tight air defenses in the hinterland, and blow up "heartland" type assets, it looks to most ignorant civilians like I can evade your AAA and it'll undermine their confidence in the government (you) because I can strike with impunity in the areas of 'hearth and home', your vulnerable farmland-- scare them with food supply vulnerability.
That was my 'special plan'. It would be a longer, more drawn out style of psychological attrition (the implied theat that your farms were open to chemical or biological strike would help) but it would undermine civilian confidence and possibly get you to redeploy assets away from the cities-- either to protect the back country, or at least get your civilians to feel better.
In other words, Sun Tzu. If the enemy has fortified the front, strike at the rear. Or any RTS game (although a poor base of reliance for strategy)-- strike the farms, and let the army starve.