NATO doesn't seem to fight that way, and hence Tomahawks are not intended this way. The NATO playbook for "how do you fight a war" appears roughly as follows:

NATO doesn't seem to fight that way, and hence Tomahawks are not intended this way. The NATO playbook for "how do you fight a war" appears roughly as follows: - Destroy enemy air force and air defences, using specialised aircraft, special forces and conventional weapons, such as Tomahawks (you don't need a 1 km range to take out an airfield or a major air defence complex) - Then destroy as much enemy force from the air, where you are uncontested - Then, go in with the land forces, heavily supported from the air for both attacks and reconaissance. A dozen F-16s or A-10s can make mincemeat out of such an armoured column and are better suited for this than many Tomahawks or small nukes, while doing much less damage elsewhere. If NATO were fighting this, they probably don't want to destroy everything on that road; they'll need the road, its bridges, and un-pissed-off people living around it.