Replies

Yes. Part of what happened is that reliable missile technology proved harder to develop than one might have imagined, so they started looking for alternative delivery mechanisms. We've seen four already (jetliners as missiles, anthrax in the mail, suicide bombers, and large bombs on trucks and ships).

Even though, as you say, the U.S. administration understands the new strategic issues, the U.S.'s unwillingness to acknowledge the situation publicly is preventing many, both in the U.S. and abroad, from comprehending the serious changes that are occurring in the world. I'm hoping that the upcoming dossier (on Iraq's WMD) that both U.K. and U.S. officials have referred to will correct this. But I have the feeling that it won't go far enough in doing so.

I would even argue that possession of missiles isn't much good, unless your missiles at least equal the numbers (and megatonnage!) of your adversary. In fact a missile launch gives away the position it was fired from immediately, and the response would come within minutes.
This new stratgic doctrine doesn't leave tell-tale missile launches. As you have correctly observed, finding a deterrnece to it is not easy. The only solution is pre-emptive military action.
I don't understand, at this point, why this case has not been made. I can only imagine it's because the US does not want to appear weak. Explaining why we waited for a year to strike Iraq might be rather, shall we say, awkward.