Computer guided weapons, like the Tomahawk and Cruise missiles and the F117 ‘Stealth’ bomber, have a bad track record, according to a leading military analyst.

In the immediate aftermath of the Gulf War, inflated claims were made about their effectiveness against Iraqi targets, says Edward Spiers, Professor of Strategic Studies at the University of Leeds in the UK.

The arms dealers’ pitch was that new technology allowed precision-bombing weapons. Remote control strikes would wipe out Iraqi targets accurately and reliably while minimising the risk to US troops and Iraqi civilians.

As it turned out, smart weapons weren’t smart. Around 20 per cent failed to hit their targets. And when they were bang on, they had little effect on Saddam’s ability to produce weapons of mass destruction.

Spiers says that the Iraqi dictator is a past master at concealing the whereabouts of his mass destruction facilities.

"We know where the major sites are. But it’s been over 100 days since the last UN inspection. We’ve given Saddam an enormous amount of time in which to conceal equipment, machinery, weapons systems.

"I wouldn’t be surprised if there were quite a few mosques around Baghdad packed full of weapons material in the assumption that the US won’t be going for mosques."

Blasting a site may have severe consequences, adds Spiers – particularly if it’s a site with biological agents like anthrax. "You don’t want to blow them up in a way which disperses the stuff into the wide blue yonder."

Of course, the arms dealers have a solution. Technological advances since the Gulf War mean that US generals can try out implosion bombs that destroy weapon factories without spreading dangerous material over a wide area. In theory.