German military production was stunted during WW2 by the bombing of ball-bearing factories.
I've read that that was a goal of the strategic bombing campaign against Nazi Germany, but I've also read that even with the famous raid on the ball bearing plant in Schweinfurt--repeated with unsustainable losses of air crew and aircraft after the Germans learned how much the Allies valued that target--the strategic bombing campaign was much less effective than the Allies had hoped.
The moral of the story appears to be that it takes a nearly total trade embargo as well as direct attacks on factories producing critical supplies (as well as stockpiles of those supplies in other places) for "strategic" attacks to have actual strategic effect.
AFTER EDIT: Farther down in this subthread, the prediction is made that future wars might involve the massive destruction of nuclear missile attacks. As the thirtieth anniversary of the Falkland Islands War approaches, I am reminded that contemporary commentary on that war pointed out that nuclear weapons had ceased to be a deterrent in the modern world, in which nuclear weapons have not been used in warfare since 1945 (in the same war as the Schweinfurt ball bearing plant air raids, against a combatant country that had directly attacked a neutral country's main military base in the ocean between both countries by surprise attack). Argentina was not deterred at all from occupying the Falklands by Britain's possession of nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles. And of course the terrorist attacks on the United States in the year 2001 were not deterred by the the United States possessing similar weapons. There seem to be a lot of kinds of warfare that can go on with no resort to nuclear weapons, and thus no deterrence by nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons don't stop attacks in general, but they do stop existential threats. It's unlikely that France will ever be invaded and occupied again for as long as they have a nuclear deterrent, for example. France (or other such countries) may well be attacked, but not conquered. This is at least an improvement over the previous state of things. Warfare without the existential threat leaves room to be considerably more gentle.
I've read that that was a goal of the strategic bombing campaign against Nazi Germany, but I've also read that even with the famous raid on the ball bearing plant in Schweinfurt--repeated with unsustainable losses of air crew and aircraft after the Germans learned how much the Allies valued that target--the strategic bombing campaign was much less effective than the Allies had hoped.
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm#tbba
Perhaps equally decisive was cessation of trade in ball bearings to Germany by Sweden (a neutral country in the war).
http://home3.swipnet.se/~w-38797/specarbete/sweden03.htm
The moral of the story appears to be that it takes a nearly total trade embargo as well as direct attacks on factories producing critical supplies (as well as stockpiles of those supplies in other places) for "strategic" attacks to have actual strategic effect.
AFTER EDIT: Farther down in this subthread, the prediction is made that future wars might involve the massive destruction of nuclear missile attacks. As the thirtieth anniversary of the Falkland Islands War approaches, I am reminded that contemporary commentary on that war pointed out that nuclear weapons had ceased to be a deterrent in the modern world, in which nuclear weapons have not been used in warfare since 1945 (in the same war as the Schweinfurt ball bearing plant air raids, against a combatant country that had directly attacked a neutral country's main military base in the ocean between both countries by surprise attack). Argentina was not deterred at all from occupying the Falklands by Britain's possession of nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles. And of course the terrorist attacks on the United States in the year 2001 were not deterred by the the United States possessing similar weapons. There seem to be a lot of kinds of warfare that can go on with no resort to nuclear weapons, and thus no deterrence by nuclear weapons.