One of the big realizations from World War Two was that plans that involved civilian bombing to "break the spirit" of an enemy population had the opposite effect. Since the bombing only killed a small percentage of the population, the surviving population felt almost euphoric.

This reminded me of two quotes:

"There is no better feeling than having someone shoot at you and miss!" - Winston Churchill

"Combat isn't where you might die -- though that does happen -- it's where you find out whether you get to keep on living. Don't underestimate the power of that revelation. Don't underestimate the things young men will wager in order to play that game one more time." -Sebastian Junger

This will probably also lead to a wave of euphoria once COVID-19 has passed on.

> terrorizing the population into surrendering.

This is asymmetrical warfare in a nutshell

Except terrorizing a population into surrendering hasn't proven to be an effective tactic in history. I'm struggling to think of a single case where it actually happened.

While terrorism (going by the classical definition) hasn’t had had any (or many?) victories of that sort - let’s not pretend that acts of terrorism don’t achieve political goals - and if nothing else they make the people in charge sit-up and take notice.

There’s only one example I can comfortably talk about: I don’t believe Devolution and the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland would have come about if it weren’t for the shadow of the IRA looming over Westminster.

My understanding is that US envoys and a moderator was the main reason for the ceasefire.

Would they have even been there if not for the terrorism?

Uhm, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki?