David Weber and John Ringo kind of address this point in their novel, March Upcountry. I’m paraphrasing a bit:
Soldier, to General: “Sir, they’re attacking our tanks with rocks and spears. How can they ever hope to win against us?”
General, to Soldier: “How can we ever hope to win against people willing to attack tanks with rocks and spears?”
Of course, with suicide bombers, there’s only so many bullets in that clip. It’s just a race between how many they can kill with their limited “bullets” before they run out, or their enemies give up.
The way to beat people willing to die is to be unwilling to to die. If your will not to die is strong enough then at the end you’ll live, which is as good a definition of victory as any. People who employ suicide bombers like to deride their enemies by claiming that they love life too much and fear death; the amazing thing is that they believe this to be an insult. The fact that I refuse to die for my country is the ultimate weapon.
Effective at what? Blowing up? I don’t see how it is any more or less effective than the same amount of explosives delivered in a satchel charge or aerial bomb.
The “effectiveness” of the suicide bomber vs satchels or aerial bombs is largely due to the fact that they can penetrate (or car or on foot) into extremely precise, and relatively secure, locations (vs other options) , where maximum damage can be inflicted. Satchels and “droppable” carrying are a lot more obvious and suspicious than body strapped bombs. I would imagine effective aerial bombardment needs more resouces, and is less precise than a human carried bomb.