What prevents us from reconstructing PIE "u̯" by analogy with laryngeals?

Question

The current laws for laryngeals presume the following reconstruction rules:

• ē is reconstructed as eh₁

• ā is reconstructed as eh₂

• ō is reconstructed as eh₃

• word-initial e- is reconstructed as h₁e

• word-initial a- is reconstructed as h₂e

• word-initial o- is reconstructed as h₃e

Why we cannot reconstruct u̯ the same way? ū would be reconstructed as eu̯ and the word-initial u as as u̯e.

Thus:

• The word for wolf would be u̯elq^u̯os;
• The word for wheat would be peu̯ros;
• The word for son would be seu̯nos.

Why not?

Answer 1

First, [u] and [w] (i.e. u̯) are just allophones in PIE, so the only consequence of reconstructing *w- as *we- will be that it forces you to come up with some theory of why the following *-e- was lost. Plus it doesn't really make sense. If you wanna get rid of word-initial *w- by reconstructing it as *we-, you'll notice that *w- is still initial. So now you need to reconstruct *we- as *wee-, *wee- as *weee- etc. ad infinitum.

More importantly, we don't reconstruct *w- as *we- and *ū as *ew because there are lots and lots of examples of PIE *we- and *ew that didn't become *w- and *ū.