tater: Latest reports show him [Assad]alive and well…he [Assad] was not attacked.

The idiot makes posts like the above. I wager tater votes for McCain every chnce he gets.

THIS STORY MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL

Get ready for it, Bubba, here is a story that does make sense ...

Syria's use of chemical weapons has a grim logic

The diplomatic situation had been looking bright for President Bashar Assad of Syria. With the help of Russia, he had consolidated his power, the rebels were on their heels and the United States had just declared that ousting him was not a priority.

So why would Assad risk it all, outraging the world by attacking civilians with what Turkey now says was the nerve agent sarin, killing scores of people, many of them children? Why would he inflict the deadliest chemical strike since the 2013 attacks outside Damascus, which came close to bringing U.S. military retaliation, averted only by a last-minute deal?

One of the main defenses offered by Assad's allies and supporters, in disputing that chemical weapons were used in the strike Tuesday, is that such an attack would be "a crazy move," as one Iranian analyst, Mosib Na'imi, told the Russian state-run news site Sputnik. Yet, rather than an inexplicable act, analysts say, it is part of a carefully calculated strategy of escalating attacks against civilians.

In recent years, as the battle has swung in its favor, the Syrian government has adopted a policy of seeking total victory by making life as miserable as possible for anyone living in areas outside its control.

Government forces have been herding defeated opponents from across the country into Idlib province, where the chemical attack occurred. Starved and bombed out of their enclaves, they are bused under lopsided surrender deals to the province, where Qaida-linked groups maintain a presence the Syrian military uses as an excuse to bomb without regard for the safety of civilians.

Dr. Monzer Khalil, the health director for Idlib province, said such extreme tactics are designed to demonstrate the government's impunity and to demoralize its opponents.

"It makes us feel that we are defeated," said Khalil, whose gums bled after he was exposed to scores of chemical victims Tuesday. "The international community will stay gazing at what's happening and observing the explosive barrels falling and rockets bombing the civilians and the hospitals and the civil defense and killing children and medical staff without doing anything."

"Militarily, there is no need," said Bente Scheller, the Middle East director of the Berlin-based Heinrich Boell Foundation. "But it spreads the message: You are at our mercy. Don't ask for international law. You see, it doesn't protect even a child."

On Thursday, Syria's foreign minister challenged accounts by witnesses, experts and world leaders that his government was involved. "I stress to you once again: The Syrian Army has not, did not and will not use this kind of weapons not just against our own people, but even against the terrorists that attack our civilians with their mortar rounds," the minister, Walid Moallem, said at a news conference in Damascus.

But the denial, as well as a Russian assertion that a bomb hit a chemical weapons depot controlled by the rebels, seemed perfunctory, almost without regard to the facts, which Western governments said pointed overwhelmingly to a Syrian government hand.

Critics of President Barack Obama including President Donald Trump say that his decision not to enforce his "red line" on chemical attacks in 2013 convinced the Assad government it could get away with anything, and that it has been escalating its harsh tactics against civilians ever since.

Since that "green light," wrote Jihad Yazigi, an opposition-leaning Syrian economist, "Assad knows that a large-scale attack against its civilians is a short-term public relations liability but a long-term political asset."

That was only reinforced, critics say, by recent statements by Trump administration officials that it was time to accept the "political reality" of Assad's grip on power.

By showing it puts no limits on the tactics it uses, Yazigi wrote, "the regime shows to the world the West's impotence and weakness."

Khalil, 35, fled his job at a state-run hospital in 2011. The Syrian uprising was in its early days, with largely peaceful protests that faced harsh crackdowns from security forces. He said he was threatened with arrest for treating wounded demonstrators.

In 2015, a mix of Qaida-linked and other rebels, some supported by the United States and its allies, drove government forces from Idlib, the capital of Idlib province. Khalil became the health director. The city then became a bombing target, and the Syrian government accused the Americans of backing the Qaida- linked group, then called the Nusra Front.

"We are aware that we are in this Qaida trap," Khalil said. "But in Idlib we have 3.3 million people, and how many Qaida fighters? You cannot kill the 3 million for their sake."

The fall of Idlib led to another turning point: Russia's full-on entry into the conflict, adding its firepower to the Syrian government's. Russia said it entered to fight the Islamic State, but directed most of its strikes at places further west, like Idlib, where rival insurgents more urgently threatened government forces.

Chlorine attacks continued investigators from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the United Nations concluded the government had carried out at least three in 2014 and 2015 with little international reaction.

Idlib's population grew as rebels and civilians unwilling to take their chances under government rule moved there from areas recaptured by Assad forces and allies.

After Trump came into office, proclaiming a wish to work with Russia and maybe even Assad against the Islamic State, expectations grew that the international community would accept relegitimzing Assad. And last week came the statements from Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and the ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, indicating effectively that Washington could accept Assad remaining in power.

On Monday, Western officials were gathering in Brussels to weigh billions of dollars in reconstruction aid to the Assad government, amid opposition fears that they would drop their demand for a political transition first.

By Thursday, however, U.S. military officials were discussing a possible military strike on Syria, and Tillerson was saying there was "no role" for Assad in Syria's future.

"The international community will stay gazing at what's happening and observing the explosive barrels falling and rockets bombing the civilians and the hospitals and the civil defense and killing children and medical staff without doing anything."

Where did this happen and under who's auspices?

The U.S. attack was retaliation for a Syrian chemical attack on Tuesday that killed innocent women and children.

When did Congress declare war on Syria?

Did I sleep through that?

Reportedly, the runways were barely scratched,

I saw a video of a jet bomber taking off from that runway on the noon news. The concrete cover it had been sitting under didn't even look damaged.

WTH did those 59 missiles land? Were they filled full of popcorn?

However, the Syrian air base from which the chemical attack was launched is a different matter.

There are reports of heavy damage …

There were fighter/bombers taking off from it today to fly bombing missions.

WTH did those 59 missiles land? Were they filled full of popcorn?

Heck, I dunno pete...

Someone said we got 20 aircraft...
but even that don't sound very cost effective to me...
59 tomahawks gotta cost a helluva lot more than 20 crappy worn out Syrian aircraft they probably got as hand-me-downs from Russia or Yugoslavia or Poland or wherever Syria gets their worn-out commie-surplus aircraft..

There are reports of heavy damage …

There were fighter/bombers taking off from it today to fly bombing missions.

Of course there were Syrian aircraft taking off today from the air field. It was never expected there would not be.

In fact two Syrian jets already took of from the air base on Friday that was hit by the 58 Tomahawk missiles early Friday morning.

They also took off yesterday….and again today, as you stated.

But there were 26 less Syrian aircraft available to ever take off from that air base….since they were destroyed in the missile strikes.

There were 58 hits with Tomahawks to destroy those aircraft, along with infrastructure, the air defense radar and control center, work shops and the fuel depot.

All this means heavy damage in English and the same أضرار جسيمة in Arabic.

It was never the intent to pothole the runway to prevent usage.

That would have been a waste of missiles since all potholes could have been repaired within hours anyway….for any surviving aircraft to start taking off Friday and continuing through the weekend.

But take a look at this …

In a photo released by the Russian state-owned news outlet, Sputnik, the remains of two planes are seen
underneath a shelter following the U.S. missile attack on an air base in Syria, April 7, 2017.

This was the damage done only by two missiles. Stop and visualize this kind of damage to 56 other facilities and you should have a very good idea of what was meant by the usage of the term “heavy damage.”

Again: All this means heavy damage in English and the same أضرار جسيمة in Arabic.

You disagree?

Are you saying there was not heavy damage?

Edit Add:
Russia said only 23 of the 59 missiles fired from US warships hit their mark, but that six Syrian jets and several buildings were destroyed in the attack.

There are reports of heavy damage …

There were fighter/bombers taking off from it today to fly bombing missions.

Of course there were Syrian aircraft taking off today from the air field. It was never expected there would not be.

In fact two Syrian jets already took of from the air base on Friday that was hit by the 58 Tomahawk missiles early Friday morning.

They also took off yesterday….and again today, as you stated.

But there were 26 less Syrian aircraft available to ever take off from that air base….since they were destroyed in the missile strikes.

There were 58 hits with Tomahawks to destroy those aircraft, along with infrastructure, the air defense radar and control center, work shops and the fuel depot.

All this means heavy damage in English and the same أضرار جسيمة in Arabic.

It was never the intent to pothole the runway to prevent usage.

That would have been a waste of missiles since all potholes could have been repaired within hours anyway….for any surviving aircraft to start taking off Friday and continuing through the weekend.

But take a look at this …

In a photo released by the Russian state-owned news outlet, Sputnik, the remains of two planes are seen
underneath a shelter following the U.S. missile attack on an air base in Syria, April 7, 2017.

This was the damage done only by two missiles. Stop and visualize this kind of damage to 56 other facilities and you should have a very good idea of what was meant by the usage of the term “heavy damage.”

Again: All this means heavy damage in English and the same أضرار جسيمة in Arabic.

You disagree?

Are you saying there was not heavy damage?

Edit Add:

Russia said only 23 of the 59 missiles fired from US warships hit their mark, but that six Syrian jets and several buildings were destroyed in the attack.

Another report says nine Syrian jets were destroyed.

Military action is typically justified by public relations gimmicry. Reality has nothing to do with it. The race is on to create support jihadist public relations by the jihadists and their allies on the destructive political left over here.

Thinking people know whodunit. The question becomes one of developing an illusion of supporting enough public relations gimmicry to promote an illusion of universal support to overcome factuality over here.

I see quite a few people here have swallowed the illusion over reality.

Isaac Asimov was correct. People are stupid.

This satellite picture and the satellite pictures in the link are from ImageSat International.

This picture shows 44 hits….21 more than the Russians said, and 14 less that the US Navy said. There is no explained reason for the discrepancy in the Russian number. But it should be noted that some of the missile hits were probably double targeted. The reason for this is the first missile will weakened the reinforced structure and a second missile comes in moments afterwards for the kill hit. Also, on high priority targets, a double hit may be scheduled to insure severe damage or destruction. [The absence of the remaining 14 hits showing in the picture is speculation on my part and based on the target scheduling in the past….I have no idea what the procedures are today, but I would imagine the same purpose from the past would be served today].

Click here to see additional satellite images showing before/after of US missile strikes on Syrian air base.

The list here shows hundreds of instances in which the United States has used its Armed Forces abroad in situations of military conflict or potential conflict or for other than normal peacetime purposes, 1798-2016.

Some of the instances were extended military engagements that might be considered undeclared wars. These include the Undeclared Naval War with France from 1798 to 1800; the First Barbary War from 1801 to 1805; the Second Barbary War of 1815; the Korean War of 1950- 1953; the Vietnam War from 1964 to 1973; the Persian Gulf War of 1991; global actions against foreign terrorists after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States; and the war with Iraq in 2003. With the exception of the Korean War, all of these conflicts received congressional authorization in some form short of a formal declaration of war. Other, more recent instances have often involved deployment of U.S. military forces as part of a multinational operation associated with NATO or the United Nations.

"The international community will stay gazing at what's happening and observing the explosive barrels falling and rockets bombing the civilians and the hospitals and the civil defense and killing children and medical staff without doing anything."

Where did this happen and under who's auspices?

Why Syrian civilians get killed with barrel bombs and chemical attacks

Largest hospital in rebel-held Aleppo hit by barrel bombs

List of Syrian Civil War barrel bomb attacks

Google for more information ….

Are you saying there was not heavy damage?

Yes, The shelter they were in wasn't even destroyed,and there is something wrong about those photos. If those jets had been destroyed by missile strikes,why are the roofs still standing?

This picture shows 44 hits….21 more than the Russians said, and 14 less that the US Navy said.

That pic leaves a lot to be desired but it is a step in the right direction.

I suppose I must be an extreme cynic not to just take their word for it.

Are you saying there was not heavy damage?

Yes, The shelter they were in wasn't even destroyed,and there is something wrong about those photos.

If those jets had been destroyed by missile strikes,why are the roofs still standing?

For every question….there is a logical answer.

The missiles penetrated through the roofs and left the roofs still standing….after penetrating through the roofs, the missiles hit and destroyed the aircrafts under the roofs.

That’s exactly what happened …

I suppose I must be an extreme cynic not to just take their word for it.

I cannot understand why you are such a cynic on this.

If you could show good reason the Navy lied....I could join with you.

The missiles penetrated through the roofs and left the roofs still standing….after penetrating through the roofs, the missiles hit and destroyed the aircrafts under the roofs.

Maybe they have some reason to want to damage the roof.

However, they do brag that the Tomahawk can fly a thousand miles and hit a tenth-floor window with pinpoint precision so they could have flown them into the big open doors instead of punching through the roof.

I suppose those kind of aircraft shelters looked very formidable back in the Sixties and Seventies. I assume that is when they were built.

There were 58 hits with Tomahawks to destroy those aircraft, along with infrastructure, the air defense radar and control center, work shops and the fuel depot.

But not all of them came down in the area of the airport. Reports are that 23 to 26 landed there. The rest are "hits" on whatever they hit. One missile can take out more than one plane, etc, so quit lying and trying to claim that all 58 were wonderful hits on target.

You're starting to sound like the Donald's crowd size claims for the inauguration... "alternative facts" (lies).

If you could show good reason the Navy lied....I could join with you.

We get less and less information about any military operation in recent years. And what we do get is increasingly exposed as unreliable.

What we really get is just propaganda. Shallow propaganda at that.

But maybe that is all the public actually wants and only a very few people like me actually want any details. Increasingly, the public is desperate to feel good about itself, I think. They elected (and re-elected) 0bama whose policies they never really supported because they felt good about themselves for voting for a black man for prez. You see the same sort of thing with this missile strike. People don't care how effective it was, where the missiles hit, how much damage was done. But they feel better about themselves for Trump having struck at Assad and his nasty gas and they liked those cute videos with the flag limned by the rockets' red glare of missiles launching (from a ship commanded by a Womyn no less). It's hard even to add up all the virtue-signalling points you score with that. And it wasn't just Republicans who felt that way about slapping Assad around, so did Dems, no matter how much they hate Trump.

Just something to ponder. In the absence of facts the sheeple will believe the prevailing malarkey that they hear from the fake news media, aka propaganda.

If there were 59 missiles launched and 23 hit in the airport area, then the Ruskies might have shot down or electronically waylaid 36. This is just a wild guess and there's no proof, but it might be closer to the truth than what US gov, and MSM is reporting?

I tend to trust the Tomahawks. In all the thousands we launched at Iraq, only one or two failed. I recall our recovery effort to get one back that fizzled and crashed without exploding. I seem to recall a second Tomahawk failed too.

The Tomahawk is loved because it is so versatile and so reliable. It is our workhorse missile. And a lot more affordable than some of our other missiles.

The missiles penetrated through the roofs and left the roofs still standing….after penetrating through the roofs, the missiles hit and destroyed the aircrafts under the roofs.

That’s exactly what happened …

You should have started that story out with "once upon a time...."

The missiles penetrated through the roofs and left the roofs still standing….after penetrating through the roofs, the missiles hit and destroyed the aircrafts under the roofs.

The Tomahawks carry a payload of 1,000 lbs of high explosive.

Does anyone SERIOUSLY believe there would even be a truck load of rubble left if a couple of those babies had hit those revetments?

I see no displaced blocks,or even cement fragments. I do see soot from a burning fire,and what looks like a couple of jet fighters that might have been set on fire,though.

The missiles penetrated through the roofs and left the roofs still standing….after penetrating through the roofs, the missiles hit and destroyed the aircrafts under the roofs.

That’s exactly what happened …

You should have started that story out with "once upon a time...."

Then “once upon a time” [last Friday morning] Tomahawk missiles went through the roofs of these two aircraft shelters ….

And the Tomahawk missiles destroyed the aircraft in those shelters without destroying the roofs of those shelters.

There, Catfish….that’s exactly what happened and I am telling the story the way you want it to be told.

You like it better that I started the story that way….huh?

Good, then …

At 0:41 in the video below, you will see the Syrians drive past the two aircraft shelters in the picture I posted.

Continue watching that video and at 1:15 you will hear one Syrian say to another Syrian in Arabic …

So the missiles came through the top [meaning the roof, of course], right?

Yea, it broke through the roof of the hanger.

Is this the burned down Mig-23?

And all of the hits came through the roof? Yes, exactly.

It is the same in the other hanger.

Here is a picture of one Mig-23 showing what one looks like before it met up with a Tomahawk missile …

Ah, but I digress from “once upon a time.”

Sorry about that, back to the “once upon a time” story …

Hey, Pete….voilà….at 1:31, you will see but one of the holes in the roof of the aircraft shelter that shows where a dastardly Tomahawk missile penetrated through thick concrete reinforced with steel rebar and steel mesh …

Here is the Syrian video …

And so, Pete, it happened exactly the way I first told you it happened and now you have heard the story told the way you wanted it to begin …

So, as with another story from the past …

Goldilocks woke up and saw the three bears. She screamed, "Help!" And she jumped up and ran out of the room.

Pete, did you like it better when I tell the story by starting with “once upon a time?”

And, I also politely ask you once again …

Pete, are you saying there was not heavy damage?

Maybe you and Tooconservative should start a new ping list, called: “Skeptics Anonymous.” I am sure that Deckard would also be prequalified to sign up on it.

The missiles penetrated through the roofs and left the roofs still standing….after penetrating through the roofs, the missiles hit and destroyed the aircrafts under the roofs.

The Tomahawks carry a payload of 1,000 lbs of high explosive.

Does anyone SERIOUSLY believe there would even be a truck load of rubble left if a couple of those babies had hit those revetments?

I see no displaced blocks,or even cement fragments. I do see soot from a burning fire,and what looks like a couple of jet fighters that might have been set on fire,though.

You should not believe what your lying eyes tell you, Pete.

If you are not objectively seeking the truth….your lying eyes will tell you exactly what you want to see and omit what you don’t want to see.

That’s the pure and simple truth….from “once upon a time” directly to you.

You will notice they say only 23 missiles struck and there was no significant damage to the air field.

You will also notice they showed the two arched aircraft shelters remained unimpaired.

However, I just posted a Syrian news video for you that showed extensive damage to the air field and the aircraft in those shelters were destroyed.

Interesting….that some folks wish to go with the Russians and still believe there was no heavy damage to the air field.

Hey, Pete….voilà….at 1:31, you will see but one of the holes in the roof of the aircraft shelter that shows where a dastardly Tomahawk missile penetrated through thick concrete reinforced with steel rebar and steel mesh …

I don't think they penetrated the roof entirely. I think they exploded when they hit the rebar mesh, based on the crater on top of the roof and the larger crater in the ceiling.

A Tomahawk doesn't have penetrator warheads.

Here is the Syrian video …

I'd like to see all of these missile bodies. They have to be somewhere.

I notice this particular video offers nothing to support the idea that half of our missiles missed the airbase.

Here is a Russian propaganda drone video showing the Syrian air field after the attack.

. . .

However, I just posted a Syrian news video for you that showed extensive damage to the air field and the aircraft in those shelters were destroyed.

ANNA News is a news outfit from Abkhazia. You may recall the Abkhazians were a breakaway region from Georgia, along with the South Ossetians back in 2008. The Abkhazians are to the northwest of Georgia along the sea and the Ossetians are in the far east of Georgia.

The Russians stood down the Georgians in their attempt to steamroll their breakaway provinces, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. We didn't hear much about the Abkhazia end of things because they have a big gorge along the "border" and some really rough terrain there so Tiesucker attacked South Ossetia first.

Anyway, it seems the Abkhazians didn't get the party line from Moscow on how to report the story.

Hey, Pete….voilà….at 1:31, you will see but one of the holes in the roof of the aircraft shelter that shows where a dastardly Tomahawk missile penetrated through thick concrete reinforced with steel rebar and steel mesh …

I don't think they penetrated the roof entirely. I think they exploded when they hit the rebar mesh, based on the crater on top of the roof and the larger crater in the ceiling.

A Tomahawk doesn't have penetrator warheads.

Au contraire, on what you say about the Tomahawk penetration ability.

The Tomahawk was far past my time, so I only know what I read.

I dealt with 5 nukes with the B-58 and eighty-four 500-pound bombs in the B-52 over Nam….with a year in the AC-130 gunship at the end of hostilities, it had the 105 and Gatlin gun.

So, maybe redleghunter has the expertise to help us here, if he will.

I believe Tomahawk missile can be programed to detonate upon impact or programmed to penetrate 40 centimeters of concrete with a delayed detonation.

I don’t belive that is a Tomahawk in this video, but it shows that a missile can penetrate concrete with a delayed detonation….same point.

Edit: I think maybe the Tomahawk can only penetrate 20 centimeters of concrete. Anyway, it could still have, and did, penetrate the concrete roofs of those aircraft shelters.

I believe Tomahawk missile can be programed to detonate upon impact or programmed to penetrate 40 centimeters of concrete with a delayed detonation.

40cm is only 15 inches.

Given the amount of dirt they piled on the roofs of these shelters, I think they would need more than 15" of concrete to support them, especially if these hangars are 50yo like I think. Using blown concrete, maybe you could make it work with less concrete but we didn't have those techniques back when these hangars were built.

I've read that they developed a "Tactical Tomahawk Penetrator" but I'm not sure if they ever built any beyond the test program. We've built bigger and more effective penetrators since then.

Edit: I think maybe the Tomahawk can only penetrate 20 centimeters of concrete. Anyway, it could still have, and did, penetrate the concrete roofs of those aircraft shelters.

I think it penetrated the dirt roof and then blew up the concrete ceiling.

Notice the painted lettering on the concrete block.

Again, that is a true bunker buster, capable of penetrating hundreds of feet of dirt and then blowing up a concrete bunker. No Tomahawk can do anything like that.

I see the much smaller SDB is claimed to penetrate 3' of concrete.

Thanks ...

...can now service 4 times as many tagets...

LOL. Nice euphemism.

...can now service 4 times as many tagets...

LOL. Nice euphemism.

Our SDB is an especially polite weapon, chock-full of egalitarian principle.

Thanks ...

Yeah, I totally caught you with your pants down by identifying the painted marks on that concrete block that was the star of both videos.

A good example of why I am your literary hero.

I do, see why in Post 36.

You believe because it is your nature to believe anything the government tells you.

Interesting….that some folks wish to go with the Russians and still believe there was no heavy damage to the air field.

I prefer to trust my lying eyes.

They were testing concrete penetration of the bunker buster under carefully controlled conditions. For instance, these bunker buster munitions have a fuse at the back of the warhead which can sense what the warhead has struck as it penetrates walls or ground or concrete. Hence in the video we see the missile penetrate the block fully before it detonates. Imagine that sort of thing in a concrete military bunker 20' below ground. That is the kind of thing they were after in the test.

I thought you were talking about the test video.

I don't think we have fuel-air weapons that can be mounted on cruise missiles. They're generally very big bombs, among the largest. Like those daisy-cutter bombs in size and weight.

I do, see why in Post 36.

You believe because it is your nature to believe anything the government tells you.

You obviously did not read the post or even dare to look at the video.

Had you looked at the video, you would have seen that was not “the government telling me anything?”

It was a reporter from ANNA, a news organization from Abkhazia, who gave grossly conflicting stories from the Russians and showed actual intensive video footage.

His video showed a hole in the roof of the aircraft shelter when the Tomahawk penetrated and destroyed the Mig 23 aircraft.

I prefer to trust my lying eyes.

I truly believe that you sincerely do….and there will be no reason for you to ever change from doing that.

Good luck with that….I wish you well in life.

I don't think we have fuel-air weapons that can be mounted on cruise missiles. They're generally very big bombs, among the largest. Like those daisy-cutter bombs in size and weight.

The Tomahawk either is already used, or soon will be redesigned to be used, as a thermobaric weapon. This is but one of the numerous upgrades of the Tomahawk over the many years….this one is all about fuel-air explosions.

If they had wanted to destroy those revetments as well as the AC parked under them,they would have just used a fuel/air explosive and been done with the.

So, there was no need for a thermobaric weapon when all the Navy had to do was what they did so effectively and accurately….the Navy dropped a Tomahawk missile through the roof of the aircraft shelter [like was shown by ANNA News in the Video in Post #36] to destroy the Mig 23 aircraft in them.

Between the massive pressure wave and the lack of oxygen to breathe,they would have owned the rubble,

Overkill through the use of a a thermobaric weapon was completely unnecessary …

Does anyone SERIOUSLY believe there would even be a truck load of rubble left if a couple of those babies had hit those revetments?

I see no displaced blocks,or even cement fragments. I do see soot from a burning fire,and what looks like a couple of jet fighters that might have been set on fire,though.

Depends on the warhead.

A Tomahawk doesn't have penetrator warheads.

The sole reason for using TLAM is to get the necessary penetration.

Two major model warheads and both have penetration capabilities.

The unitary model is designed to penetrate hard and deeply buried targets. The model which dispenses sub munitions also have multiple penetrators.

The ATACMS missiles I worked with in OIF 1 were designed around the Tomahawk unitary warhead design. Our sole purpose in procuring the warhead for ATACMS was to get the necessary penetration for deeply buried targets.

Even our smaller GMLRS UNITARY rockets had superior penetration capabilities.