Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Only Half Human
Joined
·
533 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
A NUCLEAR ATTACK ON THE UNITED STATES
"Only the offensive leads to the attainment of victory over the enemy. As a type of combat, the offensive has incontestable advantages over the defense. The attacker has broad capabilities for launching surprise strikes, for the rapid exploitation of the results of nuclear attacks"
 Russian military strategist Col. Sidorenko

Due to the long arm of the intercontinental ballistic missile, the United States is no longer protected from her enemies by the vast expanse of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. There have been three occasions since World War II when the U.S. has been on the verge of war with the Soviets as the result of a conflict involving third world countries. The first was the Cuban missile crisis, the second was involving the Middle East during the Seven-Days War, and the third was in 1990 when India and Pakistan were on the verge of war.

Prelude to a Russian Nuclear Attack (information covered in book)

EMP

Suddenly, without warning, nuclear detonations occur simultaneously, high in the atmosphere over different sections of the North American continent and Western Europe. These detonations originate from pre-positioned orbiting satellites armed with atomic weapons.

These high altitude bursts do not affect the surface of the earth with any form of destructive heat, overpressure or radiation, but a phenomenon occurs which is called Electro Magnetic Pulse, or EMP. The Electro Magnetic Pulse radiates out across North America and Western Europe, collecting on power transmission lines and communication antennas. For a fraction of a second, the EMP spikes the power grid and receiving antennas with a huge surge of voltage. In the process of seeking ground, this surge is so quick and great that it jumps across conventional surge protectors, lightning protection, and even open circuits where the power switches are turned off, burning out and rendering useless all sensitive electronics, computers and communication equipment.

Simultaneously, Soviet space-based weapon systems start decapitating U.S. reconnaissance satellites.

Confusion and Uncertainty

The confusion created by the disruption of the national communication network is considerable. The destruction of the U.S. spy satellites blind U.S. intelligence analysts. Military intelligence agencies are not able to give the president a definitive answer as to what the Soviets are really doing.

While the Soviets are launching ICBMs at U.S. targets, the Soviet head of state calls the President of the United States on the hotline to apologetically inform him that there has been an accident in space. The Soviet leader explains that a reactor on their orbiting space station has exploded. Not wanting to be responsible for the start of World War III, the uncertain President ignores advice from his military advisers to launch our ICBMs at Soviet targets.

The President doesnt have long to wait because Soviet submarines off the Atlantic coast launch ballistic missiles at Washington D.C. The time from launch to target impact is only three minutes. With the institution of a war alert, the president, his family and their Secret Service entourage are whisked away by helicopter. The helicopter is just crossing the Fairfax County line into Virginia when it is struck by the shock wave from one of the numerous airbursts over the nations capital. The aircraft instantly disintegrates with the wreckage scattering over a wide area of countryside.

Strategic Targets in the U.S.

In the United States there are about 6,000 primary targets. This includes military related targets that would be involved in the launch of a retaliatory counterattack. The initial Soviet ICBM attack concentrates on these high priority first-strike targets which are critically important for a Soviet victory. These targets include: ICBM silos and launch centers, air force, navy and army facilities, key military support industries, command and control centers, and political infrastructures.

Once all the designated priority first-strike military targets are hit, satellite reconnaissance is used by the Soviet military staff to determine the effectiveness of target destruction. Then further strikes are initiated where the initial attack failed or destruction of a target was incomplete. When all the military targets are properly destroyed, the Soviet military staff concentrates their attack priority on industrial targets which support the military effort including key military support industries, port facilities, fuel refineries, fuel storage facilities, power generating plants, chemical plants and communication facilities.

Destruction of U.S. Targets

Without warning, a significant portion of our retaliatory force is destroyed before it is deployed. Our bombers, which comprise the air wing of our TRIAD, are all off alert due to presidential directive. Virtually all of them are destroyed in their hangers. Each U.S. ICBM missile silo is struck simultaneously with two ground-penetrating warheads. Massive amounts of soil are drawn up into the resulting mushroom clouds, producing radioactive fallout particles that are spread for hundreds of miles before settling to earth.

Ninety percent of U.S. ICBMs are destroyed in their silos by the first wave of missiles. The ten percent which escaped the first strike are successfully launched from their silos but most of these are intercepted by the Soviet antiballistic missile system. Those that penetrate Soviet defenses only inflict minimal damage, quantitatively speaking, to military targets. The Soviet population, due to their extensive civilian civil defense program, suffer negligible losses.

Soviet ICBMs with ground-burst weapons impact and destroy U.S. military runways and civilian airports capable of accommodating the emergency dispersal of military aircraft. Military bases and Naval facilities are struck by ICBMs with air-burst weapons. The explosion of these weapons produces no radioactive fallout but there is optimum destructive effect of surface structures due to the resulting massive wave of overpressure and the thermal effect of the fireball.

One-third to one-half of the 39 U.S. strategic submarine fleet is destroyed in port. Of the remaining 19 or 20 U.S. submarines, 10 will have to travel for two to five days in order to be within striking range of Soviet targets. The other 10 U.S. subs are within striking range of Russian targets and successfully launch their missiles. Again, those sub launched missiles that managed to penetrate the Soviet anti-ballistic missile defense system only inflict minimal damage, both to their targets and to the Soviet population due to civil-defense preparations. The other element which quickly comes into play are Russias 250 attack submarines, which in short order, decimate most surviving U.S. strategic submarines.

Meanwhile the Soviet strategic submarines are launching their missiles, which have greater range than those of their U.S. counterparts. The longer range missiles allow the Soviet subs to launch from protected waters. Thus it is very difficult for the surviving elements of the United States Navy to destroy much of the Soviet nuclear submarine fleet.

U.S. Casualties

Due to the lack of a U.S. anti-ballistic missile system and civil defense preparations, all missiles strike their appointed targets in the U.S., causing massive destruction and loss of life. The Soviet first strike has resulted in the destruction of most of the large cities in the United States. The Soviet nuclear attack on the U.S. produces about 67 million casualties due to the effects of the blast and high exposure to radiation. This represents about 25 percent of the population.

During the next two years another 121.5 million Americans starve to death, bringing the total U.S. casualties to about 188 million, or approximately 70 percent of the population. (Strategic and civil defense could have reduced U.S. fatalities to as little as 7,000). Russia lost no more than 5 percent of her population as a result of ICBMs which managed to get through the anti- ballistic missile system. Also, none of the Russian citizens starve following the war, thanks to the massive Soviet strategic grain reserves which had been purchased from the United States with credits from Western banks.

Little is left of U.S. nuclear forces to retaliate after the Soviet first strike. Damage to U.S. military command and control and communications links have further restricted an attempt to retaliate.

Soviet intelligence and Spetnaz teams, pre-positioned in the United States start implementing a pre-established plan to create confusion. Soviet agents have been monitoring the daily routines of key members of the military and civilian leadership for months. Simultaneously, Spetnaz teams begin assassinating these key leaders and anyone else who has the misfortune of being around or in the way.

Other teams have been assigned the task of disrupting communication, power transmission and transportation. Power transmission lines and generation facilities at key points are sabotaged. Key bridges on thoroughfares out of major cities and on the interstate highways are blown up.

Teams equipped with shoulder-fired missiles wait in ambush on a wooded hill adjacent to the governments super secret Iron Mountain shelter complex in West Virginia. A few helicopters that managed to successfully escape Washington, D.C., are loaded with their cargo of Pentagon officials, congressmen and cabinet members. As the helicopters approach the seeming safety of Iron mountain, they are met by a crossfire of surface-to-air missiles.

The ensuing war is composed of many nuclear and non-nuclear battles which continue for two to four years. The war involves conventional forces both in Europe and an invasion of American soil.

The Continuing War

During this protracted combination nuclear-conventional war, chemical warfare is used by the Soviets as extensively as nuclear weapons. Approximately one-third of the Soviet arsenal is composed of chemical weapons. The Soviets maintain chemical warfare units that have 80,000 to 100,000 well trained soldiers. Biological warfare is not used in conjunction with conventional Soviet troop operations because it is slow acting, difficult to control, and could thus endanger Soviet troops. Biological weapons are used very effectively to eliminate resistance in hostile areas not occupied or controlled by Soviet troops. The overall objective of the Soviet war effort is not to completely destroy the United States, but to take control of as many aspects of American society as possible.

Evidence supporting this mixture of nuclear and conventional warfare in a third world war is found in the Soviet book, Tactics and Combined Arms Combat, Moscow, Military Publishing House.

"It is believed that nuclear weapons as the main means of destruction will be deployed only for the destruction of the most important objectives; all other targets are neutralized and destroyed by artillery aviation and the fire of tanks and other weapons. Use of nuclear weapons against insignificant, secondary objectives contradicts the very nature of this weapon."

"Although the nuclear strike should be delivered at the beginning of the preparatory fire in order to achieve surprise, this should not be stereotyped. Nuclear weapons can also be employed in the middle, at the end, or at any other period of the preparatory fire."

"Nuclear strikes do not represent some kind of isolated act, but a component of combat. The operations of tank and motorized rifle are closely coordinated with them. Nuclear strikes and troop operations represent a uniform and inseparable process, joined by a common concept."

Invasion of the U.S. by Conventional Forces

This scenario of an extended war involving both conventional and nuclear forces follows an overall Soviet strategy with the following objectives: destroy the most threatening enemy forces, destroy the main links and nodes in the national command and control authority, do not destroy large areas or create nuclear deserts, use minimum weapons yield to prevent target overkill, prepare to strike the most important targets twice, and do not attack and destroy all targets (because it is not possible or desirable).

This nuclear exchange is followed by an invasion of conventional forces involving sea and air battles, tanks, paratroopers and infantry. Airborne units strike across the Bering Sea and invade Alaska. With Nome, Prudhoe Bay, Fairbanks and Anchorage, the Soviets have secured the strategic oil reserves to support the ongoing war effort.

A combined sea, air and paratroop assault on Seattle, Tacoma, Victoria and Vancouver secures the port facilities and gains control of I-90 and I-5 North and South. The Soviets secure their beach-head in the Northwest.

Armored units begin moving east on I-90 to Ellensburg, Washington. At this point, part of the advancing force turns south on Interstate 82. The objective of this unit is to secure the chemical weapons storage at Umitila, the bridge over the Columbia River and the intersection of I-82 and I-84. Securing the intersection of Interstates 82 and 84 opens the back door to Portland. Military units move east on I-84 to flank resistance to a Soviet military push south from Seattle toward Portland and Longview down I-5.

From Ellensburg, military forces continue moving east to Vantage, securing another bridge over the Columbia River and opening the door for a push to Spokane.

Meanwhile, in other parts of the country, an invasion force from Cuba establishes a beachhead on the southern Florida coast. Communist forces pre-positioned in Mexico move across the border into Texas. Elements of the Soviet Red Banner Fleet secure New Orleans. This establishes key access to the central U.S. up the Mississippi River. The Soviets also mount a land, air and sea attack to secure the St. Lawrence Seaway.

More Information On Nuclear War (information covered in book)

The Nuclear First Strike

Most Americans cannot fathom the possibility of an unprovoked strategic attack by the Soviets. Rejecting the possibility of nuclear war may be comforting and helpful for normal existence, but this societal self-delusion may prove a fatal liability.

In war, he who chooses the time and place of battle holds the best advantage for victory. Fighting on a proactive or offensive basis holds the greater advantage for victory. Fighting on a reactive or defensive basis is an encumbrance.

The purpose of launching a first strike on the United States would be to take advantage of the element of surprise and catch U.S. forces off guard. The Soviets have significant capability for a preemptive attack on the United States. The Soviets have concentrated their nuclear firepower into an enormous intercontinental ballistic missile force which is optimized for a first strike against the Unites States. The initial and primary objective would be to destroy the United States defensive and retaliatory capability. In theory, once adequate industrial targets were dispatched, population centers could be targeted at will until the U.S. government capitulated with an unconditional surrender.

The United States would never launch a preemptive attack on Russia because the U.S. is unprepared to deal with the resulting dire consequences. The United States has neither civil nor strategic defense and thus our civilian populations would be completely exposed to Soviet nuclear retaliation. Even if the U.S. possessed a national strategic defense system, the act of preparing for a nuclear first strike would require the movement of U.S. forces into battle positions and the necessary evacuation of civilians from metropolitan areas. These actions would tip the Soviets off and the attack would no longer be a surprise, unless there was a devious strategy employed to cover or justify such preparations.

On the other hand, Russia has both strategic and civil defense. In the event of a surprise attack, the Russians could quickly shelter a significant portion of their civilian population and neutralize most ICBMs launched against Russian targets with their operational missile defense system.

The Old Doomsday Scenario (information covered in book)

Gradually Escalating War Scenario (information covered in book)

India-Pakistan Conflict and the F.E.M.A. Relocation Plan

F.E.M.A. has no contingency plans for sheltering the civilian population in the event of a surprise nuclear attack. Recent history has already shown that it is questionable that F.E.M.A. can or would start relocating civilians out of populated areas in the event of a gradually escalating scenario. Back in the 1990s, the United States experienced a gradually escalating war scenario with the Soviet Union over an imminent war between India and Pakistan.

Bush eventually managed to bring about a diplomatic solution to the crisis, but the public was never told that the U.S. and the Soviets were both on high alert. The F.E.M.A. policy of evacuating civilians out of metropolitan target areas was never implemented. Meanwhile, the United States and Soviet Union were both positioning strategic forces in preparation for a possible global conflict.

According to an Associated Press article which appeared in the March 22, 1993 edition of the Great Falls Tribune, "The world was on the edge of a nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan in early 1990 because of the tug-of-war over Kashmir." Senior intelligence officials referred to this showdown in the spring of 1990 as "the most dangerous nuclear confrontation of the postwar era." The article went on to explain that, "the Bush administration kept the conflict secret, failing even to disclose it to key members of Congress The nuclear confrontation was defused by the intervention of President Bushs personal envoy, who was sent to India and Pakistan to negotiate a standdown between the two countries."

Government Warning in the Event of a Nuclear Attack?

The next logical question is would the government alert the public if the Soviets launched ICBMs at the U.S.? Probably not! The reason I say this is that a last minute alert probably would not save many lives. An alert would cause immediate civil disorder and gridlock on the highways out of the major cities. The other reason not to alert the public is that there is no public shelter system for them to run to.

http://www.nodoom.com/chapter17to19.html
 

·
Feuer Frei!
Joined
·
1,811 Posts
Wow. Very good read. After reading this you really start to wonder how this scenario would play out for you individually. Is there somewhere you can go and shelter yourself? Do you have the necessary precautions set in place so that you could survive a war? Makes you question a lot, especially since it’s a very real issue. Americans are not prepared for this on a civilian level. People said they lost there direction when the world trade centers went down. How are people going to function when a disaster of this magnitude happens.

Thanks for the link. Now can you post a working one...please. :thumb:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
226 Posts
If you read very carefully through that dribble, you realize the argument the author is trying to make is contradicted many times by the 'evidence' (and I use that term VERY loosely) he presents. This is a bunch of BS worded to scare people... plain & simple. While the possibility of nuclear war certainly exists, I can't envision it being a winning scenario for Russia, us, or any other country on the planet, regardless of how it was played out. This clown tries to make himself out to sound like some sort of expert. What are his credentials? What insight does he have into the workings of the USSR? A couple out-of-context quotes from people we don't know - from a time we're uncertain of? Lame.

Let me ask you this... if most, if not all, of the major cities in the U.S. have been nuked, as braniac above suggests... exactly what is there to invade? Where are the spoils? What exactly do you do with a nuclear wasteland? Come to think of it, that would be a good question for the Russians, particularly the ones who used to live in Chernobyl, which is - to this day (since 1986?) - uninhabitable. If every major city were destroyed, you could bet the rest of the nation, if not the entire continent, would be ****canned.
 

·
Deeds of Flesh
Joined
·
45 Posts
Mutually assured destruction
Mutually assured destruction (M.A.D.) is a doctrine of military strategy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two opposing sides would effectively result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender.[1] It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the very same weapons. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash equilibrium, in which both sides are attempting to avoid their worst possible outcome—nuclear annihilation.
Good luck in the woods when that happens
 

·
Suspect Everyone
Joined
·
225 Posts
Gee, Chub, maybe you should read...

If you read very carefully through that dribble, you realize the argument the author is trying to make is contradicted many times by the 'evidence' (and I use that term VERY loosely) he presents. This is a bunch of BS worded to scare people... plain & simple. While the possibility of nuclear war certainly exists, I can't envision it being a winning scenario for Russia, us, or any other country on the planet, regardless of how it was played out. This clown tries to make himself out to sound like some sort of expert. What are his credentials? What insight does he have into the workings of the USSR? A couple out-of-context quotes from people we don't know - from a time we're uncertain of? Lame.

Let me ask you this... if most, if not all, of the major cities in the U.S. have been nuked, as braniac above suggests... exactly what is there to invade? Where are the spoils? What exactly do you do with a nuclear wasteland? Come to think of it, that would be a good question for the Russians, particularly the ones who used to live in Chernobyl, which is - to this day (since 1986?) - uninhabitable. If every major city were destroyed, you could bet the rest of the nation, if not the entire continent, would be ****canned.
Funny how every time I reply to a Chubby post, he wants to fire back telling me to read what he wrote again. Maybe you should have read the part about Russian objectives and an EXTENDED war, particularly "do not destroy large areas or create nuclear deserts, use minimum weapons yield to prevent target overkill" - and while I agree that many facets are lame and rather unplausible, it is just a scenario...a theory of what MIGHT happen.

The fact is, Russia does want to rule everything and IF they wanted to invade with conventional forces, they would definitely first have to go nuclear first. Now all this aout taking out our satellites and all, I don;t buy it, but I do think it is an interesting thought and the important part would be to think about the fundamentals of an attack/invasion scenario, however it may play out. Again, i agree with Chubby that it is not very realistic, but I do think it addressed the issue of not creating too many "Chernobyl" areas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
850 Posts
I find it hard to believe the the Russians are caplable of doing this to the US when they got their a$$es kicked by 3rd world Afganistan.

Give me a break.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
Frankly, In a situation like that I hope I don't survive the first wave, and probably won't - I live within a 10 mile radius of a major USAF base. There is no quality of life after an event like that. Have you read the book Hiroshima by John Hersey? It's about life after the bomb went off there...and that was just one bomb.

That being said, the above scenario seems pretty far fetched to me. The US would certainly launch a counter attack immediately. It takes over an hour for an ICBM to travel from the US to Russia. They could always be rerouted or left unactivated if there really was an accident.

If one of you makes it and can find my house you're more than welcome to my preps. :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,162 Posts
The fact is, Russia does want to rule everything and IF they wanted to invade with conventional forces, they would definitely first have to go nuclear first.
Where did you learn that Russia wants to rule everything? We have had them as neighbours for 10 000 years and not once in history have they ever attempted to invade or rule us!
We have however fought a bunch of wars with Sweden and Denmark up through history and even been ruled by them.

We have an a territorial dispute with Russia over the economic zones in the Barents sea, over Spitsbergens status, over the right of fisheries in the "grey zone" and inspection regimes in the barents sea. Never has these disputes escalated into armed confrontation.

Russia don't want to rule the world, however they are a major power and want to keep their sphere of interest as intact as possible. And they want to be heard on the international political stage. Any country with 250 million citizens want that!
 

·
DILIGENTIA VIS CELERITAS
Joined
·
727 Posts
Where did you learn that Russia wants to rule everything? We have had them as neighbours for 10 000 years and not once in history have they ever attempted to invade or rule us!
We have however fought a bunch of wars with Sweden and Denmark up through history and even been ruled by them.

We have an a territorial dispute with Russia over the economic zones in the Barents sea, over Spitsbergens status, over the right of fisheries in the "grey zone" and inspection regimes in the barents sea. Never has these disputes escalated into armed confrontation.

Russia don't want to rule the world, however they are a major power and want to keep their sphere of interest as intact as possible. And they want to be heard on the international political stage. Any country with 250 million citizens want that!

Not sure that they are trying to rule the world yet.
The USA is the biggest threat to thier ambitions, whether they are right or wrong. As far as I am concerned a communist country can only keep their strangle hold on the people as long as the people do not know that a better form of government exists. I would think China would want to hit us more than Russia.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,162 Posts
Not sure that they are trying to rule the world yet.
The USA is the biggest threat to thier ambitions, whether they are right or wrong. As far as I am concerned a communist country can only keep their strangle hold on the people as long as the people do not know that a better form of government exists. I would think China would want to hit us more than Russia.
Russia isn't communist.
As for china, they have no ambition to invade or attack USA at any point. They are hitting you though. Every single day they munch yet a small piece of the american markets and invest their money in US industries. If anything goes bankrupt they are quick to offer to buy the wreckage. China won't have to fight an armed conflict with the US. They will use money instead.
 

·
Getting Older
Joined
·
1,233 Posts
???

How is some "civilian civil defense program" (what Obama wants?) going to save anybody from a nuclear attack?

How could a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan result in a full scale attack between the U.S. and Russia?
 

·
Deeds of Flesh
Joined
·
45 Posts
Where did you learn that Russia wants to rule everything? We have had them as neighbours for 10 000 years and not once in history have they ever attempted to invade or rule us!
We have however fought a bunch of wars with Sweden and Denmark up through history and even been ruled by them.

We have an a territorial dispute with Russia over the economic zones in the Barents sea, over Spitsbergens status, over the right of fisheries in the "grey zone" and inspection regimes in the barents sea. Never has these disputes escalated into armed confrontation.

Russia don't want to rule the world, however they are a major power and want to keep their sphere of interest as intact as possible. And they want to be heard on the international political stage. Any country with 250 million citizens want that!

I honestly think he meant "Does not want to and IF" I think he mistyped or a slight language barrier.Maybe not.
 

·
Looking ahead
Joined
·
2,178 Posts
In war, he who chooses the time and place of battle holds the best advantage for victory.

No, Its been historically proven time and again that the home turf advantage is the best one.
 

·
Learning
Joined
·
6,703 Posts
Is there evidence that the Russians have a working missle defense shield? Or is that all part of the fictional scenerio?

I thought they were mad at us for developing one because then it would tip the balance of power towards us since they didn't have one?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
Is there evidence that the Russians have a working missle defense shield? Or is that all part of the fictional scenerio?

I thought they were mad at us for developing one because then it would tip the balance of power towards us since they didn't have one?
I was wondering the same thing. Pretty detailed info but does it hold any relevance?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
525 Posts
Good fiction, but not based on real facts.

For example...Wikipedia says as of 2006, The Russian Navy has only 50 nuclear submarines total, compared to 170 vessels in 1991 but that only 26 of them are still operational. The Russian Navy plans to reduce the number to 20 submarines, including ten strategic missile submarines and ten multi-purpose (attack) submarines, according to unofficial reports. So unlike the posted stories reported 250 attack submarines hammering or remaining US assets, they most likely only have 10 attack subs.

Just for fun, assume that every US missile, ship, and aircraft are destroyed, not at all likely, but just for amusement. Next assume just one of the US ballistic missile submarines is on patrol below the polar ice sheet during the attack. Under the ice it is highly unlikely that it could be detected or destroyed, that is why we usually keep a few up there. These subs are usually on patrol for only 100 days, theoretically they could stay at sea submerged until they run out of food, a long time for a enemy to sweat while desperately looking for them.

A single Trident Submarine carries, 24 SLBM (submarine launched ballistic missiles), each carrying 6 MIRV warheads The RVs are equipped with a W76 100 kT yield nuclear warhead. That is 100,000 tons of TNT equivalent for those of you that only had the new math, ha. It is likely that each missile is also equipped with countermeasures, so they wont be knocked down by the aging soviet era interceptors as in the posted story. Thus the attacking country might expect to have as many as 144 destroyed cities.

I personally cant name over a dozen Russian cities, much less 144 cities, sooo, do this little exercise, see if you can list 144 US cities. See if you can predict how small the city has to be to escape being hit by a single subs missiles. Here is the answer if you don't want to wait. According to wikipedia the 144th US city, based on population is Grand Prarrie Texas. Nothing larger would survive such an attack.

The point of deterrents is to guarantee the attacker lacks certainly that his forces could destroy sufficient assets to avoid a counter strike.

In my scenario, If a single US Trident submarine escapes and remains functional the attacking country would be essentially wiped of the face of the earth.
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Top