|
Snowdens Secret posted:The curious thing is, if the Soviets really were in a position for the first time in the atomic era to be reasonably assured of 'victory' in nuclear war, why didn't they launch? There were clearly plenty of high-placed Americans who thought we were screwed. Were the Soviets that afraid we'd just go after civilian populations anyway? Did post-Kruschev leaders simply not have the stomach for nuclear attack regardless of the odds? Was Soviet thinking on nuclear war and deterrence so different from us, and if so, what did they think creating such an effective first-strike capability was going to make us do?
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 04:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
Dirk Diggler posted:This First Strike film was made before the Ohio-class subs and Trident missile system came online, right? First Strike was made in '79. The Ohio commissioned in '81. The Trident D5 didn't come around until 1990 (the C4 was good but significantly less accurate.) Alaan posted:Do you want to be the guy to pull the trigger on "We THINK they can't counterstrike us as well as they need to?" Also the chance of just having your population centers vaporized. What's the fun in "winning" if Moscow, Leningrad, and everywhere else important is a smouldering heap of radioactivity. If you put this capability in front of Stalin, having weathered Operation Barbarossa, with 25+ million dead just from repulsing an invader, I cannot see him not using it. At a risk of some but not all of his civilian population he essentially eliminates forever any current and future external threat to the workers' paradise. As stated before in the thread the people most likely to be willing to bring on the horrors of nuclear war were those who had seen the horrors of world-sized total conventional war. It probably also says something about the changing views of Soviet leaders over time on the real-world viability of a global Communist regime. Warbadger posted:Yep, even in the "First Strike" movie example (a worst case scenario) there are enough nuclear weapons surviving the strike to destroy every major population center in Russia. What if the US and its allies launch back rather than throwing in the towel after your attack? What if they don't know you aren't going to target the civilian centers before the decision is made to launch? Because if we wanted to just vaporize everyone on the planet we had the capability to do so decades before. WWII was fought with civilian populations firmly in the crosshairs, and ever since the tech push has been driving towards disabling military capability as cleanly as possible without having to resort to population annihilation. The entire point of MAD was to -deter- the crippling first strike, by threatening an escalation to civilian holocaust locked in before the purely military targets could be hit. Once that crippling first strike has already occured, there's no purpose beyond stabbing at thee from Hell's heart to launch a single warhead. Would we have done it anyway? Possible. But in the First Strike scenario, the Soviets deliberately leave enough C&C alive to offer a peaceful chance at surrender. This means whoever's in charge here has to make the call whether to wipe out the world's populations or not, and the calculation is sound that an American is far more reluctant to want to be remembered by history (if anyone's left) for doing so. Dead Reckoning posted:"If we pulls this off right, they won't counterattack" is a really scary If to introduce into your life. It's gambling that your intelligence agencies' assessment of your enemies capabilities and intentions is correct, and that your strike will arrive before the other side's leadership gets off a force-wide launch order. If you're wrong about anything, over half of your population will die. And this is the sensible scenario, that if nothing else the Soviets didn't trust their intelligence, wildly overestimated our capabilities, and thought our public Chicken Little speeches on vulnerability were bluffs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Stalin. . . Sorry, but no. Stalin was the one to articulate the idea of 'socialism in one country' as a response to the failure of socialist/communist revolutions everywhere but Russia. He did this as early as the mid-20s, and it was a big part of his break with Trotsky. He was THE original advocate for chilling the gently caress out on the international revolution angle and developing and securing Russia/the USSR ASAP. Of course he was always willing to lend a helping hand to any emerging country that wanted to get on the Comintern train, but the notion of any kind of global Communist/Marxist government was firmly off the table by the 30s. From then on out it was all about zones of influence to protect the USSR and buffer it against its capitalist enemies. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Feb 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 04:53
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:This means whoever's in charge here has to make the call whether to wipe out the world's populations or not, and the calculation is sound that an American is far more reluctant to want to be remembered by history (if anyone's left) for doing so. I think you're buying into a little too much Cold War propaganda about the inhuman, brutal Soviets versus the peaceful Americans. If the American leader left alive was a LeMay, a Power, or even a Reagan, Moscow would have been flattened. Neither side lacked for "nuke 'em 'til they glow" jackasses. As for your earlier point - "what did they think creating such an effective first-strike capability was going to make us do?" - what did the US think that deploying IRBM systems with extremely short flight times and enough range to hit Moscow was supposed to do?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 05:16
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:I think you're buying into a little too much Cold War propaganda about the inhuman, brutal Soviets versus the peaceful Americans. If the American leader left alive was a LeMay, a Power, or even a Reagan, Moscow would have been flattened. Neither side lacked for "nuke 'em 'til they glow" jackasses. They also would not necessarily be able to predict how the attack would be viewed. 8 million people are killed in a massive nuclear strike. Is the president going to wait to talk to the Soviets on the phone at that point or is he going to launch whatever he has back at them ASAP before he loses all capacity to retaliate to further attacks? Will he be quick enough giving the order to respond that he won't even KNOW he doesn't have much to respond with? Hell, even if he did stop to listen to the Soviet "if you launch back then we launch more" ultimatum, would he actually trust anything they had to say at that point? It's just as dangerous as the "limited nuclear exchange" idea for most of the same reasons. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 08:24 on Feb 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 08:07
|
|
|
grover posted:Real Q: Why do we still need nuclear bombers? Aren't land & sea based nuclear missiles good enough for a deterrent? I can't answer it in context relative to other reasons, but there was always the ease of recalling the bombers (or changing their target) once they are on their way, whereas once you launch a missile, you don't have a whole lot of time to change your mind. Or at least, you didn't used to. OTOH there are a lot of other reasons for one type of nuclear strike or another, so I don't know if that's considered very important relative to the rest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:I can't answer it in context relative to other reasons, but there was always the ease of recalling the bombers (or changing their target) once they are on their way, whereas once you launch a missile, you don't have a whole lot of time to change your mind. Or at least, you didn't used to. OTOH there are a lot of other reasons for one type of nuclear strike or another, so I don't know if that's considered very important relative to the rest. Also because low observable bombers and nuclear cruise missiles are a wholly different threat which requires entirely different methods of defense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
Also a heavy bomber/cruise missile boat is about 100x more useful in a conventional war than an ICBM force. The B2 really only came about because of a nuclear mission, but drat if it isn't a handy bastard to have around if you decide to kick off an non-nuclear invasion. Hell, the B-52 was basically built to be a nuclear bomber and it's easily one the hardest workers in the US inventory these days. Also tangentally Ohios converted to carry 100 Tomahawks are basically the coolest thing ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 02:35
|
|
|
I feel like Bones are the unsung heroes of the USAF when people start talking about bombers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 03:05
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I feel like Bones are the unsung heroes of the USAF when people start talking about bombers. Well, they kinda sucked.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
It's more they are expensive, maintenance hungry beasts than anything else. I love Lancers but I'm really not sure they have much a place in our military at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 03:17
|
|
|
We should just blanket the earth in Predator drones and create America's Army 2: Predator Edition for the pilots.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 03:22
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Well, they kinda sucked. They've been highly involved in recent operations so no.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 03:29
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Also because low observable bombers and nuclear cruise missiles are a wholly different threat which requires entirely different methods of defense. Our nuclear bomber fleet seems to be way more versatile and useful as conventional bombers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 03:29
|
|
Godholio posted:They've been highly involved in recent operations so no. Came out less than a decade before the b-2 Crashed a lot Had no conventional weapons capacity The pinnacle of mid 1970s technology Low-level penetration missions are no longer a thing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-86_ALCM <- made the B1 obsolete before the B1 even existed Finally used in operations after 25 years of remedial fixes and isn't doing anything a B-52 can't Yeah, it sucked. ... cool as poo poo, but it sucked Smiling Jack fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Feb 10, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 03:32
|
|
|
grover posted:So, 12 hours after half the world is destroyed, when the B-2s show up... what possible difference would it make? Taking out those second strike mobile launchers which are going to turn your cities into rubble again of course. While datalinking with Lacrosse or something. No, this is not the edgiest of cases, this is a real thing™
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 03:46
|
|
|
Godholio posted:They've been highly involved in recent operations so no. They are maintenance pigs, though. Regarding nuclear capable bombers, what you all are forgetting is that they are loving expensive. Not the bombers themselves (well they are too, but they have conventional uses); I'm talking about keeping them nuke capable. We removed the Bones from being nuke capable not because of START or any other arms reduction treaty, but because with the end of the Cold War/introduction of the B-2 they were superfluous in the nuke role and that was a waste of money. With the aircraft themselves you have additional fuzing and equipment installed, and the aircraft is held to a much higher standard as far as maintenance/deficient parts/etc goes. Keeping aircrew nuke capable drives additional training requirements, to include more flying hours/sim time/etc. Your maintainers are held to a higher standard, and dealing with nuclear capable aircraft means more training. There is a significant amount of base infrastructure that is required when you are flying nukes...separate WSA for storing the weapons, more stringent flightline security, more IDS, more maintenance facilities. You need a shitload more cops because of the additional security requirements. The list goes on. The nuclear triad is great when you're talking about a Cold War environment, where things like worrying about survivable second strike mobile launchers are important (which was incidentally one of the specific reasons the B-2 was developed...to go SS-25 hunting), but in today's fiscally constrained environment it makes no sense to me why we continue to maintain all three legs of the triad, and why there is serious talk of making the NGB be nuclear capable. All you need today is a credible survivable deterrent capable of countervalue strikes, and we have that and more with our current SSBNs. Nuke capable bombers and the Minutemen missiles are wasteful expensive overkill.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Came out less than a decade before the b-2 So you're using a snapshop of the B-1 from the 80s to trash it? We've been using one heavy bomber operationally multiple times daily for several years now, and it ain't the B-52. iyaayas01 posted:They are maintenance pigs, though. They can join the club. I got tired of having to explain to the CCO and CAOC director why we were cancelled for the nth day in a row.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 04:13
|
|
|
Godholio posted:They can join the club. I got tired of having to explain to the CCO and CAOC director why we were cancelled for the nth day in a row.  Point taken.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:If you put this capability in front of Stalin, having weathered Operation Barbarossa, with 25+ million dead just from repulsing an invader, I cannot see him not using it. At a risk of some but not all of his civilian population he essentially eliminates forever any current and future external threat to the workers' paradise. As stated before in the thread the people most likely to be willing to bring on the horrors of nuclear war were those who had seen the horrors of world-sized total conventional war. It probably also says something about the changing views of Soviet leaders over time on the real-world viability of a global Communist regime. That's interesting as a nuke analyst duder I know of argued the opposite. For example he argued Mao quieted down significantly in his international denounciations once he had nuclear capability. quote:Aha, I hear you say what about the mad dictator? Its interesting to note that mad, homicidal aggressive dictators tend to get very tame sane cautious ones as soon as they split atoms. Whatever their motivations and intents, the mechanics of how nuclear weapons work dictate that mad dictators become sane dictators very quickly. After all its not much fun dictating if one's country is a radioactive trash pile and you're one of the ashes. China, India and Pakistan are good examples. One of the best examples of this process at work is Mao Tse Tung. Throughout the 1950s he was extraordinarily bellicose and repeatedly tried to bully, cajole or trick Khruschev and his successors into initiating a nuclear exchange with the US on the grounds that world communism would rise from the ashes. Thats what Quemoy and Matsu were all about in the late 1950s. Then China got nuclear weapons. Have you noticed how reticent they are with them? Its sunk in. They can be totally destroyed; will be totally destroyed; in the event of an exchange. A Chinese Officer here once on exchange (billed as a "look what we can do" session it was really a "look what we can do to you" exercise) produced the standard line about how the Chinese could lose 500 million people in a nuclear war and keep going with the survivors. So his hosts got out a demographic map (one that shows population densities rather than topographical data) and got to work with pie-cutters using a few classified tricks - and got virtually the entire population of China using only a small proportion of the US arsenal. The guest stared at the map for a couple of minutes then went and tossed his cookies into the toilet bowl. The only people who mouth off about using nuclear weapons and threaten others with them are those that do not have keys hanging around their necks. The moment they get keys and realize what they've let themselves in for, they get to be very quiet and very cautious indeed. Another great - and very recent example - look how circumspect the Indians and Pakistani Governments were in the recent confrontation - lots of words but little or no action to back them and both sides worked very hard not to do anything that could be misunderstood. (When the Pakistani's did a missile test they actually invited the Indians over to watch in order to ensure there was no ground for misunderstanding. The test itself was another message from both countries to the rest of the world - basically it read "Don't sweat it, we know the rules") Guy's an asshat in person but there isn't much reason to doubt his work. The recent old WWIII movie discussions reminded me of how in war games it claimed the Soviets had like 60 typhoon's 
Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Feb 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
Alaan posted:Also tangentally Ohios converted to carry 100 Tomahawks are basically the coolest thing ever. Those things would give me fits if I was a Chinese Air Defense planner. Just one sub should be able to roll back air defenses pretty far back from the coastline.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 08:12
|
|
|
grover posted:So, 12 hours after half the world is destroyed, when the B-2s show up... what possible difference would it make? Because it ensures that stuff like working anti-ballistic missile systems don't look like a gambit that could prevent a quarter of the world from being destroyed in that scenario. And as has been pointed out they can be safely used for things that don't involve triggering a nuclear war. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 08:20 on Feb 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 08:17
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Because it ensures that stuff like working anti-ballistic missile systems don't look like a gambit that could prevent a quarter of the world from being destroyed in that scenario. Which isn't to say we couldn't convert them all to conventional use now and convert them back with a year or so notice if another nuclear power gains and fields effective ABM technology. That's not something that occurs overnight. And we might have better options at that point than B-2 bombers dropping nuclear ALCMs. Stealth hypersonic SLCMs, for instance. grover fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Feb 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 16:18
|
|
|
Might. You don't retire a leg of the triad on a "might."
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Might. You don't retire a leg of the triad on a "might." Unless that leg is Minutemans. The only purpose they serve currently is first strike, which we would never do, and soaking up warheads. As to the other conversations above, it is vital to have firebrand "nuke em till they glow, and then bounce the rubble" types in the deterrent forces. A large part of deterrence is making the enemy believe that you are not only capable, but WILLING to push the button once their missiles fly. Those same people should obviously never be allowed near the actual button, but they damned sure should be in the chain of command, in case the rational people get turned into their constituent molecules by a decapitating strike. It really is loving crazy, but it seems to work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
The Minutemen are differently vulnerable than the SSBN force. If someone out there comes up with a massive breakthrough in wake tracking or gets a spy sufficiently deep into the Pentagon, the SSBN force could become a hollow deterrent without our knowledge. The Minutemen are safe in their silos from pretty much anything but a nuclear strike. I'm not conversant with the cost structure of the triad but the basic logic of having it hasn't changed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Unless that leg is Minutemans. The only purpose they serve currently is first strike, which we would never do, and soaking up warheads. And even if we were interested in first strike, the current D5s are more than capable of serving as a first strike counterforce weapon...i.e., they are accurate enough that they can target enemy silos, not just be used as city busting countervalue weapons, and responsive enough that they could be used for a first strike, not just as second strike retaliatory weapons. As for warheads, the Minutemen aren't MIRV'd anymore, so there's less than 500 warheads currently deployed on Minutemen, while there are over 1,000 deployed on Tridents. And this is a dumb point regardless because like I said earlier, we don't need a counterforce weapon in today's geopolitical environment, all we need is a countervalue one. This isn't the Cold War, who are we worried about deterring with nukes? Of the nuclear powers, the only ones that even come close to making the list is China and Russia, and even if one of them somehow got this magic technology that would enable them to instantly take out every single Ohio at the same time (good luck with that, by the way) after we withdrew the other legs of the Triad, if they dared to do that and launch a nuclear strike we have ways of making either country feel very serious pain without resorting to nukes. I really don't think you guys understand how expensive maintaining nuke capable platforms is and how much money we are wasting by continuing to maintain all three legs of the Triad, to say nothing of politically driven completely worthless from a military standpoint deployments like NATO Nuclear Sharing. We're being forced to cut things that are going to have a serious real world impact on our conventional war fighting ability but cutting any leg of the Triad is off limits because of some pie in the sky concerns about having a nuclear exchange with Russia after they've somehow developed a way to magic away all of our Ohios at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
So my lil sister is now at Minot having fun. I'll give you a hint:
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:The Minutemen are differently vulnerable than the SSBN force. If someone out there comes up with a massive breakthrough in wake tracking or gets a spy sufficiently deep into the Pentagon, the SSBN force could become a hollow deterrent without our knowledge. The Minutemen are safe in their silos from pretty much anything but a nuclear strike. I just can't see a plausible ABM threat that wouldn't also incapacitate B-2 launched ALBMs. grover fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Feb 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
The biggest risk to the Ohios is maintenance and repairs being delayed due to dwindling money and manpower. Which is a very real threat, and there aren't many hulls left. The comms to submerged submarines are rather robust and, no, GPS is not a concern.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
I heard that Lasik is putting a hurting on the submarine service because officers with bad eyes would opt for it when they couldn't fly. Confirm/deny?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
Seems pretty silly. There aren't a whole lot of flying slots in comparison to the size of the Navy. A few guys getting their wings instead of their trident shouldn't be a big deal on the whole. Edit: and the amount of slots for pilots is static compared to the amount of people that want to be one. More people capable of entering the field does not mean more people actually entering it. I'm sure there is no lack of people that want to be a pilot ever. Alaan fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Feb 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:This isn't the Cold War, who are we worried about deterring with nukes? Of the nuclear powers, the only ones that even come close to making the list is China and Russia, and even if one of them somehow got this magic technology that would enable them to instantly take out every single Ohio at the same time (good luck with that, by the way) after we withdrew the other legs of the Triad, if they dared to do that and launch a nuclear strike we have ways of making either country feel very serious pain without resorting to nukes. Listen you, just because there is no evidence whatsoever about this magic technology does not mean it does not exist. In fact, it is an argument for its existence, as they are clearly concealing the magic technology from our intelligence sources :is a neocon:
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Listen you, just because there is no evidence whatsoever about this magic technology does not mean it does not exist. In fact, it is an argument for its existence, as they are clearly concealing the magic technology from our intelligence sources :is a neocon: Is there any way I can use this threat of their magic technology to re-equip Patriot batteries with Sprint missiles? Perhaps some with a surface-to-surface mode?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
Abandon all development for any other kind of missile. We need to equip EVERYTHING with Sprint missiles, stat. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:The biggest risk to the Ohios is maintenance and repairs being delayed due to dwindling money and manpower. Good thing we're not spending money on keeping pointless tactical nukes in Europe or maintaining an entire nuclear infrastructure spanning over 6 USAF installations to support keeping 450 ICBMs on alert, ICBMs with less than half the total number of warheads (and well less than half the throw weight) than the D5s on the Ohios! Alaan posted:Edit: and the amount of slots for pilots is static compared to the amount of people that want to be one. More people capable of entering the field does not mean more people actually entering it. I'm sure there is no lack of people that want to be a pilot ever. Cross posting from the AI thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqyI04WDZlQ I'm not sure if it's possible to have an erection for 110 minutes straight, but given that I'm going to see Top Gun tonight we're going to find out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:And even if we were interested in first strike, the current D5s are more than capable of serving as a first strike counterforce weapon...i.e., they are accurate enough that they can target enemy silos, not just be used as city busting countervalue weapons, and responsive enough that they could be used for a first strike, not just as second strike retaliatory weapons. As for warheads, the Minutemen aren't MIRV'd anymore, so there's less than 500 warheads currently deployed on Minutemen, while there are over 1,000 deployed on Tridents. And this is a dumb point regardless because like I said earlier, we don't need a counterforce weapon in today's geopolitical environment, all we need is a countervalue one. Trident is capable, the Minutemans are only around for the USAF to have first strike abilities. Even France and UK have moved all their nukes onto subs. Suicide Watch fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Feb 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:Doesn't GPS quality significantly weaken in the upper atmosphere? It's not so much in-flight guidance as having the launch position absolutely 100% correct. Ballistic missiles are pretty much unguided after they're launched (They have course keeping gyros or INS or what not, but from what I understand the trajectory is programmed in before launch.) Submarines have Inertial Navigation Systems, but those slip over time and need to be corrected once in a while. GPS works great for that, since there's really no other way to get that kind of accuracy in the middle of the ocean.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
Since the problem of getting an SLBM to hit a target within a third of a mile mile was solved in the sixties, I can't imagine Trident having too much trouble without GPS wrt it's point of launch. So: grover posted:Disable GPS and accuracy plummets. This looks to me like it's a non-issue. quote:Having a land-based leg helps to balance this. This looks to me like it's a cost issue. quote:I just can't see a plausible ABM threat that wouldn't also incapacitate B-2 launched ALBMs. This is pie in the sky thinking, from both sides. grover posted:Stealth hypersonic SLCMs, for instance. Stealth is more than just countering RF detection.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
FrozenVent posted:It's not so much in-flight guidance as having the launch position absolutely 100% correct. Ballistic missiles are pretty much unguided after they're launched (They have course keeping gyros or INS or what not, but from what I understand the trajectory is programmed in before launch.) American ballistic missiles have INS, but the roughness of launch may destabilize it, so they have optical star tracking for position fix in midcourse. No GPS needed. Everything I've been able to publicly determine says the TARGET is determined before launch. The INS gets it on a close enough flight path up to its suborbital coast. It does an apoapsis burn that puts it balls on, then does maneuvering burns to get its MIRVs or decoys to time-on-target correctly. None of this, in any way, relies on anything outside of the missile that can be jammed or disabled by enemies, short of making the sun go nova or putting enough optical energy into the troposphere to have it glow brighter than background stars at 1200km altitude.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 01:33
|
|