Hubbry Logo
Booby trapBooby trapMain
Open search
Booby trap
Community hub
Booby trap
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Booby trap
Booby trap
Booby trap
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
A booby trap with punji sticks

A booby trap is a device or setup that is intended to kill, harm or surprise a human or an animal. It is triggered by the presence or actions of the victim and sometimes has some form of bait designed to lure the victim towards it. The trap may be set to act upon trespassers that enter restricted areas, and it can be triggered when the victim performs an action (e.g., opening a door, picking something up, or switching something on). It can also be triggered by vehicles driving along a road, as in the case of improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

Booby traps should not be confused with mantraps which are designed to catch a person. Lethal booby traps are often used in warfare, particularly guerrilla warfare, and traps designed to cause injury or pain are also sometimes used by criminals wanting to protect drugs or other illicit property, and by some owners of legal property who wish to protect it from theft. Booby traps which merely cause discomfort or embarrassment are a popular form of practical joke.

Etymology

[edit]

The Spanish word bobo translates to "stupid, daft, naïve, simple, fool, idiot, clown, funny man, one who is easily cheated" and similar pejorative terms. The slang of bobo, bubie, translates to "dunce". Variations of this word exist in other languages (such as Latin), with their meaning being "to stammer".[1]

In approximately 1590, the word began appearing in the English language as booby, meaning "stupid person, slow bird".[2] The seabird in question was the genus Sula, with their common name being boobies. These birds have large flat feet and wide wingspans for marine habitats but are clumsy and slow on shore making them easy to catch.[3] The birds are also known for landing aboard seagoing vessels, whereupon they have been eaten by the crew.[4]

The phrase booby trap originally applied to schoolboy pranks, but took on its more serious connotation during World War I.[2]

Military booby traps

[edit]
Vietnam War: Republic of Korea Armed Forces soldiers show Vietnamese villagers types of People's Army of Vietnam and Viet Cong booby traps.
A group of 105mm artillery shells with plastic explosive stuffed into their fuze pockets. Each of the 5 shells has been linked together with red detcord to make them detonate simultaneously. To turn this assembly into a booby trap, the final step would be to connect an M142 firing device to the detcord and hide everything under some form of cover e.g. newspapers or a bed-sheet.
Booby-trap firing devices, c. 1941: press, pull and release switches; mass-produced components intended for the construction of booby traps.[5]
A Yugoslav POMZ anti-personnel mine that has been booby trapped with a hand grenade. A deminer could disable the stake mine, only to set off the hand-grenade when they remove the mine for disposal. (Balkans 1996)

A military booby trap is designed to kill or injure a person who activates its trigger, or employed to reveal the location of an enemy by setting off a signalling device. Most, but not all, military booby traps involve explosives.[6]

Part of the skill in placing booby traps lies in exploiting natural human behaviors such as habit, self-preservation, curiosity or acquisitiveness. A common trick is to provide victims with a simple solution to a problem, for example, leaving only one door open in an otherwise secure building, luring them straight toward the firing mechanism.[7]

An example that exploits an instinct for self-preservation was used in the Vietnam War. Spikes known as punji sticks were hidden in grassy areas. When fired upon, soldiers instinctively sought to take cover by throwing themselves down on the ground, impaling themselves on the spikes.[8]

Many purpose-built booby-trap firing devices exist such as the highly versatile M142[9][10] universal firing device (identical to the British L5A1[11] or Australian F1A1[12]), or Yugoslavian UMNOP-1[13] which allow a variety of different ways of triggering explosives e.g. via trip wire (either pulling it or releasing the tension on it),[14] direct pressure on an object (e.g. standing on it), or pressure release (lift/shift something) etc.[15][16][17][18]

Most explosive booby traps use between 250 g and 1 kg of explosive. Since most booby traps are rigged to detonate within a metre of the victim's body, this is adequate to kill or severely wound.[19]

Effects

[edit]

Booby traps are indiscriminate weapons. Like anti-personnel mines, they can harm civilians and noncombatants during and after the conflict. The use against civilians is prohibited by the Protocol on Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, and the protocol also prohibits boobytrapping e.g. the wounded or dead, medical equipment, food, and drink.[20]

History

[edit]

A type of booby trap was referred to in an 1839 news story in The Times.[21]

During the Vietnam War, Viet Cong (VC) soldiers would rig rubber band grenades and place them in huts that US soldiers would likely burn. Another popular booby trap was the "Grenade in a Can", a grenade with the safety pin removed in a container and a string attached, sometimes with the grenade's fuse mechanism modified to give a much shorter delay than the four to seven seconds typical with grenade fuses. VC soldiers primarily used these on doors and attached them to tripwires on jungle paths.[22]

The CIA and Green Berets countered by booby trapping the enemy's ammunition supplies, in an operation code-named "Project Eldest Son". The propellant in a rifle or machine gun cartridge was replaced with high explosive. Upon being fired, the sabotaged round would destroy the gun and kill or injure the shooter. Mortar shells were similarly rigged to explode when dropped down the tube, instead of launching properly. This ammunition was then carefully re-packed to eliminate any evidence of tampering, and planted in enemy munitions dumps by covert insertion teams. A sabotaged round might also be planted in a rifle magazine or machine gun belt and left on the body of a dead VC soldier, in anticipation that the deceased's ammo would be picked up and used by his comrades. No more than one sabotaged round would be planted in any case, magazine, or belt of ammunition, to reduce the chances of the enemy finding it no matter how diligently they inspected their supplies. False rumors and forged documents were circulated to make it appear that the Communist Chinese were supplying the VC with defective weapons and ammunition.[23]

Northern Ireland

[edit]

During the Troubles, an ethnonationalist conflict in Northern Ireland, booby traps were used by Irish republican and Ulster loyalist paramilitaries to target British security forces and civilians. The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) was the most prolific user of the booby traps during the conflict; according to the Sutton Index of Deaths, 180 people were killed during the Troubles as the result of booby trap bombs, the vast majority of them laid by the IRA. A common type of booby trap was the car bomb, which involved attaching a bomb to a car so that starting or driving it would detonate the explosive.[24]

Middle East

[edit]

Lebanese media reported allegations of intentionally concealed bombs in children's toys in 1997, citing a number of examples.[25] The Hezbollah faction at the time alleged these booby-traps were deployed by Israel. During this period, civil war in Lebanon, rival factions and military interventions by Syria and Israel led to the planting of hundreds of thousands of landmines, and the widespread use of cluster munitions.[26]

During the Second Intifada (2000—2005), some Arab–Palestinian groups made wide use of booby traps to prevent the Israeli army from entering their cities on Palestinian territories. The largest use of booby traps was in the Battle of Jenin during Operation Defensive Shield where a large number (1000–2000 bombs and booby traps according to a Palestinian militant who surrendered to Israeli forces in Jenin[27]) of explosive devices were planted by insurgents. Booby traps had been laid in the streets of both the camp and the town, ready to be triggered if a foot snagged a tripwire or a vehicle rolled over a mine. Some of the bombs were huge, containing as much as 250 lb (110 kg) of explosives.[28] To counter the booby traps, anti-tank and anti-personnel mines the Israeli army sent armored Caterpillar D9 bulldozers to clear the area out of any explosive device and booby trap planted. Eventually, a dozen D9 bulldozers went into action, razing the center of the refugee camp and forcing the Palestinian militants inside to surrender.

The most widely-reported use of a 'booby-trapped' object in the Middle East is the Israeli operation against Hezbollah in 2024, in which at least one shipment of the target organisation's pager devices were remanufactured with explosive capability by Israeli security services. The devices were all detonated at once, on receipt of a pager message, causing severe harm and disruption to Hezbollah.[29]

[edit]
  • Simple Trou de loup booby trap: concealed pitfall with sharp spike at the bottom
    Simple Trou de loup booby trap: concealed pitfall with sharp spike at the bottom
  • USSR booby trap firing device - pull fuze: normally connected to a tripwire
    USSR booby trap firing device - pull fuze: normally connected to a tripwire
  • Alternative design of USSR booby trap firing device - pull fuze: normally connected to tripwire
    Alternative design of USSR booby trap firing device - pull fuze: normally connected to tripwire
  • USSR booby-trap firing device - pressure fuze: victim steps on loose floorboard with fuze concealed underneath
    USSR booby-trap firing device - pressure fuze: victim steps on loose floorboard with fuze concealed underneath
[edit]
See also: Katko v. Briney

Booby traps have been applied as defensive weapons against non-military trespassers, but most jurisdictions consider the practice illegal.[citation needed]

Practical jokes

[edit]
Main article: Practical joke device

Instead of being used to kill, maim or injure people, booby traps can also be used for entertainment. Practical joke booby traps are typically disguised as everyday items such as cigars or packets of chewing gum, nuts or other snack items. When the victims attempts to use the item, the trap is triggered. Two of the best known examples of this are the exploding cigar and dribble glass; others include the snake nut can and shocking gum. Booby traps can also be constructed out of household or workplace items and be triggered when the victim performs a common action. Examples of this include loosening the bolts in a chair so that it collapses when sat upon, or placing a bucket of water on top of a partly open door so that when the door is fully opened, the bucket tips onto the victim.[30]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Booby trap

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A booby trap is any device or material designed, constructed, or adapted to kill or injure when it functions unexpectedly as a disturbs an apparently harmless object or performs an apparently safe act. These mechanisms exploit human predictability and oversight, typically employing explosives, mechanical pitfalls, or other hazards triggered by , pull, or proximity. Booby traps differ from standard mines primarily in their deliberate concealment within everyday items or environments to maximize surprise, rendering detection challenging even for trained personnel. Historically, booby traps have played a pivotal role in , enabling outnumbered forces to impose disproportionate casualties on invaders through improvised setups leveraging local materials and terrain knowledge. In the , employment of booby traps proved particularly devastating, causing 11 percent of U.S. Army deaths and 17 percent of wounds from January 1965 to June 1970, often via camouflaged pits, tripwires, or rigged ordnance that restricted mobility and heightened psychological strain on troops. Their use extends to defensive preparations against intruders, though civilian deployment frequently violates domestic laws prohibiting concealed injury-causing devices due to risks to innocents like or children. International law imposes restrictions on booby traps to mitigate indiscriminate effects, with Amended Protocol II to the banning their attachment to , medical facilities, or civilian objects, and requiring precautions against unexploded remnants. Violations in conflicts underscore debates over their proportionality, as their hidden nature can blur lines between combatants and non-combatants, yet from guerrilla campaigns affirms their causal efficacy in deterring advances when conventional defenses fail.

Definition and Fundamentals

Etymology and Terminology

The term "booby trap" originates from "," a word denoting a foolish or gullible person, derived from the Spanish "bobo" meaning stupid or daft, which entered English in the via references to the bird's apparent . Initially applied to harmless schoolboy pranks or snares targeting the unwary by the early , the phrase evolved to describe lethal mechanisms by the , with its military usage becoming prominent during to denote hidden explosives or devices exploiting enemy curiosity or routine actions. In , a booby trap is defined as a victim-operated device or setup intended to harm or kill through the unwitting actions of the target, such as triggering via tripwires, pressure, or manipulation of disguised objects like doors or common items, distinguishing it from an , which requires active personnel for initiation and execution. Unlike standard land mines, which are typically pre-positioned explosives detonated by direct contact, time, or remote command for area , booby traps emphasize and concealment in non-obvious locations to induce surprise, though the terms overlap when mines are rigged with secondary triggers. Post-World War II U.S. Army field manuals, such as FM 5-31 (1965), formalized by classifying booby traps as adaptable, often scavenged-material constructs for defensive delay, morale disruption, or casualty infliction, with emphasis on simple firing devices like pull or pressure fuzes to ensure reliability in guerrilla or retreat scenarios. These doctrines highlight booby traps' passive nature, requiring no ongoing surveillance, and underscore their employment under command-specific rules to integrate with broader mine warfare tactics.

Core Principles and Mechanisms

Booby traps function through a concealed causal sequence where a victim's unwitting action initiates a reliable mechanical or leading to harm or hindrance. This design prioritizes simplicity to minimize failure points, as complex assemblies increase the likelihood of malfunction due to environmental factors or improper setup. from manuals underscores that low-tech triggers and payloads enhance operational dependability by reducing dependency on precise timing or power sources..pdf) Core components comprise a trigger mechanism, an initiator or firing device, and a . The trigger exploits physical disturbances, such as from on a plate that depresses a spring-loaded pin, pull from a taut displacing a , or release from lifting a disguised object that removes tension on a restraint. These mechanical actions directly couple to the initiator, often a or friction device, which in turn detonates or activates the via a verifiable chain of energy transfer—striker impact generates spark or heat to ignite a primer, propagating to the main charge..pdf) Payloads deliver the intended effect, categorized by function into lethal variants employing explosives for blast overpressure and fragmentation—where rapid gas expansion propels shrapnel at velocities exceeding 1,000 meters per second—or non-lethal types using mechanical restraint like snares that constrict upon tension or pits with spikes penetrating on impact. Hybrid designs integrate both, such as pressure-triggered explosives with secondary . Concealment methods rely on integration with surroundings, using dirt, foliage, or mundane items like cans or to mask anomalies, thereby leveraging human tendencies to traverse habitual routes or manipulate apparent affordances without scrutiny..pdf)
  • Pressure triggers: Victim's weight compresses a sensitive plate or bladder, completing a mechanical linkage or circuit..pdf)
  • Pull triggers: Tripwires connected to pins or strings withdraw safety mechanisms..pdf)
  • Release triggers: Removal of weight or object allows a spring to engage the ..pdf)
Reliability stems from deterministic physics: each step in the initiation sequence follows and , with minimal variables in improvised setups ensuring high success rates when calibrated to common body weights (e.g., 50-100 kg for pressure plates)..pdf)

Historical Development

Ancient and Pre-Modern Uses

In , —small, iron devices with four spikes arranged such that one always pointed upward when scattered—were employed by Roman forces to impede and advances, inflicting lameness on horses and disrupting formations during battles such as those against Gallic or Parthian opponents in the BCE. These passive traps exploited and , causing disproportionate injuries relative to the minimal resources required for their deployment, as evidenced by archaeological finds of caltrop clusters near Roman military sites. Pre-modern defenses frequently incorporated concealed pitfalls, such as conical holes approximately 2 meters deep embedded with sharpened wooden stakes, used in European field fortifications and around medieval castles to maim or kill advancing lacking . During the (1337–1453 CE), such traps contributed to high attacker casualties in sieges like Orléans in 1428–1429, where numerical superiority failed to overcome layered obstacles without dominance. In Asian contexts, analogous stake-lined pits and snares amplified defender advantages in tribal conflicts, as chronicled in 19th-century accounts of indigenous Vietnamese tactics against colonial incursions, reflecting continuity from earlier agrarian warfare. Chinese military texts from the (475–221 BCE) describe mechanisms like tensioned crossbows triggered by tripwires or pressure plates, deployed in ambushes or perimeter defenses to deliver automatic arrow volleys, serving as force multipliers for outnumbered garrisons. By the (1368–1644 CE), refined variants included double-shot crossbows with poisoned projectiles in hunting-derived traps adapted for warfare, enabling small units to exact tolls on larger invading forces during s, where empirical outcomes showed traps inflicting 10–20% of assailant losses in prolonged engagements absent explosive ordnance. These devices underscored causal dynamics wherein low-tech, site-specific hazards offset manpower disparities, a pattern corroborated by siege records indicating defenders often held out weeks longer through such asymmetric means.

World Wars and Early Modern Conflicts

In , booby traps proliferated amid the static of the Western Front, where combatants adapted surplus munitions into improvised explosive devices to fortify abandoned positions and hinder advances. German forces during the 1918 retreats, such as following the failure of the Spring Offensives from March to July, rigged unexploded shells, ammunition dumps, and trench infrastructure with tripwires and rudimentary delay mechanisms, inflicting casualties on pursuing Allied troops and sustaining the conflict's attritional dynamics. British and units reciprocated with devices like scrap-filled jam tins packed with explosives and fitted to pressure triggers or pull strings, deployed in evacuated trenches during withdrawals such as the 1915 from April to May, where confined spaces amplified their lethality by complicating evasion. These traps, often assembled from mass-produced grenades and fragments, marked an early shift toward standardized components, delaying offensives and contributing to the war's estimated 8.5 million military deaths through persistent low-level hazards. World War II expanded booby trap employment across theaters, with doctrines formalized in field manuals emphasizing integration of factory-produced fuzes—such as pressure, pull, and tilt types—into everyday objects and defenses for psychological and material attrition. Japanese forces in the Pacific, from in August 1942 onward, systematically rigged potential souvenirs like abandoned , watches, and household items with igniters or electrical circuits, exploiting Allied troops' collection habits and causing dozens of documented incidents per campaign. German defenders in , retreating from after June 1944, booby-trapped vehicles, furniture, and infrastructure with anti-lift devices on Teller anti-tank mines repurposed via sensitive triggers for targets, yielding scalable anti-personnel effects from existing stockpiles. Allied manuals, including U.S. War Department guides from 1943, detailed similar adaptations, underscoring traps' role in defensive delays amid industrialized production of over 100 million s annually by major powers. As campaigns transitioned to fluid, mobile operations—exemplified by the Allies' 1944-1945 advances in and the Pacific island-hopping—these devices evolved from fixed trench fixtures to portable variants, including charges concealed in derelict vehicles and equipment triggered by tampering or proximity. German rearguards in and rigged thousands of such portable traps during withdrawals, using standardized fuzes to impose opportunistic delays on mechanized pursuits without committing manpower. This adaptability, rooted in doctrinal primers like the British Army's 1877-1943 and IED guidelines, presaged post-war emphases on in non-static environments.

Post-World War II Engagements

In the (1955–1975), forces proliferated booby traps as a core guerrilla tactic, including punji stakes—sharpened bamboo pits often smeared with feces for infection—and rudimentary improvised explosive devices (IEDs) hidden in trails, foliage, and abandoned structures. These caused 11 percent of U.S. Army deaths and 17 percent of wounds from January 1965 to June 1970, per U.S. Department of Defense records. In early phases, such as the first months of 1965, booby traps and mines inflicted 65 to 75 percent of U.S. casualties, underscoring their role in against technologically superior forces. Non-explosive variants like punji traps accounted for about 2 percent of non-lethal injuries but amplified psychological strain on patrols. Tunnel networks, such as those in Củ Chi near Saigon, integrated booby traps like grenades, pressure-fuze explosives under false floors, and tethered venomous snakes or scorpions, forcing U.S. and allied "tunnel rats" into high-risk clearance operations. Overall, one in six U.S. casualties through 1970 stemmed from such devices, enabling to impose costs without conventional engagements. During in (late 1960s–1998), the (IRA) adapted booby traps for urban insurgency, notably car bombs rigged as victim- or remote-detonated devices targeting . A 1973 IRA booby-trap bomb affixed to a vehicle in Derry killed two officers, exemplifying tactics that blended mobility with concealment in civilian settings. From the 1970s to 1990s, IRA innovations in roadside and vehicle-borne IEDs, often proxy-driven or time-fused, inflicted hundreds of casualties on British troops and police, compensating for the IRA's numerical inferiority through surprise and urban integration. In 1980s Middle East conflicts, particularly Lebanon's civil war (1975–1990) and Israeli operations, Palestinian factions and allied militias rigged buildings and positions with explosives to counter invasions, as in booby-trapped structures left during retreats. These tactics, concealed in urban debris or sites, proved empirically effective against armored advances, prolonging engagements and elevating clearance risks for superior forces in asymmetric settings akin to earlier insurgencies.

Military Applications

Tactical Employment and Strategies

Booby traps enable forces facing numerical inferiority to deny areas effectively, conserving manpower for decisive engagements elsewhere through the principle, which maximizes by integrating low-cost, high-impact into broader denial strategies. This approach exploits or objects to impede enemy advances without requiring continuous occupation, as defenders rig paths, defiles, or infrastructure to channel movements into kill zones. Such tactics align with doctrinal emphasis on supplementing minefields to heighten obstacle potency, delaying and breaching efforts while minimizing logistic demands via local materials. Psychological demoralization constitutes a core strategic role, as the hidden threat of booby traps—triggered by , , or routine actions—instills pervasive caution, suspicion, and , compelling enemies to dilute offensive with exhaustive searches. Doctrinal guidance underscores their function as tools that amplify and lower , particularly when dummies or lures feign harmlessness to bait advances into rigged zones like abandoned equipment or gathering points. In resource-asymmetric scenarios, this unpredictability forces attackers to overcommit assets to , thereby eroding momentum and enabling defenders to dictate engagement pacing. Integration with combined arms operations requires precise coordination, as booby traps are emplaced by specialists in alignment with tactical plans, often forward of main positions or during withdrawals to cover flanks and support fires. Patrols or raids may incorporate "trap-and-bait" setups, where observed lures draw foes into surveilled areas under or coverage, ensuring traps contribute to canalization without isolating them from mobile forces. Coverage by observation or fire remains essential to exploit triggered disruptions, preventing enemy bypasses and linking traps to counterattacks or guerrilla disruptions behind lines. Environmental adaptations reflect causal dynamics favoring defenders in extended conflicts: rural tactics emphasize expansive via tripwires on trails, pits in paths, or rigged natural chokepoints, where vast spaces compound attacker fatigue and supply strains. Urban doctrines shift to interior-focused of doors, floors, furniture, and vehicles, leveraging confined structures to multiply hesitation's impact on assault cohesion and force sequential, vulnerable entries. In both, depth in obstacle layering taxes breaching capacities, prolonging defender advantages by synchronizing traps with local fires to overload advancing units.

Effectiveness and Empirical Outcomes

In Iraq and Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), often functioning as booby traps, accounted for approximately 60% of U.S. fatalities in Iraq and 50% in Afghanistan, totaling over 3,500 deaths, with IEDs comprising three-fifths of hostile deaths in Iraq alone. Broader casualty figures, including wounded, reflect even higher proportional impact, as IEDs inflicted severe injuries on thousands more, demonstrating per-device lethality far exceeding conventional small-arms fire due to their ability to target vehicles and patrols unpredictably. During the (1955-1975), booby traps and mines caused 11% of U.S. Army deaths and 15% of wounds, with landmines alone responsible for 28% of fatalities and 33% of total casualties among U.S. forces. These devices, often low-cost punji stakes or improvised explosives hidden along trails, inflicted around 45,000 non-fatal injuries from over 300,000 total U.S. wounds, slowing operational tempo by compelling constant vigilance and route clearances that diverted resources from offensive maneuvers. Beyond direct physical tolls, booby traps eroded troop morale through persistent fear of invisible threats, fostering and hesitation in patrols, as evidenced by veteran accounts of guerrilla tactics amplifying psychological strain beyond that of direct engagements. In attritional contexts like and , such traps disrupted and advances more effectively than equivalent , as units expended disproportionate effort on evasion, yielding for resource-poor actors at minimal material cost—often under $100 per device versus multimillion-dollar armored vehicles disabled. While indiscriminate variants risk civilian harm, empirical outcomes affirm targeted booby trap employment as a viable asymmetric multiplier, countering dismissals of inefficiency by revealing sustained casualty generation despite technological countermeasures, rooted in causal advantages of ambush predictability and economic asymmetry rather than barbarism.

Countermeasures and Evolving Tactics

Military forces have developed detection methods for booby traps emphasizing manual probing, canine units, and electronic devices, with empirical success varying by conflict and terrain. In , U.S. troops relied on visual for tripwires and bayonets for probing suspected areas, as electronic detectors proved unreliable in dense vegetation, leading to high casualty rates from undetected punji stakes and grenades. Post-Vietnam adaptations incorporated specialized mine probes and trained dogs, but overall detection hovered around 50% for IEDs in and from 2004 onward. By 2010, canine teams paired with dismounted patrols achieved up to 80% IED detection rates in Afghan operations, outperforming standalone electronic sweepers like metal detectors in cluttered environments. Tactical countermeasures evolved to include dedicated route clearance teams, which deploy armored vehicles, robots, and explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) units to preempt traps along predictable paths. These teams scan for secondary devices post-detonation and use remote tools like TALON robots to probe without risking personnel, reducing ambush vulnerabilities observed in . Policies emphasizing route denial—such as varying patrol paths and minimizing supply caches that could be booby-trapped—further limited trap placement opportunities, with U.S. forces in reporting incremental reductions in IED initiations through such proactive clearance by 2010. Adversaries responded with anti-handling fuzes designed to detonate upon tampering, escalating an empirical in trap sophistication. These devices, often integrated into IEDs as secondary triggers, exploit detection attempts by linking to bait items like abandoned munitions, neutralizing probes or EOD interventions; Soviet-Afghan employed similar expedients with tripwires and pressure plates as early as the , influencing later insurgent tactics. U.S. military analyses note that such evolutions forced countermeasures toward non-contact methods, like aerial surveillance and jamming, though detection rates remained contested due to adaptive insurgent concealment.

Non-Military Applications

Civilian Self-Defense and Property Protection

In rural United States settings prior to the 20th century, landowners employed rudimentary booby traps, such as spring-loaded firearms and pitfall devices, to safeguard isolated farms and livestock from thieves and poachers when law enforcement was distant or unreliable. These mechanisms, often involving tripwires connected to shotguns or concealed spikes, provided an autonomous layer of defense in expansive, under-patrolled territories. A notable 20th-century instance occurred in 1971, when Iowa farm owners Edward and Bertha Briney installed a spring gun in their abandoned farmhouse to deter repeated thefts of jars and other items; the device discharged upon activation by trespasser Marvin Katko, severely injuring his leg and prompting a lawsuit that highlighted the tensions between property protection and personal injury liability. Booby traps offer a low-cost means of establishing perimeter in remote areas, where installation of electronic systems may be impractical due to power limitations or high upfront costs, potentially deterring opportunistic intruders through the fear of injury. Surveys of convicted indicate that visible signs of heightened , such as reinforced barriers or warnings of defensive measures, significantly influence target selection, with many avoiding properties perceived as fortified beyond standard locks. In rural contexts, where average police response times can exceed 20 minutes, such passive defenses align with first-line strategies emphasizing delay and deterrence over active confrontation. However, these devices inherently lack discrimination, endangering non-criminal entrants including children, lost hikers, or utility workers, as evidenced by historical accounts of unintended victims in property protection scenarios. Empirical outcomes remain sparse due to rarity of sanctioned use, but analogous perimeter barriers in isolated homesteads demonstrate in channeling threats while underscoring the need for targeted placement to minimize collateral exposure. Prioritizing owner-assessed risks over uniform prohibitions preserves incentives for self-reliant in underserved regions, where empirical deterrence outweighs remote probabilities of innocent harm in causal assessments of protection efficacy.

Hunting, Animal Control, and Pranks

Deadfall traps, involving a weighted log or rock suspended and released by a trigger mechanism to crush small game upon disturbance, have been utilized in subsistence hunting by indigenous groups such as the Paiute, who integrated them into traditional practices for capturing and birds before the widespread adoption of firearms in the . Pit traps, exemplified by concealed excavations with sharpened stakes at the base, similarly target larger game like deer in historical contexts, requiring significant labor for digging depths up to 6 feet but yielding captures through gravitational falls in forested terrains. Snares, wire or cord loops that constrict around an animal's limb or neck when triggered by movement, demonstrate empirical efficacy in subsistence settings, as evidenced by their prevalence among southern forest dwellers, where they accounted for a substantial portion of harvests prior to 20th-century shifts toward commercial snares made from twisted wire. These methods remain regulated under wildlife laws; for instance, deadfalls are prohibited in Georgia under state code section 27-3-8, which bans pitfalls, deadfalls, and snares without permits, reflecting broader U.S. restrictions to prevent non-selective captures. In animal control, mechanical snap traps for operate on principles of spring-loaded jaws activated by baited triggers, delivering rapid lethality through blunt force while maintaining structural simplicity with components like wooden bases and wire springs dating to 19th-century designs refined for reliability. These devices, such as Victor's expanded trigger models, achieve high success rates in enclosed environments by exploiting curiosity, with reusable variants allowing multiple deployments without chemical agents. For protection, analogous mechanical deterrents include elevated snares or deadfalls adapted for predators like coyotes, though modern implementations favor selective spring traps to minimize non-target impacts, emphasizing ease of setup with minimal maintenance in rural settings. Pranks incorporating booby trap-like surprise mechanisms, confined to non-injurious variants, include pressure-activated launchers or false floor panels releasing harmless payloads such as feathers, drawing from basic principles but scaled for amusement rather than harm. Whoopee cushions, inflated devices that emit sound upon compression, exemplify mechanical simplicity in prank execution, triggering auditory without physical and originating in early 20th-century novelty for social jesting. Such examples avoid escalation to peril, focusing on psychological startle effects akin to but distinct from tactical in controlled, consensual scenarios.

International Humanitarian Law Constraints

Amended Protocol II to the , adopted in 1996 and entering into force in 1998, imposes specific restrictions on the use of booby-traps and other devices in armed conflicts. Article 7(1) prohibits their attachment to or association with internationally recognized protective emblems, the sick or wounded, children's toys, fragile objects easily injured, or use in manners causing superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. Article 7(2) further bans booby-traps or devices in the form of apparently harmless portable objects specifically designed and constructed to contain explosives. These provisions aim to mitigate indiscriminate effects by requiring detectability, recording of minefields, removal post-hostilities, and precautions to minimize harm, including warnings where feasible. Ratification remains non-universal, with only 106 states parties as of July 2023 out of 193 UN member states, limiting enforceability and allowing non-parties greater operational latitude. The , while party to the original 1980 Protocol II, has not ratified the 1996 amendment, citing concerns over restrictions on defensive capabilities and verification challenges, which enables its forces to operate under broader interpretations of rather than the amended text's stricter terms. This patchwork adherence creates compliance gaps, as non-parties or those with reservations can deploy booby-traps in scenarios prohibited for others, undermining uniform restraint. In the September 17, 2024, attacks involving exploding pagers targeting operatives in , at least 12 people were killed and over 2,800 injured, including civilians, prompting debate under Article 7(2). Proponents of compliance argue the devices targeted military objectives—Hezbollah's communication network—and were not "specifically designed and constructed" as booby-traps from but modified for precision strikes, aligning with targeting rules distinguishing combatants from protected objects. Critics contend the portable, seemingly harmless form violates the prohibition regardless of intent, though Israel's status as a party with reservations on food stock destruction under Article 7(f) permits flexibility in interpreting . Empirical evidence from Russia's invasion of illustrates persistent use despite treaty obligations, with Russian forces documented booby-trapping civilian residences, vehicles, and appliances in liberated areas like and regions since 2022, endangering returning civilians. Such tactics, including explosives in everyday items, contravene Article 7's bans on association with civilian objects and failure to ensure post-conflict clearance, as required by Article 10. While parties like adhere more closely, Russia's non-compliance—coupled with its Amended Protocol II but disregard for textual limits—highlights causal factors like weak verification and asymmetric incentives, where booby-traps offer low-cost denial of territory without eliminating their deployment.

Domestic Regulations on Civilian Traps

In the United States, civilian booby traps designed to harm intruders are generally prohibited under state criminal and tort laws, as they constitute an unjustified without the presence of the defender to assess immediate threat levels or proportionality. No federal statute explicitly bans them, but courts consistently rule that such devices exceed rights, including under provisions, which do not extend to automated mechanisms lacking human judgment. For instance, in People v. Ceballos (1974), the upheld a for with a against a homeowner who rigged a in his garage, wounding a teenage burglar; the court reasoned that the trap inflicted non-defensive harm on a felon without allowing for retreat or discernment of innocence, emphasizing that "one who sets a ... acts at his peril." This U.S. approach highlights tensions with self-defense doctrines, as traps deter intrusions indiscriminately, potentially harming innocents like utility workers or children, yet fail to align with requirements for imminent peril and reasonable force. Criminal prosecutions remain infrequent, often limited to cases involving severe or , while civil suits under premises liability predominate, holding setters accountable for foreseeable harms regardless of intruder status. European regulations impose stricter prohibitions, prioritizing occupier duties even toward trespassers. In the , the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 mandates reasonable care to avoid injury to unlawful visitors, rendering booby traps unlawful as they breach this duty without justification. Similar civilian bans prevail across the , rooted in frameworks that reject automated lethal defenses, contrasting with looser practical enforcement in some developing nations where rural property owners occasionally employ rudimentary traps for protection amid weak policing, though formal laws typically prohibit human-targeted devices. These variances underscore enforcement gaps: U.S. and European criminal cases are rare due to detection challenges, but civil litigation exposes setters to damages for unintended victims, revealing a disconnect between statutory deterrence ideals and real-world intruder risks where responsive defenses like alarms or firearms receive doctrinal protection.

Debates on Morality, Self-Defense Rights, and Proportionality

Advocates for booby traps in civilian contexts ground their position in natural rights philosophy, contending that individuals hold an inherent entitlement to safeguard their against or invasion, extending John Locke's framework where government primarily secures life, , and estate, implying owners may employ reasonable means of defense absent immediate presence. This view posits traps as a proportional tool in scenarios where continuous personal vigilance is infeasible, such as during work or sleep, particularly amid persistent threats that empirical crime data indicate often escalate to violence; for instance, U.S. burglaries frequently involve unoccupied homes, rendering active confrontation impractical. Targeted mechanisms, like pressure plates on entry points or non-lethal variants such as noise emitters, counter claims of indiscriminateness by focusing response on forcible intrusion rather than casual presence. Critics, drawing from humanitarian ethics, assail booby traps as morally defective due to their potential for indiscriminate injury, endangering non-intruders like children, repair personnel, or without discernment of intent or threat level, thus breaching proportionality principles that limit to immediate necessities rather than preemptive automation. Such arguments emphasize superfluous , as seen in historical cases where traps inflicted severe harm on trespassers, prioritizing abstract risks to wrongdoers over verifiable owner vulnerabilities, though often amplified by institutional biases favoring on . A causal assessment reveals traps' net value in deterrence—via posted warnings signaling risk—outweighs infrequent collateral incidents, as proactive barriers empirically reduce opportunistic crimes in analogous setups like fortified doors or alarms, where visibility alone curtails entry attempts without activation. Active defense demands untenable round-the-clock monitoring for most proprietors, whereas traps enable self-reliant preservation amid sluggish institutional responses, as resolution rates hover below 15% in many jurisdictions, underscoring that moral qualms against traps undervalue causal links between owner passivity and victimization. This realism supports easing constraints on vetted, owner-controlled designs, aligning ethical permissions with outcomes favoring life and property integrity over sentimental aversion to mechanical agency.

Modern Innovations and Case Studies

Improvised Explosive Devices in

Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) function as a contemporary manifestation of booby traps in asymmetric conflicts, where non-state actors employ victim-operated or remotely triggered explosives to target conventionally superior adversaries with minimal direct exposure. These devices typically consist of an explosive charge, a power source, and a mechanism, often concealed along routes or in structures to exploit predictable enemy movements. In following the 2003 invasion, IEDs inflicted the majority of casualties, accounting for approximately 60% of wounded and killed personnel during peak periods from 2004 to 2007. Similarly, in from 2001 to 2021, IEDs were responsible for over 40-60% of casualties in various years, including 828 fatalities out of roughly 1,700 total deaths attributed to such devices. Insurgents fabricated IEDs using readily available materials, such as commercial fertilizers like , scavenged , or shells, paired with simple detonators including pressure plates, tripwires, or cellular phone-based remote triggers that exploited commercial networks for command initiation. This low-tech approach enabled rapid adaptation to countermeasures, with devices costing insurgents as little as several hundred dollars while prompting coalition expenditures in the billions for technologies like mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles and electronic jammers. In manpower-constrained insurgencies, IEDs provided a force multiplier, allowing small groups to impose asymmetric attrition without risking fighters in open combat, as evidenced by their role in sustaining operations despite numerical inferiority. The strategic efficacy of IEDs lay in their capacity to erode enemy resolve through sustained casualties and operational disruptions, thereby prolonging conflicts and compelling resource diversion; in , they contributed to over 75% of U.S. convoy-related losses at times, forcing a shift from offensive maneuvers to defensive routing. Empirical data from declassified records indicate that IED detonation rates improved with insurgent learning, enabling non-state actors to maintain pressure in resource-scarce environments where conventional engagements would have been untenable. This dynamic underscored IEDs' utility in achieving political objectives via indirect means, though their success also highlighted vulnerabilities in predictive patrolling and supply line dependencies of technologically advanced forces.

Recent Conflicts and Technological Adaptations

In the Russia-Ukraine war that began in February 2022, Russian forces retreating from occupied areas have systematically booby-trapped civilian infrastructure and objects, including refrigerators, toys, books, doors, and even the corpses of their own soldiers, to impede Ukrainian advances and recovery operations. These devices, often victim-operated via tripwires or pressure mechanisms, have contaminated up to one-third of Ukraine's territory with and traps, extending timelines from months to decades in affected regions and causing ongoing casualties among sappers and civilians. Ukrainian countermeasures include deploying commercial drones integrated with AI-driven image analysis to identify explosive signatures from safe altitudes, enabling preliminary mapping of trap concentrations before ground teams proceed. On September 17, 2024, in and , thousands of pagers distributed to members detonated nearly simultaneously after receiving a coded signal, an operation attributed to Israeli intelligence that had embedded PETN explosives (approximately 3-5 grams per device) during the manufacturing supply chain in and . The blasts killed at least 12 individuals, including non-combatants, and injured nearly 3,000, demonstrating a portable booby-trap variant disguised as essential communication tools and triggered remotely to bypass physical detection. A follow-up attack on September 18 targeted walkie-talkies with similar embedded charges, amplifying disruption to 's operational networks. In protracted Middle Eastern conflicts such as those in and from the early 2000s onward, insurgent groups developed IED networks incorporating booby-trapped vehicles, culverts, and household items, often using command-detonated variants via buried wires or basic radios for selective targeting. Despite U.S.-led counter-IED investments exceeding $20 billion in electronic jammers and robotic detectors, low-tech adaptations like passive sensors or pressure-plate initiators proved resilient, accounting for over 60% of coalition casualties by exploiting terrain and human patterns over technological countermeasures. Technological shifts in booby traps have included remote detonation via cellular signals or rudimentary apps, as seen in the pager incidents, yet empirical outcomes from these conflicts affirm the dominance of low-tech mechanisms—such as concealed tripwires and disguised fuses—for their minimal detectability, immunity to spectrum jamming, and scalability in resource-constrained environments. High-tech sensors or AI triggers, while prototyped, have underperformed in field reliability compared to proven victim-operated designs, which sustain psychological and logistical attrition without dependency on vulnerable electronics.

References

  1. https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/booby-traps/
  2. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/booby-traps-apparently-harmless-portable-objects/
  3. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09683445241231654
  4. https://www.vietnamwar50th.com/education/week_of_june_20/
  5. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/booby-trap-awareness
  6. https://ogc.osd.mil/Portals/99/Documents/Treaties/amended_protocol_ii_on_the_use_of_mines_booby_traps_and_other_devices.pdf?ver=2020-04-28-133044-970
  7. https://www.etymonline.com/word/booby
  8. https://www.straightdope.com/21343175/what-s-the-origin-of-booby-trap
  9. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/booby-trap_v
  10. https://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/amd-us-archive/FM5-31%252865%2529.pdf
  11. https://ia801606.us.archive.org/17/items/milmanual-fm-5-31-booby-traps/fm_5-31_booby_traps_text.pdf
  12. https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/FM%252020-32%2520W%2520CH%25201-4.pdf
  13. https://archive.org/details/FM5-31
  14. https://www.police1.com/police-training/articles/from-punji-pits-to-pipe-bombs-booby-trap-awareness-for-law-enforcement-aGVZpHrE3JqPxkbl/
  15. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/caltrop-ancient-weapon-modern-warfare/
  16. https://www.discoveryuk.com/military-history/silent-defender-how-caltrops-shaped-ancient-warfare/
  17. https://www.ranker.com/list/real-historical-booby-traps-facts/melissa-sartore
  18. https://www.historynet.com/punji-stakes-pointed-end-to-a-foot-patrol/
  19. https://greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com/2015/09/Ming-Dynasty-crossbow.html
  20. https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-booby-traps-of-qin-shi-huangs-tomb-fact-fiction-or-something-even-better-44580
  21. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLmT-wMBw3I
  22. https://www.standingwellback.com/booby-trap-ieds-on-the-battlefield-1918/
  23. https://www.theworldwar.org/learn/about-wwi/spotlight-ruses-and-snares
  24. https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/298648-did-any-country-booby-trap-dead-bodies-or-items-in-trenches-they-abandoned/
  25. https://www.facebook.com/groups/southafricansinww1ww2korea/posts/10160937701104017/
  26. https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/blog/exploding-clockwork
  27. https://mickmc.tripod.com/JoeP-TurtleBack.pdf
  28. https://text-message.blogs.archives.gov/2012/12/10/the-marines-and-japanese-souvenirs-on-guadalcanal-august-october-1942/
  29. https://festung.net/wwii-german-booby-traps/
  30. https://www.trailblazersww2.org/Docs/minesboobytraps.pdf
  31. https://www.facebook.com/groups/southafricansinww1ww2korea/posts/10160941162389017/
  32. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44232970
  33. https://www.coffeeordie.com/booby-traps-vietnam-war
  34. https://networks.h-net.org/node/28443/discussions/185881/query-land-mine-casualties-vietnam-war
  35. https://www.thenmusa.org/articles/tunnel-rats-of-the-vietnam-war/
  36. https://www.quora.com/Are-there-records-of-Viet-Cong-falling-into-their-own-traps
  37. https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/othelem/chron/ch73.htm
  38. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/what-kind-booby-traps-has-israel-used-lebanon
  39. https://mg.co.za/article/2007-07-18-booby-trap-in-lebanon-camp-kills-two-soldiers/
  40. http://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/amd-us-archive/FM31-10(1968).pdf
  41. https://warontherocks.com/2017/05/how-the-ied-won-dispelling-the-myth-of-tactical-success-and-innovation/
  42. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17517806/
  43. https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/military/iraq-afghanistan-war-soldiers-died/
  44. https://www.historyhit.com/the-most-dangerous-viet-cong-booby-traps/
  45. https://www.hrw.org/reports/1997/gen1/General-03.htm
  46. https://www.warhistoryonline.com/vietnam-war/booby-traps-vietnam-war.html
  47. http://web.stanford.edu/class/e297c/war_peace/media/hpsych.html
  48. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/Online-Exclusive/2016-Online-Exclusive-Articles/Attritional-War/
  49. https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2025/03/david-vs-goliath-cost-asymmetry-in-warfare.html
  50. https://www.dvidshub.net/news/514779/general-sees-progress-counter-ied-fight
  51. https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2010/10/20/technology-falls-short-in-the-war-against-ieds
  52. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/6/dogs-outdone-by-electronic-sensors-in-afghanistan/
  53. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA596227.pdf
  54. https://www.army.mil/article/26051/soldiers_civilians_train_on_new_ied_simulators
  55. https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2858&context=cisr-journal
  56. https://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/magazine/issues/2019/Summer/pdf/15_LP_Grau.pdf
  57. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/ied-indicators.htm
  58. https://americansocietyofarmscollectors.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2000-B83-Trap-Guns.pdf
  59. https://law.justia.com/cases/iowa/supreme-court/1971/54169-0.html
  60. https://siacinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Burglar-Survey-Study-Final-Report.pdf
  61. https://rethinkrural.raydientrural.com/blog/rural-home-defense-strategies
  62. https://fithops.com/blogs/learning-center/ultimate-guide-perimeter-security
  63. https://www.survivalsullivan.com/diy-paiute-deadfall/
  64. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/294107782_From_Subsistence_to_Commercial_Hunting_Technical_Shift_in_Cynegetic_Practices_Among_Southern_Cameroon_Forest_Dwellers_During_the_20th_Century
  65. https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2022/title-27/chapter-3/article-1/part-1/section-27-3-8/
  66. https://www.victorpest.com/store/mouse-control/snap-traps
  67. https://www.hunter-ed.com/montana/trapper/studyGuide/Overview-of-Traps/22102701_239295/
  68. https://pickmeupgame.com/blogs/pick-me-up-blog/15-fun-pranks-to-do-at-home-that-are-silly-safe-and-seriously-hilarious
  69. https://www.reddit.com/r/CasualConversation/comments/1d5e04f/what_is_a_good_nonharmful_prank/
  70. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/ccw-amended-protocol-ii-1996/article-7
  71. https://disarmament.unoda.org/en/our-work/conventional-arms/convention-certain-conventional-weapons
  72. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-106erpt2/html/CRPT-106erpt2.htm
  73. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/exploding-pagers-law/
  74. https://www.justsecurity.org/103184/amended-protocol-booby-traps-pagers/
  75. https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?chapter=26&clang=_en&mtdsg_no=XXVI-2-b&src=TREATY
  76. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/booby-traps-ukraine-conflict/
  77. https://www.justsecurity.org/81251/russian-landmines-in-ukraine-the-most-relevant-treaty/
  78. https://sfinelaw.com/how-setting-a-booby-trap-is-considered-a-forcible-felony/
  79. https://www.mirasafety.com/blogs/news/booby-traps
  80. https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/12/470.html
  81. https://theprepared.com/blog/booby-trap-laws/
  82. https://attorneys.media/glossary/booby-traps/
  83. https://thecritic.co.uk/should-booby-traps-be-legal/
  84. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/
  85. https://fee.org/resources/john-locke-natural-rights-to-life-liberty-and-property/
  86. https://time.com/archive/6881276/law-burglars-and-booby-traps/
  87. https://aoav.org.uk/2020/a-decade-of-global-ied-harm-reviewed/
  88. https://wheelessonline.com/userfiles/19-1-1.pdf
  89. https://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/08/13/cied.jamming.tech/
  90. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-GAO-08-884R/html/GAOREPORTS-GAO-08-884R.htm
  91. https://www.afghanistan-analysts.org/en/reports/war-and-peace/the-cost-of-victory-how-the-taleban-used-ieds-to-win-the-war-despite-the-misgivings-of-some/
  92. https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/643235/the-enduring-ied-problem-why-we-need-doctrine/
  93. https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2018/preliminary/paper/2YY6H8HR
  94. https://www.businessinsider.com/russias-mining-everywhere-ukraine-explosives-fridges-toys-books-military-engineers-2023-8
  95. https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-soldier-say-find-bodies-dead-russia-soldiers-booby-trapped-2023-9
  96. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-17/ukraine-landmines-booby-traps-trip-wires-demining-mine-clearing/102468924
  97. https://www.undp.org/ukraine/press-releases/ai-demining-ukrainian-innovators-train-algorithms-detect-explosives-drone-images
  98. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/18/world/middleeast/israel-exploding-pagers-hezbollah.html
  99. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/well-it-depends-explosive-pagers-attack-revisited/
  100. https://carnegieendowment.org/middle-east/diwan/2024/09/israel-has-booby-trapped-the-pagers-of-hezbollah-members-killing-or-injuring-thousands?lang=en
  101. https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/09/18/lebanon-exploding-pagers-harmed-hezbollah-civilians
  102. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2013/august/learning-ieds
  103. https://www.cna.org/about-us/research/case-studies/hidden-dangers
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.