5 ms·
A few questions I feel are pertinent: 1) Who has access to these technologies? Who manufactures them? How much are they? 2) Are they large devices or small?
by quuquuquu 9y ago
A few questions I feel are pertinent:
1) Who has access to these technologies? Who manufactures them? How much are they?
2) Are they large devices or small?
3) When do symptoms onset after exposure?
4) Hearing loss is extremely traumatizing and debilitating. Why should we put civilian staff in harm's way?
- tedunangst 9y ago> 4) Hearing loss is extremely traumatizing and debilitating. Why should we put civilian staff in harm's way? Why not ask the people who did this why they're targeting civilians?
- quuquuquu 9y agoI do agree that that is an extremely pertinent question. I imagine that it probably has to do with a general hate towards America. Whether misguided or not, these people chose an opportune and vulnerable target to send a message about how they view American policies.
- yohui 9y agoI don't think generic hate would help you get ahold of sonic equipment. A plausible sounding theory I've heard (and I stress that it's total speculation) is that someone was trying to spy on the diplomats but miscalibrated their ultrasonic eavesdropping device, turning the effects harmful.
- pcl 9y agoI've heard that theory a number of times. I'm no expert in acoustics or eavesdropping, but I would assume that ultrasonic eavesdropping equipment would involve highly sensitive microphones, not powerful speakers. Is there some sort of ultrasonic-carrier-signal microphone out there, akin to laser mics?
- arca_vorago 9y agoThink of a bat. It clicks and the reverb is what its ears interpret to understand surroundings. Output can be used to trigger/power passive listening devices. I always think of the Russian gift to the US embassy that was a wooden seal with a passive bug in it. Scans didn't catch it for years.
- wavefunction 9y agoThat was activated by and transmitted radiowaves though.
- KGIII 9y agoHmm... A speaker is a microphone. I am not sure if that is salient, but it seems worth noting.
- jdavis703 9y agoHow do we know these are diplomats, and not CIA agents under diplomatic cover? It's publicly known that the CIA maintains stations in diplomatic facilities (most other countries also send in spies under diplomatic cover too).
- ShabbosGoy 9y agoWould it be hard to believe that this was a weapons test by a country against its own citizens? That wouldn't surprise me in the least.
- devspace9 9y agoThat would depend on if you believe numerous Americans who claim to be victims of non-consensual human experimentation for less-than-lethal weapons including acoustic weapons... unpossible! https://www.google.com.tw/search?q=%22targeted+individuals%22+acoustic+weapons https://www.google.com.tw/search?q=%22targeted+individuals%2... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentatio...
- mikeash 9y agoIt would be bizarre for the US to test a weapon on its own diplomats in a foreign country, rather than finding some random people nobody would care about in the US itself.
- ShabbosGoy 9y agoWhy not both? MKUltra took place inside the United States and Canada.
- pohl 9y ago...experiments included administering LSD to mental patients, prisoners, drug addicts and prostitutes—"people who could not fight back," as one agency officer put it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra#Experiments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra#Experiments
- revelation 9y agoMost embassy "diplomats" are spies or spy handlers.
- quuquuquu 9y agoThat's interesting! I don't deny that there is some level of truth to that. I passed the US State department exam and was offered a position in Mozambique. Unfortunately, I had absolutely no desire to work in Mozambique, and I have no idea if we have spies there. The State Dept does say openly that they "analyze and influence the establishment of elections" in every country they operate in so... :)
- blackbagboys 9y agoWhile there are certainly intelligence officers operating under diplomatic cover in every embassy, they're a small fraction of the total staff.
- sandworm101 9y ago4. Because the US is not a military dictatorship. US reps in other countries must remain civilians, not soldiers. No soldier speaks for the country on diplomatic matters. They protect such people, not do thier job when things get scary. That separation of duties is kind of a big deal.
- quuquuquu 9y agoI was actually implying that the civilian staff should be recalled home, not replaced with or changed to military.
- Maskawanian 9y agoIsn't the removal of diplomats essentially declaring war?
- abstractbeliefs 9y agoNot at all, but it does usually signal a degradation in the diplomatic relationship between two entities, so you often see it in the run-up to war. Withdrawing or ejecting embassy staff has an impact on a governments ability to represent and assist individuals and businesses of your nation in a country, which is why ejection is a strong stick in the diplomacy game, but in Cuba, the historical situation would simply result in this being a return to a pre-Obama diplomatic situation.
- mjevans 9y agoGood questions; however I feel like the answers are going to be: "every major nation state, and their megacorps, and this stuff is pretty cost effective and easy to transport innocuously." It might or might not be Cuba, rogue elements in Cuba, or organized crime unaffiliated with any nation state. A more interesting line of questions for me: How are future attacks going to be detected? Is there a defense against them? How quickly will that kind of defense protect diplomats and government staff (not just US)?
- rasz 9y ago1) ebay if its ultrasounds like previously reported