5 ms·

Can you please explain in more detail why it makes sense to attack low-level staff? I can’t follow. Is it because low-level staff rotates more often and is only

Can you please explain in more detail why it makes sense to attack low-level staff? I can’t follow. Is it because low-level staff rotates more often and is only a short time in the country so effects won’t be connected to their stay in Kuba?

realce 5y ago
Low level staff today is the high level staff of 15 years from now, so you just make them dumb now.
- infoseek12 5y ago
  Directly attacking the health of US personal would be a hugely provocative act. I’m not saying the Russians wouldn’t do it. There are reports that they paid out bounties in Afghanistan to attack US troops. But launching a campaign to enfeeble the intellect of future high level state department officials in this manner doesn’t make much sense. If you tried this kind of attack on a large scale and targeted a significant number of personnel, you would surely get caught which would lead to severe consequences. If you did it on a small scale that you might get away with, it would still be a risky and expensive undertaking and you’d only end up hurting a small fraction of one percent of possible future leaders. The cost benefit analysis doesn’t make sense to me. We obviously don’t have enough information to really know what’s going on here but I do thinking some possibilities that don’t make very much sense can be excluded.
  - quakeguy 5y ago
    The bounty story has been corrected, it was very thin to begin with. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/joe-bidens-tale-of-russian-bounties-in-afghanistan-collapses-completely/ https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/joe-bidens-tale-of-rus...
  - DubiousPusher 5y ago
    Yeah, especially without the support of the Soviet Union, it's very unlikely Cuba is interested in provoking the United States.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  Probably a very low percentage of low level staff today will be high level staff 15 years forward - especially if you microwaving them. If that were the adversary's intention then I would expect hundreds or thousands of our staff to be suffering. As is, it looks like only a few people spread across decades. Malfunctioning of a microwave power source is the only thing that makes sense to me.
thoughtstheseus 5y ago
I’ll take a shot. If it takes years of exposure, or is delayed, to be effective you want to aim for staffers before they are in key/important positions. Maybe staffers in embassy positions track well into higher, more important jobs?
- freeflight 5y ago
  That would require more foreknowledge about career trajectories than even the US government itself has about its own people.
  - thoughtstheseus 5y ago
    The stereotype for government officials/workers is they stay in that industry. Sure you can’t target specific roles but you can generally weaken an organization or division through such “gray zone” tactics. Again, just trying to add to the discussion, most likely this is not correct.

realce 5y ago

Low level staff today is the high level staff of 15 years from now, so you just make them dumb now.

infoseek12 5y ago
Directly attacking the health of US personal would be a hugely provocative act. I’m not saying the Russians wouldn’t do it. There are reports that they paid out bounties in Afghanistan to attack US troops. But launching a campaign to enfeeble the intellect of future high level state department officials in this manner doesn’t make much sense. If you tried this kind of attack on a large scale and targeted a significant number of personnel, you would surely get caught which would lead to severe consequences. If you did it on a small scale that you might get away with, it would still be a risky and expensive undertaking and you’d only end up hurting a small fraction of one percent of possible future leaders. The cost benefit analysis doesn’t make sense to me. We obviously don’t have enough information to really know what’s going on here but I do thinking some possibilities that don’t make very much sense can be excluded.
- quakeguy 5y ago
  The bounty story has been corrected, it was very thin to begin with. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/joe-bidens-tale-of-russian-bounties-in-afghanistan-collapses-completely/ https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/joe-bidens-tale-of-rus...
- DubiousPusher 5y ago
  Yeah, especially without the support of the Soviet Union, it's very unlikely Cuba is interested in provoking the United States.
ALittleLight 5y ago
Probably a very low percentage of low level staff today will be high level staff 15 years forward - especially if you microwaving them. If that were the adversary's intention then I would expect hundreds or thousands of our staff to be suffering. As is, it looks like only a few people spread across decades. Malfunctioning of a microwave power source is the only thing that makes sense to me.

thoughtstheseus 5y ago

I’ll take a shot. If it takes years of exposure, or is delayed, to be effective you want to aim for staffers before they are in key/important positions. Maybe staffers in embassy positions track well into higher, more important jobs?

freeflight 5y ago
That would require more foreknowledge about career trajectories than even the US government itself has about its own people.
- thoughtstheseus 5y ago
  The stereotype for government officials/workers is they stay in that industry. Sure you can’t target specific roles but you can generally weaken an organization or division through such “gray zone” tactics. Again, just trying to add to the discussion, most likely this is not correct.