Before any significant investigation has been undertaken, the administration has stated that the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore was not an act of terror. They may be correct. It may be an act of war.
There are many reasons why the current administration may not wish to call it an act of war. They may not wish to alarm the populace. They may have no clear idea of who committed the act. They may know the source, but do not wish to name them.
There are three basic possibilities to explain the event
Certainly we have a number of enemies abroad who would be happy to see disaster befall us, and perhaps would even be pleased to assist in such disaster. Iran, China, Russia, and even North Korea come to mind, although there are many others, most of whom lack the technical expertise to execute such a strike.
There are three basic possibilities to explain the event.
First, that it was simply a tragic combination of accidental events.
A second possibility is that it was a deliberate act by the crew of the boat.
The third, and perhaps most likely, is that the control systems of the boat were hacked by an outside agent who then directed the boat into the bridge support.
Looking at each possibility in turn, we can dismiss the first as unlikely. The number of things that would have to happen in sequence makes the combination highly improbable. Further, the crew would have to be incompetent in responding to events at a time when most of the crew would have been at duty stations and able to respond quickly.
It is possible that the crew entered an incorrect waypoint into the automated navigation system that would cause the boat to make an early turn to starboard (right), directing it into the bridge support. The boat would normally have to make a right turn when passing under the bridge to stay in the channel, so such an error is possible. However, taken in the context of other events, especially with the two power failures aboard, it seems an unlikely error.
Means, Motive, Opportunity to evaluate candidates
The second is also unlikely for several reasons. Such action would require the complicity of most or all of the crew. Were the direction of the boat the act of only one or two crew members, they could likely have been overpowered at some point by the innocent members and actions taken to correct the course.
Failing that, the innocent members would have been quick to denounce the guilty, and there would be substantial media reporting. Similarly, an act of terrorism would be claimed by one or more terrorist groups boasting of the harm they had caused. Instead, there have been few media reports on investigations or terrorist claims in the days following.
That brings us to the third possibility. While somewhat simplistic, we can use the well-known investigative triad: means, motive, and opportunity to evaluate candidates. To that we can add an evaluation of who would benefit from such an event.
I mentioned four countries earlier, who might have both the means and the motive to undertake such an act. While there are many others, including individuals, who might wish to inflict such damage on us, they generally lack the means to do so. It takes a lot of resources in terms of information, technology access, and even finances to plan and execute a major strike. That eliminates all but a very few nation states as candidates.
North Korea, Russia, Iran, China
I would consider North Korea as the least likely. While they have a demonstrated hostility to America, and have a fairly well developed cyber capability, it is hard to see what motive they might have, as well as how they might benefit. Also their information gathering capability for the necessary shipping and ship automation data appears weak.
No comments:
Post a Comment