A Boat, A Bridge, and A Mystery

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.

Support Canada Free Press

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.

Russia is also an unlikely candidate. While they are justifiably perturbed with us for interfering in Ukraine and prolonging that war, they are aware that public opinion is turning against more support for Ukraine. The Russians are quite rational military strategists and would realize that an attack on US infrastructure would likely turn public opinion against them. They would have a negative motive, as well as a negative benefit.

Iran is a possibility. They have great hostility toward the Great Satan of America, and strongly oppose our support of Israel and our efforts to thwart their acquisition of nuclear weapons and their desire to dominate the Middle East. However, such a ship attack seems a bit too subtle for them. They are more inclined to direct action, and would also be inclined to claim credit, at least through a proxy. That has not happened. Their cyber capability is strong, but they might also be wary of provoking an Afghanistan response. Again, motive and method are weak and benefit would be low.

China had ample motive, a well developed cyber warfare capability, had good access to shipping schedules, ship loadings, shipboard automation systems

Of all the candidates, China seems to be most likely for many reasons. They already are upset with us for our support of Taiwan, and our opposition to their expansion into the South China Sea. An attack such as on the bridge, would serve as a reminder of how vulnerable our infrastructure is to hostile acts, as well as having the benefit of causing significant economic disruption. By not claiming credit they could have the subtle effect of causing doubt and uncertainty, quite appropriate to their “warfare by any means” strategy previously articulated.

There would be an additional benefit for China as well. Since we have outsourced most of our steel production, as well as heavy fabrication such as would be needed to produce replacement materials for a new bridge, we would have to purchase most of the materials from … wait for it … China. Imagine the delight in certain quarters if they could get their victim to pay them for the materials to repair the damage they caused. I think that might be called a twofer.

China had ample motive, a well developed cyber warfare capability, had good access to shipping schedules, ship loadings, shipboard automation systems, and other essential data. The opportunity was present, and their benefit would be quite high. The bridge collapse would cause shipping disruption across most of the Eastern seaboard, billions of dollars of economic costs, and would even trap four major Navy vessels in the Baltimore harbor for months.

So what reasons might our government have for not recognizing it as an act of war?

So what reasons might our government have for not recognizing it as an act of war?

One possibility is that our administration would feel that the outcome of a conflict with a major adversary such as China would be uncertain, especially given the current status of our military. We have gone from being able to sustain a two front war to a no front war. Besides, we have shipped most of our ammunition stocks to Ukraine. In any event a major war would be highly destructive for all concerned. Furthermore, they wouldn’t want to awaken the tens of thousands of sleeper cells embedded across the country.

It is also possible that the administration would not want to name China as the attacker because that would offend them. China has developed relationships within our government, even to the highest levels, and parties involved would not wish to disrupt such lucrative arrangements. Besides, we need China to supply many of our essential goods so we couldn’t afford to cripple our supply chains.

We have a government that has decided it will only tell the people what it wishes them to know, and knowing who attacked us is not something they would want to reveal. Don’t want to upset the children, you know.

The absence of significant news coverage is telling. Where are the reports of investigations into the occurrence? Where are the interviews with crew members and first responders and officials? The silence is deafening.

The uncertainty provides a cover. Unlike Pearl Harbor, or 9/11, the event could be an attack, or simply an accident. Will we ever be allowed to know?

VIEW Comments