Probing ship security incidents hard to do fast

* Still not clear what damaged Japan tanker in Gulf

* Korean warship sinking took weeks to investigate

* States would rather hold back for firm conclusions

* What happens offshore often stays offshore

By Peter Apps, Political Risk Correspondent

LONDON, July 29 (Reuters) - The confusion around what the
owners initially called a possible "attack" on a Japanese tanker
in the volatile Straits of Hormuz shows the difficulties markets
and policymakers face reacting to security events offshore.

As with the sinking of a South Korean warship in March, the
hijacking of the freighter Arctic Sea last year or even the Gulf
of Tonkin incident that helped spark the Vietnam war, getting to
the truth of what happened could prove hard or impossible.

Port officials in the United Arab Emirates blamed a
collision, possibly with a submarine or sea mine for the damage
inflicted on the M.Star on Wednesday near the Strait of Hormuz
-- a key choke point for global oil supplies overlooked by Iran.

Owner of the world's second largest tanker fleet Mitsui
O.S.K. Ltd <9104. T> said they had hired a Dubai-based
specialist military attacks to help investigate.

The story briefly spooked oil markets particularly in Japan
-- a sign of the heightened focus on the Gulf after new
sanctions were imposed on Iran at the beginning of the week.

<^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Map showing collision site: r.reuters.com/mez22n

Main story: [ID:nTOE66S03G]

Q&A on possible causes: [ID:nLDE66S15Q]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>

"In international waters, it is always difficult to tell
what happened," said Jonathan Wood, global issues analyst at
Control Risks. "It could be an accident or it could be an
attack. If you are an investor, there is not much you can do
except sit and wait and watch the news and market reaction."

It took weeks to raise the South Korean corvette Cheonan
after it sank in March and for Seoul to blame North Korea.
Investigating this could be easier -- the ship is still afloat.

Attacks on land are hard enough to probe, but at sea
independent witnesses may be scarce, radar and satellite
coverage patchy and physical evidence at the bottom of the sea.

Darkness and bad weather can all play a role -- and some
crews may try to conceal their own mistakes such as keeping a
poor lookout or poorly maintaining equipment.

SOMETIMES NEVER CLEAR

Sometimes, the lack of clarity surrounding events at sea
suits governments. The reported hijacking last year of the
freighter Arctic Sea in the Baltic sparked a global naval hunt
and media frenzy, with suggested explanations including a covert
Israeli operation to block arms sales to Iran.

Russian forces took control of the ship off the Cape Verde
Islands. Prosecutors charged eight men with piracy and said they
found no suspicious material despite media talk of missiles.

Analysts say that -- as so often out of sight of land -- it
remains unclear exactly what happened. Sometimes, that clearly
suits policymakers. It also tends to minimise market reaction.

Global markets were briefly hit by the South Korean warship
sinking in March, particular after local media quoted military
officials as saying it could have been torpedoed.

But they recovered after officials were quick to row back
from such suggestions [ID:nTOE62P0AI], only finally blaming
their neighbour weeks later when it had much less market impact.

Ultimately, the United States, South Korea and their allies
decided to respond with a show of force through a major military
exercise currently taking place along the disputed border.

Alleged attacks on warships -- sometimes heavily disputed
years after the event -- have sparked outright war in the past.
Two reported attacks on U.S. warships in the Gulf of Tonkin in
1964 prompted Washington to escalate conflict against North
Vietnam.

Many historians now believe there may not have been a second
attack and that U.S. sailors may have incorrectly believed they
were being fired upon. That is seen less likely to happen now.

"The days in which you might have an immediate retaliation
without knowing the details are probably gone," said former
diplomat Kerry Brown, now an analyst with Chatham House. "You
are going to want to find out what happened -- you don't want to
overreact and blame somebody wrongly."