>>55540124I'll take a stab at it, but I have to make one assumption that could be proven wrong. I'm assuming a missile, possible two, were used.
IF that assumption turns out to be true, what may have happened is that you really would rather take out pillars for bridges like this, rather than decking. The pillars are much harder to replace, so damaging them beyond use is a favored goal. Meaning, IF you are using large missiles, you will target the seabed where the foundations have been set. Blow out the foundation & shatter the pillar at the seabed and that pillar has to be replaced. That's a pretty big fucking deal, especially to do it right. I've seen several large bridges that were taken out by war or natural disaster, and the solution has been to build a second new bridge parallel to the old one and not even try to use the same foundation area for new pillars.
So, the seabed is closer to the surface on either side of the span. Shallower water is more predictable for targeting.
In this specific case, they blew out at least one pillar right at the base of the rise for the span. The span may well push enormous weight toward the new gap in the decking. We might see further damage to remaining pillars, maybe even enough for the raised span to come down.
> tl;dr -- The blast points are too precise for Sand People. The people who took this bridge out selected a very specific point to attack for maximum damage and accessibility to the most vulnerable target. 
