Not a native speaker either (though I've been fluent for decades) and I find the title horribly misleading as well. "Might have triggered" implies the disaster

Not a native speaker either (though I've been fluent for decades) and I find the title horribly misleading as well. "Might have triggered" implies the disaster happened, or at least that it's not known whether a disaster happened. "Would have triggered" implies neither the disaster nor the near-miss happened, so I think the most unambiguous phrasing would have been "could have triggered". OTOH I've seen native speakers use headlines like "Why this works?" (which by my understanding of the language shouldn't have a question mark), so IDK.