© 2026 NASA, from April 7
Well, the world did not end last night.
But something has become clear. Targeting weapons at infrastructure such as bridges and power networks is a war crime.
From some of the most miserable moments of the last 130 years emerged the idea that some things are always wrong, whoever does them – even before there was anything like clear international law against them. This lead directly to the Geneva conventions and human rights courts.
Destroying critical infrastructure, starting with water and sewerage, roads and power, is an attack on non-combatants. It undermines civilisation, as in digging a big hole under society that may not be repairable.
As infrastructure asset management practitioners, we are involved in life-changing decisions whether we realise it or not.
If it is always wrong to target the infrastructure people depend on to live, it’s also vital to commit to maintaining what is needed. To ensuring we have the skills and tools and democratic processes for infrastructure.
Time for an Infrastructure Code of Ethics?
I beg to differ. Bridges and power grids that military forces can use are legitimate military targets. Yes, it certainly impacts the non-military population, but restricting an enemy force from free movement or powering operations are legitimate military objectives. War is hell, and not just on the combatants.
Clarification: targeting vital infrastructure is held to be a war crime if it is a deliberate attack on non-combatants. For example, to threaten a society into submission. It’s part of the post WW2 revulsion against deliberate military attacks on civilians.
I can see the argument that taking out critical infrastructure offers real advantage in some circumstances. There may even be cases where it is judged the right choice. I cannot name one with confidence, but that does not mean such a case does not exist.
My concern is that infrastructure is too foundational, and too interconnected, to be viewed only through immediate tactical utility. A bridge is not only a bridge. A power network is not only a power network. These assets sit inside systems that support life, health, mobility, sanitation, recovery, and social order.
Once enough of that system is damaged, the harm spreads well beyond the immediate objective. Recovery becomes harder. One failure compounds another. A system that took generations to build can come apart far faster than it was built.
And when social order breaks down, things get dark very fast. Conflict grows. Restraint weakens. People lose their humanity. Without enough foundation left to rebuild from, the damage can spread far beyond the original act and into the conditions that make civilized life possible.
History gives us plenty of warning here. Societies have lost as many skills as they have gained. Recovery is not automatic. It depends on what remains.
That is why I think infrastructure has to be approached through an ethical lens, not only a tactical one. And yes, I do think it is time for an Infrastructure code of ethics.
The question is not only whether an action creates leverage in the moment. It is what follows after. Who bears the cost. Whether the system can recover. Whether the damage weakens the very conditions a society will need in order to endure and rebuild.
And if a society ever decides that this threshold should be crossed, then it should do so with clear eyes. No euphemism. No pretense. No comforting language about limited consequences. It should admit that once enough of the foundation is gone, events may move beyond control, and that history, and whatever moral standard one claims to serve, will judge the choice in full.
That is the side I am on here, not one side or another, but the side of stewardship, recoverability, and responsibility for the systems that quietly hold society together.
Perhaps the better question for infrastructure stewards is this: what level of damage to essential systems can any society absorb before recovery itself begins to fail?