[jacquesm]

> Even an ally can do such sabotage just to generate a military response against a common enemy he want to aggress but can't do without allies and those allies are not much interested if not forced or even a simple self-inflicted damage to justify a war the public do not accept but some in the government/élites want...

No, this is not 'normal prudence', it is completely off-the-wall conspiracy stuff. If you think this is normal then that is really problematic.

[kkfx]

Did you read just last 100+ years history? Is it conspiracy? The Britannia was a conspiracy? Just to cite one. The public Cossiga statement (ancient Italian minister, well known criminal) that he like opposing manifestation because they are good target to few crooks who will crush cars, magazines, etc pushing the population against the protesters and justify the subsequent and purposely late police response, was conspiracy or history? Anne Morin classic "on war propaganda" to justify any crimes on their own side and depict the other side as diabolic and criminal is a classic book of propaganda or a conspiracy? Bernays campaign fro the United Fruit Co to overthought the legit and democratic government of Guatemala was history or what?

What you call conspiracy is normally named classic strategy by all who study and use it. So any normally prudent State do it's best to avoid creating potential threats potentially used against itself. Some do not just because those threats are corruption-fueled economy. And again we see countless examples in just the very recent history.

[jacquesm]

That something happened once doesn't mean you need to jump at every shadow or that you need to assume that every thing that we do needs to be hardened against every eventuality. Fortunately - for now - idiots in real life are still in relatively short supply. Contrasted with the internet where they are plentiful, witness the dumb attacks on mobile phone infrastructure once the crazies start to influence each other because 'they' are out to get them.

The cases you list are the exceptions, not the rule. Fact: undersea optical cables would be trivial to destroy. But as a rule they work well. Fact: water infrastructure, gas infrastructure and power infrastructure is vulnerable. But it actually works quite well. Fact: logistics infrastructure is fragile, as are most buildings. And yet, most of it seems to hold up quite well. Ok we get the occasional crazy person but that doesn't mean society grinds to a halt or that we are going to re-do all of our bridges, crossings and foundations.

[kkfx]

> That something happened once doesn't mean you need to jump at every shadow or that you need to assume that every thing that we do needs to be hardened against every eventuality.

Hardened? No. Design to minimize unpleasant events? Yes. Just for instance did you lock your hose door? It's pointless since thief can still going in and locked or not the chance of being stolen it's not that much. Even that we still produce doors with keys to lock them, try finding a front door without in the market to discover it yourself.

> The cases you list are the exceptions, not the rule. Fact: undersea optical cables would be trivial to destroy. But as a rule they work well.

Sure because they are useful for all parties.

> Fact: water infrastructure, gas infrastructure and power infrastructure is vulnerable. But it actually works quite well.

And have seen a significant spikes in attacks... However again: just see Russian gas to the EU: both parties, with Ukraine as third can destroy the ducts, they do not do that simply because they are equally interested in them: Russia need to sell gas, they have already made the infra, they want money. EU need the gas, without it too many industries will stop. Ukraine use that gas itself and even if they decide to take the damage BOTH EU and Russia will be against them for the collateral damage they suffer.

Actually electricity from Morocco to UK, if cut touch nearly only the UK, so it's a potential target.

> Fact: logistics infrastructure is fragile, as are most buildings. And yet, most of it seems to hold up quite well.

Oh yeah, sure, so the big supply disruption so far is just a small issue in your opinion? In buildings term the fact that our cities can't evolve anymore and we need them evolved is not an issue, to a point we have made the ONU New Urban Agenda? Not counting the continuous debate of low quality buildings, in general, but more in particular big ones where issues might led to far bigger consequences...

> Ok we get the occasional crazy person but that doesn't mean society grinds to a halt or that we are going to re-do all of our bridges, crossings and foundations.

Sorry for keeping such rude tone up but we are actually re-do the society, it's a never-ending process and we are here in a bad shape also thanks to those who say "anything is well, we can continue toward infinitum".

[jacquesm]

> Sorry for keeping such rude tone up

You're not really sorry. And you won't be re-doing anything, all you will do is write longish comments about your worldview.

[kkfx]

As you do, but the length, anyway I explain my view, giving examples, on your side do you have any valid counter-example?

For instance can you state that there is no such polemics about low quality/dangerous buildings, more or less across the entire world with few tragic examples here and there (like skyscraper fires)?

Can you state why since we veeeeeery rarely, at least in the west world, have a puncture/flat a car tire we still have or a spare wheel or something to try repairing the aforementioned puncture?

Can you state why the entire world after the supply chain crisis start talk about resilience, the yesterday just-in-time Toyota-system mania now is depicted as crazy, "we need stocks" etc?

Just for few samples. I'm really curious to here them. Oh, of course, I agree that such disruptive events are very rare! I just counter the fact that we can ignore them in designing such infra because they are so rare.