Yes, despite all the Xperts on the law of armed conflict, targeting...
John Spencer@SpencerGuard
22 views
Apr 09, 2026
~3 min read
Advertisement
1
Yes, despite all the Xperts on the law of armed conflict, targeting bridges, power plants, oil and gas facilities, airfields, and other dual-use infrastructure like factories, communications nodes, and rail lines that serve both civilian and military needs may be lawful. The law does not decide targets just by calling something civilian infrastructure. It looks at what the object actually does. An object counts as a military objective when by its nature, location, purpose, or use makes an effective contribution to military action and its total or partial destruction, capture, or disabling offers a definite military advantage in the circumstances at the time. 🧵1/6
2
That is the rule. Infrastructure linked to an enemy's ability to fight can be targeted. A bridge moving troops or supplies, a power plant supporting command and control or weapons production, and oil and gas facilities tied to military operations or logistics can/could qualify. The fact that these things also help civilian life does not make them off limits. Wars have always included objects that serve both sides, and the law takes that into account. 2/6
3
But being legal is never automatic. Every strike has to meet military necessity, distinction, proportionality, and feasible precautions. Leaders/Commanders decide based on what they know at the time whether the target is really a military objective that gives a definite military advantage. They weigh whether the expected harm to civilians and civilian objects would be excessive compared to that advantage. They also take all feasible steps with the target to minimize civilian harm. These choices happen in real conditions with limited information and get judged on what was known then, not later. 3/6
4
And yes, for all the predicable whataboutism, the repeated Russian strikes on Ukraine's power grid over the last 4+ years, in my opinion does raise real questions under the law of armed conflict. Not because power facilities can never be hit. They can if they meet the test. But the wide scale, the length of time, timing in conjunction with cold weather, and the pattern look more aimed at creating broad suffering among civilians and forcing political results than at gaining specific military gains. That difference counts. The expected advantage, the actual effects, and proportionality all matter. 4/6
5
So no Xperts, any strike on infrastructure does not automatically equal a war crime.
War crimes come from actually breaking the rules, such as intentionally attacking civilians or civilian objects, failing to make the required distinction, or causing incidental harm to civilians and civilian objects that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected.
War crimes do not come simply from the type of target hit. Saying every strike on a bridge or power plant is illegal, without checking its actual military role, the advantage it was meant to provide, and the steps taken to limit civilian harm, is not real legal analysis/opinion. It is likely blind hate for political reasons or sheer ignorance. 5/6
War crimes come from actually breaking the rules, such as intentionally attacking civilians or civilian objects, failing to make the required distinction, or causing incidental harm to civilians and civilian objects that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected.
War crimes do not come simply from the type of target hit. Saying every strike on a bridge or power plant is illegal, without checking its actual military role, the advantage it was meant to provide, and the steps taken to limit civilian harm, is not real legal analysis/opinion. It is likely blind hate for political reasons or sheer ignorance. 5/6
6
For serious people that want to know more. Check the U.S. military Law of War manual:
ogc.osd.mil/Portals/99/Law…
6/6
ogc.osd.mil/Portals/99/Law…
6/6
