Figure 1. Progressive Normalization Model for Infrastructure Targeting
Description
This dataset presents Figure 1, “Progressive Normalization Model for Infrastructure Targeting,” derived from Nicolin Decker’s 2026 paper Systemic Financial Asymmetry and Nuclear Deterrence. The figure converts Table 12 into a ten-stage strategic-stability model explaining how infrastructure targeting may become operationally normalized without becoming legally permissible. The model distinguishes legal normalization from operational normalization. Civilian infrastructure remains protected under international humanitarian law, including distinction and object-specific military-objective analysis (UN Security Council records; ICRC Customary IHL, Rules 7–10). Recent conflict practice shows that infrastructure attacks may be justified as military necessity, self-defense, retaliation, or degradation of war-supporting functions, and may become reciprocal through repeated attack and counterattack (OHCHR and UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine). The model traces how target categories may expand from discrete military objects toward broader energy, transportation, communications, industrial, data, and financial systems. It also shows how diplomatic responses may become predictable through repeated concern, calls for restraint, and reaffirmations of civilian protection (U.S. Department of State, G7, and UN statements). Later stages examine doctrinal incorporation, strategic consequence, normative erosion, systemic vulnerability, and treaty-reconstitution pressure. State cyber, critical-infrastructure, and resilience materials show that infrastructure attack and defense are increasingly incorporated into doctrine, contingency planning, and resilience policy (U.S. State Department cyber strategy materials; DHS National Infrastructure Protection Plan 2013; CISA Financial Services Sector-Specific Plan). UN and OHCHR reporting further documents cascading civilian effects from infrastructure attacks, including harm to water, sanitation, heating, health care, education, economic activity, and civilian survival. The figure is intended for national-security, international-law, deterrence, infrastructure-resilience, and treaty-discussion contexts. Its central thesis is that civilian infrastructure has not become, and must not become, a lawful or acceptable general target category; repeated operational practice may weaken restraint before the law itself changes.
Files
Steps to reproduce
1. Review the legal baseline for civilian infrastructure protection under international humanitarian law, including distinction and military-objective analysis. 2. Examine UN Security Council, OHCHR, and UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission records documenting attacks on energy, transportation, communications, industrial, and related infrastructure. 3. Identify instances where infrastructure attacks are justified as military necessity, self-defense, retaliation, or degradation of war-supporting functions. This supports Stage 1: Exceptional Justification. 4. Compare repeated attacks and counterattacks to determine whether infrastructure targeting becomes reciprocal. This supports Stage 2: Reciprocal Repetition. 5. Review whether target categories expand from military objects toward energy, transport, communications, industry, data, and financial systems. This supports Stage 3: Category Expansion. 6. Examine UN, G7, and U.S. Department of State responses for recurring condemnation, calls for restraint, and reaffirmations of civilian protection. This supports Stage 4: Diplomatic Attenuation. 7. Review public resilience, continuity, and conflict-preparedness materials to determine whether infrastructure attacks are treated as foreseeable. This supports Stage 5: Expectation Formation. 8. Review DOS, DHS, CISA, and DoD materials showing infrastructure attack and defense incorporated into doctrine, contingency planning, and resilience policy. This supports Stage 6: Doctrinal Incorporation. 9. Examine UN and OHCHR reporting on cascading effects to water, sanitation, heating, health care, education, economic activity, and civilian survival. This supports Stage 7: Strategic Consequence. 10. Compare repeated infrastructure attacks with continuing legal protections to assess whether practice may weaken restraint while law remains intact. This supports Stage 8: Normative Erosion. 11. Review DOS, DHS, and CISA materials on systemic vulnerability across financial, energy, communications, transportation, and data systems. This supports Stage 9: Systemic Vulnerability. 12. Review UN and DOS materials on norms, confidence-building measures, resilience commitments, and restraint mechanisms. This supports Stage 10: Treaty-Reconstitution Threshold. Reconstruct the figure by arranging the stages in sequence from Exceptional Justification through Treaty-Reconstitution Threshold. No classified data or proprietary software is required.