Military airports are working fine. National security doesn't rely on civilian airports. And communications networks aren't disrupted or anything. This isn't enabling terrorism.
It's absolutely a huge economic issue. Economic-political. But I'm not seeing a national security angle here.
"[...] national security is widely understood to include also non-military dimensions, such as the security from terrorism, minimization of crime, economic security, energy security, environmental security, food security, and cyber-security."
Large-scale issues that impact the economy are typically under the "national security" umbrella. It's a term that uses the broad definition of "security".
Whether this incident qualifies, I don't know, but "national security" is definitely not just about military stuff. Just like how "food security" isn't about physically protecting food from damage.
While I agree with you, this is a huge issue with the term "security" and what it means to "provide security" as a government, because at some point almost everything can be labeled as a "national security threat" if it happens to be against the political desiderata of any one controlling said governments at a certain moment in time.
I feel like this sort of "security reflex" only got worst after 9/11, it was already there before even before that point but starting with Bush jr. it cascading into lots and lots of non-military related areas.
Amusingly, some media outlets confused the Scandinavian SAS airline with Britain's SAS Special Forces unit, and reported that the special forces unit had cancelled its trips out of Heathrow :) https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2025/mar/21/hayes-s...
While I agree that saying this is a big national security issue is overstating it, if an adversary can cripple you economically because you have a few single points of failure, that is a national security issue
“National security, or national defence (national defense in American English), is the security and defence of a sovereign state, including its citizens, *economy*, and institutions, which is regarded as a duty of government.”
Whether mere incompetence from those whose job it is to check such installations for failure or bad actors, other 'bad actors' will have gained a useful indication of how vulnerable Britain’s infrastructure is to attack. It's reckoned > 290K passengers have flights cancelled or diverted and ensuring chaos for days.
Most militarily-significant targets are themselves non-military.
The Russian war of aggression on Ukraine is a prime example: power infrastructure, transportation, communications, commercial hubs, healthcare, and general civilian targets of opportunity are all targeted with high frequency by Russian forces.
UK national security interests are spelled out in summary beginning on page 5 of this PDF, "Government Functional Standard: GovS 007: Security", notably
Each organisation’s governance and management framework shall cover physical, personnel, cyber, incident management, technical and industry security
As an example of non-military focus, the present US national security policy leads with ... tourist visas:
To protect Americans, the United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those aliens approved for admission into the United States do not intend to harm Americans or our national interests.
An earlier document from the Bush II White House leads with:
People everywhere want to be able to speak freely; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children—male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor.
Originally conceived as protection against military attack, national security is widely understood to include also non-military dimensions, such as the security from terrorism, minimization of crime, economic security, energy security, environmental security, food security, and cyber-security.
> Most militarily-significant targets are themselves non-military.
Indeed. Large scale war is extremely expensive. Russia's government is spending about 40% of total tax revenue on invading Ukraine. So anything it can do to harm the economies of the people fighting it helps. Equally, this is why Ukraine has been putting so much effort into blowing up oil and gas infrastructure in Russia, their #1 source of tax revenue.
Military airports are working fine. National security doesn't rely on civilian airports. And communications networks aren't disrupted or anything. This isn't enabling terrorism.
It's absolutely a huge economic issue. Economic-political. But I'm not seeing a national security angle here.