I'm not sure whether you're saying that sabotage of infrastructure performed by the populace is a good way to perpetuate unrest in a way that a militarized stat

I'm not sure whether you're saying that sabotage of infrastructure performed by the populace is a good way to perpetuate unrest in a way that a militarized state can't squash, or whether you're saying that the state can quickly destroy key pieces of infrastructure to cause pain to people who refuse to fall in line. Because both are true, but the latter is far more likely and effective: after all, who wants to destroy the last remaining enablers of their comfort, shelter, and livelihood just to prove a point... and then what? One only need to look at the city of Flint, whose water pipes continue to deliver lead-laced water to households black and white, but society has largely routed around the damage: we carry on with our lives and ignore it's a problem. It's only a problem for those in Flint. Meanwhile, the military and police can turn off utilities, blockade towns, enact curfews, and isolate even the flow of information, all without firing a single bullet. This way, pockets of unrest can be abated before they become a movement so pervasive that the military themselves defect.