Systemic concepts of resilience have proliferated across governance contexts, especially critical infrastructure planning and policy. These concepts promise to enhance the perpetuation of nations, governments, organizations, communities and citizens, and undergirding infrastructures, against existential threats. While the prevalence of systematic resilience thinking spans numerous policy appropriations, the scaling of resilience is remarkably consistent: resilient systems are said to encompass a hierarchy of enveloping levels and authorities -persistence and stability at larger scales accompanied by significant and fast perturbations at smaller scales. Drawing on empirical engagement with the UK's critical infrastructure policies and practices, this paper problematizes this hierarchical scalar axiom. Such treatments of scale are shown to contribute to a specific scalar politics, wherein the imperative for, and reification of, infrastructure resilience, is bound up with the (re)scaling of neoliberal governmentalities, rendering some subjects and objects as visible, thinkable and actionable to resilience while obscuring and eliding others. In the light of this problematization we propose an alternative, flatter scaling of infrastructure resilience, drawing inspiration from the flat ontologies of Bruno Latour, decentralized future infrastructure scenarios and the accounts of infrastructure practitioners themselves.