To say that no one need fear being attacked by anyone else in the modern world isn't true. We did just have two world wars last century. Also look at the Middle East, present day included. There will always be someone who has no problem at all going into someone else's country and raping and pillaging, if he can get away with it. Sometimes even if there's only a CHANCE of getting away with it.

China invaded and conquered Tibet last century. I'm not extremely familiar with the situation, other than that the state religion of Tibet was all but outlawed, and that the religous and political leader of the country was cast into exile and remains so. I think that this shows an example of the failure of pacifism.

I've said it before, and people probably won't agree with me this time either, but I believe that sometimes it is immoral NOT to kill people. There are times when killing people is the only moral thing to do, not by your choice, but by the choice of people who leave you no choice. Pacifism at its extreme is a disregard for human life; pacifism in pure form places the value of an ideal, "do no violence", above the value of human life, even innocent human life. If you consider it moral victory to die at the hands of someone you believe is in the wrong, rather than defend yourself, I would say that your morals are nothing I want any part of.

Military strength is valuable insofar as violence is sometimes necessary as a counter to violence. If someone has no problem killing everyone who stands in his way, and no one who stands in his way will fight back, what is ever, ever going to stop him, other than when he runs out of people to kill?