What are the dangers of pacificism when talking about nations?

A pacifist nation would be one that never used force - not even to enforce its laws.

When a nation decides to be pacifist, it causes a lot of problems. Firstly, would other nations respect this nation’s decision? It is possible that this nation will become a laughing stock and people might feel that it is very idealistic. Of course, some other nations (this is only a possibility, I’m not saying it will definitely occur) would see this as a great oppurtunity to expand their territory. This pacifist nation is unable to take up arms to defend themselves, as that would be against their beliefs. As such, this pacifist nation will very quickly and easily fall to another country, and would no longer be a nation, not to mention pacifists. Secondly, this nation’s beliefs may well make it a target for terrorism. The extremists might take this decision as a challenge and as such this nation will end up as so much rubble. It simply not possible to stand up against terrorism with pacifism. So far, my points have all dealt with external threats. My third point concerns an internal problem, namely that of law and peace-keeping. For criminals, they break the law even with the threat of possibly violent outcomes. In this pacifist nation, violent criminals can easily escape and wreak havoc, as law officers are unable to go against their beliefs and use force to apprehend them. My conclusion is that the only way for this pacifist nation to survive in this day and age is to secure the support and protection of some large nation, or nations, and ensure that it is self-sustaining. Thus, this nation can isolate itself and hide in a distant corner, staying out of public view. If the nation has gone through strict “filtering” to ensure that all the citizens are pro-pacifism, then the problem of law-keeping should be avoided. However, these are very extreme steps to take, and as such it can be seen that pacifism when talking about nations is still a distant dream.