If the persons attacked are the representatives of a government and the goods attacked belong to the government, then we have acts of war. A state can defend itself from acts of war, but in front of a terror attack, the protection offered by the state is limited. The main reason is that the government officials accept the limitation of their rights, and they accept a certain discipline. These persons are well enough informed to understand that they could be the targets of an attack. The same is valid fo defending the goods belonging to a state. Many terrorist movements have tried to commit war acts and not terror acts. Thus, they try to obtain a legitimity as liberation movements, who fight for liberty or independence against a state. Example: ETA in Spain tries to attack only the representatives of the state or local administration, and the goods belonging to them. It is difficult however for ETA to comply with these rules, all of the time. IRA acts the same way, trying to delimit itself from terrorism. Both movements make notable efforts to be considered liberation movements at war with an opressive state, and not terrorist movements. Al Quaida tried at some time to attack only American military targets (thus delimiting itself from terrorism), but the attack on WTC in New York is clearly a terror act. The people killed were not representatives of the state, the planes used were not military, and the buildings did not belong to the state). However the attack on the Pentagon was not a terror act, but a war act. A practical aspect should be noted connected to the tendencies of terrorism: who has vocation to build, has no 'vocation' for terrorism. To build planes, buildings and so many other material goods supposes an immense effort on scientific and technological levels, in labour organisation, on the social and cultural level. Those who know how difficult these things are done, and how many causes can block easily this process, will not have the tendency to destroy material goods. We change now the discussion and will refer to the individual terrorists existing in any society. Serial killers exist, and others, who kill randomly innocent people. By definition, they are also terrorists, even if they act alone, without any connection to a group. It is clear that a society can't protect itself against terrorism through stricter laws. The tougher laws will determine the disappearance of exactly those facilities, which permitted the progress of the society. Multiple levels of security will produce the fragmentation of the society. Thus, due to the reduction of the capability to communicate, the level of generalised schizophrenia increases. This could lead to a disaster on long-term.