(Radical) pacifism and governmental force (army, police, etc.)

Reading some comments on this subsite I ended up a couple of days ago reading this secular article on the topic of self defence in Buddhism and this question on the site here. Now, based on this I seem to have deduced that there are three positions: - Egocentric pacifism : You may hurt and maybe even kill others if it is to defend yourself, provided it's not out of hatred or similar emotions. E.g. stopping an intruder forcefully is fine. - Radical pacifism : You may not hurt others, even if you're "being rendered limb from limb". - Utilitarianism : You may hurt and maybe even kill others if it's for the greater good and not out of hatred or similar emotions. Now, historically I only know of a few groups that practiced radical pacifism, and one of the most famous groups (the anabaptists/Mennonites) concluded that it was impossible for a Christian to be a worldly ruler (ignoring the radical anabaptists and the mess in Münster). This got me wondering: - In countries like Cambodia (97% Buddhists) and Thailand (93% Buddhists) does radical pacifism have any consequences at all at the government level? - Or is (radical) pacifism just an insignificant minority position in Buddhism? In other words, what I am mostly just asking is how Buddhism approaches issues of the power of governments to wield a mighty sword (army, police) versus the pacifism that is often taught by Buddhists.