If war seems fantastic, does this remove all forms of violent resistance? This chapter argues that it does not. It examines the case for armed struggle against global poverty in the form of terrorism and sabotage. It recognises the intuitive repugnance of terrorism, but argues that we cannotbegin from definitions of political violence that are already moralised. If terrorism and sabotage are directed at agents that are not ordinarily legitimate targets, there needs to be a strong justification as to why they are liable to violence. It is argued that there whether one thinks the average citizen in the Global North is responsible, vicariously liable, or innocent there is not a case for subjecting them to terroristic violence. However, when it comes to sabotage, the arguments against a full prohibition do not work. Violent disruption of the transnational system may be permitted if it does not target the lives of innocent people. This does not amount to a blank cheque as there will usually be strong pragmatic reasons to abstain from violence, such as the necessary cooperation to build human rights respecting institutions.