http://www.bitcoin.org.il/files/IBA_Statement-Hashrate_Attacks.pdf"
We, the Israeli Bitcoin Association, pursue the goal of maximizing the benefit that Israel’s population obtain from the Bitcoin technology - which strongly depends on Bitcoin’s worldwide success.
We believe that, as a currency, Bitcoin is subject to the network effect, and that it is strongest when its community and industry, brought together by both ideology and practicality, are united in a single network; and that rifts and separation should be avoided if at all possible.
We also believe that Bitcoin is voluntary money; people use it because they choose to, not because they are coerced. As such, people can also choose to fork Bitcoin’s open source code and use an alternative currency with similar underlying principles.
We recognize that there may be different views about what Bitcoin is, and a time may come where those differences cannot be reconciled. It might then be unavoidable to experience a split of the currency into two separate networks, each sharing a blockchain history and - at least temporarily - the Bitcoin brand.
We believe that all these different currencies have a right to coexist peacefully and compete fairly. We oppose any attempt of supporters of one currency to inflict damage on a different currency, in a way which achieves no purpose other than denying others the right to use the currency of their choice.
This is the general problem when at the same time proposing total liberty and other principles. You cannot prone liberty, and then prone principles according to which this liberty is supposed to be used, because that is against the first principle of liberty.
In the totally free (in the sense of liberty), trustless environment of crypto, what you call "attacks" is nothing else but exerting one's liberty in the frame of a strategy to overwhelm others (which is the principal usage of unconstrained liberty). In a full liberty system there's only one right: the right of the strongest (smartest/fittest/fastest/wealthiest...).
The complex dynamics of interplay of different agents with different strategies, to be gamed by other agents, in a totally free environment, is very difficult to predict, and even more difficult to make it work out "according to desired principles" ; but the PoW scheme, where the investment in mining (and hence, fee collecting, selling transaction room, selling transaction permissions etc...) as a separate activity from "using the system", was or 1) not a smart move or 2) a totally vile idea from the start, with the aim to keep the entire system in the hands of a few, outside of the system itself.
Because you haven't yet seen the next potential part in this show: once the block chain is in the hands of a consortium of miners (most probably the monopoly producers of mining equipment), they can sell "transaction room" on the chain to a few privileged (paying) customers (say, exchanges and a few other big players), denying most normal users direct access to their own coins, as their transactions, not relayed by a customer of the miner consortium, will systematically be rejected, essentially obliging users to only have transactions from and to a few exchanges, but not amongst themselves, at which point, the exchanges have taken the place of commercial banks, and the miner consortium, as central bank, dictating their law to the exchanges being customers, which, on their turn, dictate their law to their customers.
There is no significant difference between a few centralized LN hubs to which everybody is bound to set up their channels, and a few exchanges, if those hubs/exchanges are at the mercy of a miner consortium, determining who has access to the block chain, by "exclusively renting block room".
In order to maintain exclusivity on the block chain room, no "escape route" must exist through another crypto currency. This is why the strategy of the miner consortium is clear: they want small blocks of which they can sell the room to centralized exchanges, which will be the only agents through which bitcoin users can use their own coins. Even though LN would give a similar structure (with exchanges replaced by LN hubs), the LN and Segwit offers the danger of bitcoin/litecoin exchange. This is why the consortium needs to keep full control over this. All this is a consequence of transaction maleability and PoW, which naturally leads to such situations.