If so, that won't be the Bitcoin my node will switch to. You can't force the network to do what you want. UASF and the many forks before, during, and after the fork wars have proven this.
But if the whole system is at risk due to attacks, I expect that you will be a bit lonely on that chain
I love Bitcoin, but you have to be able to consider hypotheticals like this. Similarly... a tail emission should be on the table. Mentioning it used to be totally third rail [0], but these days folks like Peter Todd are speaking up.
[0] - https://twitter.com/mhluongo/status/1092559017178734594?t=i2...
The difference is if you want to terrorize Bitcoin, you need to find energy and compute at relatively low cost compared to everyone still on the network. With Ethereum, you just need to acquire ETH.
When bitcoin was created there weren't hashpower markets where you could attack a chain without ever having invested in it and then move on the next minute, your hardware investment still earning you money. I think satoshi thought there would only be one chain and the game theory with many is different.