In the world of the mid-twentieth century, dictation by any one power is impossible and wholesale agreement to federate is Utopian. We must therefore look for any possible agreement only on a retail basis, and this is a task for diplomatists. The choice is not whether to engage in diplomacy but how best to do so; that is, what tools to use in what combination. And how to make these tools as sharp and as precise as possible.

In the adjustment of disputes between state members of a multiple sovereignty system (that is, between states which cannot ordinarily coerce each other except at the risk of war), there are several broad avenues through which in theory at least the difficulty may be adjusted.

Ever since the time of Constantine, Christian theologians have been trying to find a way to wrap up the gospel of Christ and the institution of war in the same package. Sometimes they have enjoyed moderate success. When war was the private monopoly of various princes and was conducted according to welldefined rules with limited objectives, it was possible to rationalize it. But as the institution has grown in scope and ferocity, and its weapons in destructive power, the task has become more difficult. The ethic of love and the ICBM are simply not compatible, regardless of the theological garb in which they are presented.