It is sometimes suggested that nuclear weapons technology has made the world safe for “wars of national liberation.” I don't happen to accept this proposition, but I do acknowledge that “wars of national liberation” are a prominent part of both the declaratory and action policies of the Communist world. The free world does not have the option of declining to respond to such wars. This is sufficient reason for attempts to assay the ethical issues they raise.

Wars of liberation have been called “political wars.” I assume two different things are intended by this: on the one hand, that they have a larger political component than other wars in that they do emphasize or circumvent some of the more typical military missions such as seizing and holding territory; on the other hand, as compared with nuclear war, they seem more nearly to be. compatible with Clausewitx's dictum that war is a continuation of policy. There are difficulties with both notions, but I do acknowledge that wars of liberation are intimately related to the political purposes of their sponsors and that they do generally employ means aimed directly at political power and try to postpone or avoid military engagements as the determinants of their outcome.