If when one nation overruns another I stand by and do nothing, I actually am treating the victims as less than persons in the interests of treating the oppressors as persons. If, for instance, because of nonresistant principles I allow the Vietcong to take over, I am in effect impersonalizing the South Vietnamese. This argument is at best only half true. To refuse to come to the military defense of the victim could be a sign of unconcern, but it is not inevitably so. Surely such an attitude and such activity cannot be classified as personal unconcern and irresponsibility.
War is out of order because of the impersonalization it fosters.
War, however, is an institution whose very existence depends on man's ability to impersonalize. Reform of it is out of the question. Thus the Christian is obliged to work for war's abolishment. And until war is abolished the Christian must refuse to participate in it lest he abet the jeopardy of the one freedom that is infinitely more precious than any and all other freedoms he might defend.