Former Secretary of State Henry Stimson recently made a speech in which he dwelt on the problem of keeping the United States neutral in future wars. "History shows," he declared, "that the traditional policy of neutrality consistently adhered to up to the present by the United States no longer guarantees that this country will not be involved in a big war, particularly in a war in which one of the great sea powers, whether of Europe or Asia, will take part. The mere thought that some parts of this world can be segregated by impenetrable barriers from the rest of the world, and can be kept perfectly isolated, is contrary to the entire program of reconstruction which has been initiated by our government. Consequently, it is more important to prevent or avoid war than to cling to a course once taken, even after war has been declared."

Stimson proposed two courses for the United States to follow: First, the United States should declare its readiness to consult with other nations in case the danger of war arises as a result of some crisis in international relations. Second, the United States should refrain from insisting upon her strict rights as a neutral in case aggression is established, especially her right to trade with and ship goods to the aggressor nation, since otherwise all safeguards devised by other nations to preserve peace would be made ineffective. This second recommendation, should it be adopted, would essentially make the United States a party to a blockade imposed on an aggressor by other nations acting collectively. In conclusion, Mr. Stimson declared that "neutrality does not guarantee us from participation in any future wars. The only guarantee is to prevent war, and such a guarantee is obtainable only through the collaboration of all countries to preserve peace."

Stimson is undoubtedly right when he says that the main task of the United 3States, as well as of other countries, is to prevent war. If a new war breaks out, it will most likely spread into a world war. Of course, it will be easier for America to keep out of this war than for any European country, even the most peace-loving, but circumstances may be such that even the United States will not be able to maintain its neutrality.

The United States, of course, is not threatened with attack even by the most bellicose European nations. And if ever the United States is forced to wage a war, that war will be fought, not in the Atlantic but in the Pacific. This is the opinion of most of the political and military leaders in America. And Japanese militarists openly speak of the inevitability of a Japanese-American conflict in the not too distant future.

Regarding the situation in Europe, the majority of Americans think that under no circumstances should America intervene in European affairs in the future. This is, of course, quite natural. Even though America came out of the last 4war a victorious nation, she did not gain anything from the conflict. For this reason, we have grounds for the belief that America, taught by bitter experience, will maintain its neutrality in case of a new European war.