In any argument, the shrewdest strategy consists in relabeling the positions so as to confuse and discredit one's antagonists. Mr. Lowe has done this very effectively ere, by terming his side of the question ""Traditionalist"" and the opposition's ""Utopian"". According to Mr. Lowe, ""A Traditionalist...is anyone who, although granting the need for an effective military establishment, is convinced of the absolute necessity for using no more force than necessary to implement foreign policy decisions,"" while a ""Utopian"" is either for unilateral disarmament at one end of the political spectrum or, more commonly, for an all-out effort, employing every means at our disposal, to win any struggle which might occur. Thus this ""history of the development of strategic theory from 1952 to 1963"" can scarcely be called objective or definitive; but only the staunchst supporters of massive retaliation would resist a description of it as fair and more complete than anything else yet published. The author has taken pains to foster this fairness by quoting extensively from all ""representative"" theorists; he sees the 1963 Test Ban Treaty as having ""sharply silhouetted the choices"" and interprets the crisis as proving the wisdom of the ""Traditionalist"" stance. It is high time someone introduced a note of such sane moderation into the most critical discussion area of our time.