To the Editors of the Crimson:

In Friday's review of my book, one sentence is quoted on page R-14 from which is drawn the conclusion that I reject disarmament because of the projected unemployment in the military. The paragraph in which this sentence appears reads as follows:

"Sobriety is supposed to be Kissinger's great virtue, but how can any reader fail to blanche when he complains: 'A ban extended over a period of years would almost certainly lead to the attrition of our weapons laboratories, whose ablest scientists would be increasingly tempted to concentrate on fields where scientific progress was more promising.' This is tantamount to rejecting disarmament because of projected unemployment in the military. And it is precisely if there are good and valid reasons to reject bans, or disarmament--precisely if well-intentioned people are to be persuaded, that these lines of reasoning are dangerous."

This seems to me a deliberate misrepresentation. The sentence is taken out of a paragraph which deals with the sanctions available in case of Communist violations of a test ban. Its point was that in case of Soviet violation we might have nothing to test, and that the sanction of our abrogating the ban would not be effective. The full paragraph, which appears on pages 269 and 270, reads as follows:

"And should it (the West) decide to test again after a prolonged ban, years might be consumed before it could do so. A nation which had observed the ban might by then have nothing to test. A ban extended over a period of years would almost certainly lead to the attrition of our weapons laboratories, whose ablest scientists would be increasingly tempted to concentrate on fields where scientific progress was more promising. The U.S.S.R., by contrast, is in a position to keep its research staffs together much more easily. Even a strong indication of Soviet violation might therefore leave the United States at a serious disadvantage or at least without adequate recourse." Sincerely yours,   Henry A. Kissinger