To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

In a recent editorial on the Geneva test-ban negotiations, you suggested both the Soviet Union and the United States were stalling on an unimportant question. Scientific detection skills were great enough that the difference between seven inspections a year or three was minimal. The two sides, you said, should agree on the number and move to other questions.

This really misses the deeper divisions that control what happens in Geneva. On paper, both nations profess policies of seeking general and complete disarmament. In fact, neither nation yet gives undivided support to such policies.

Why? Because still unsettled is the crucial debate. Can controlled nuclear wars be fought, and won? Is limited nuclear war a feasible extension of foreign policy by other means? Many today answer that nuclear wars cannot be controlled, cannot be limited, cannot be won Therefore they argue one must never be fought.

The debates today in Congress show that many public officials do not reject the possibility of fighting and winning a limited nuclear war. They do not foresee an unchecked arms race leading to reciprocal homicide. And they call for continued testing, opposing any agreement at Geneva.

This is more the meaning of the Geneva stall--that the United States hasn't really decided yet whether it needs disarmament, contradicting Kennedy's stated desire. And then some fine day men like Dodd and Goldwater will learn whether limited nuclear was was a possibility, or not. Steven H. Johnson '64   Chairman of Tocsin