COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	.require "let.pub[let,jmc]" source
C00004 ENDMK
C⊗;
.require "let.pub[let,jmc]" source;
∂AIL Editor:↓%2New York Times%1↓229 West 43d St.↓N.Y. 10036∞
.turn on "→";
To the Editor:

	If a newspaper, angry over the Soviet repressions in Hungary or
Czechoslovakia, were to refer to "that nation's bloody day of
reckoning", I imagine the %2Times%1 would suggest they cool off.
Punishing the aggressors, as many feel they deserve, is impractical
in this nuclear age.  The same considerations apply to the %2Times%1
April 12 editorial about South Africa.
No nation of even the strength of South Africa can be brought
to a bloody day of reckoning without it also being a radio-active
day of reckoning.  A victory-or-death crusade against South Africa
leading to nuclear war is all too likely in this psychologically
pre-war era even without encouragement from the %2Times%1.

	Wouldn't it be better to look for a solution that, while
not just from any point of view, will be preferred by both sides to such a war?
Unless there is more time for gradual improvement than anyone thinks
likely, the solution must be partition.     The blacks must get
enough so they will prefer partition to war, and so must the whites.  Is
there any other solution?

.sgn