One Bomb Per Casualty

Sir: In the current impasse in Viet Nam, new approaches should be considered:

Make an announcement to the U.N., the Viet Cong and the world that we hereby call off all hostilities as of a stated date, but that we will keep an exact count of all casualties suffered by us or our allies during every twenty-four-hour period thereafter. Each day at a stated hour the exact number will be announced. It may be verified by neutral observers. It will be distributed in leaflets to the North, and that will be the number of bombs dropped on North Viet Nam the following day. Meanwhile, we revert to undeclared peace and resume our count. General Ho could control the number of bombs to be dropped on his people every day. The people of the North would have the knowledge that their leaders had intentionally invited whatever suffering they received and could halt it any day they wished.

This would make conferences and delays unnecessary, might topple the Ho regime, and would permit the gradual withdrawal of ground forces without our trying to control the government we would leave behind. My own year's living among the Chinese Communists makes me believe that this approach might be worth considering.

ROBERT COULSON

State Senator

Illinois Waukegan

Sir: You describe a "call for a bombing pause and immediate negotiations" by several U.S. Congressmen. You quote: " 'It seems to me,' said Robert Kennedy, 'that we lose nothing if we sit down to negotiate' " [Jan. 12].

Does he not remember, can he not count the estimated costs (not in money) of our last bombing pause? Or is it rather that his "we" is just different from mine. Mine number the 500,000 troops now in Viet Nam. And they do lose when one of their arms is tied behind their backs, while, in return, their enemy loses no advantage; indeed he gains many deadly ones.

Yes, I think our "we's" differ greatly—mine bleed, his vote.

(CPL) G. GARNER GREEN JR.

U.S.M.C.

F.P.O., San Francisco

Members of the Wedding

Sir: There are a few comments I would like to make about the story on the Penn Central merger [Jan. 26].

The story says that I had a "tough time persuading" Alfred E. Perlman, president of the New York Central, that the merger "would be a good deal for both companies." I did not join the Pennsylvania until October 1963, and did not participate in negotiations leading to the merger proposal filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission in March 1962.

The article also states that "Perlman and the Central had said that they would not take the New Haven under any circumstances." So far as I know, neither Mr. Perlman nor his associates at the Central ever took such a position. I regard Mr. Perlman as one of the outstanding railroad executives in the country, and I have the highest admiration for him. He has done a splendid job in revitalizing the New York Central. I am confident that we will work together as a team to make the Penn Central a truly great transportation system.

STUART T. SAUNDERS

Chairman

Pennsylvania Railroad Co.

Philadelphia