Michael MccGwire's discussion of Soviet military doctrine {"What's Moscow's Game in Geneva?" Outlook, Sept. 6} suffers from inconsistencies and naivete'. Mr. MccGwire first chides what he perceives as a faulty NATO assumption "that the Soviets are likely to invade Europe" and then concedes offhandedly that for "some 70 years, a central element of Russian defense policy has been the requirement to be able to mount a continental-scale offensive to the west."

Mr. MccGwire contends "Soviet thinking has evolved" and traces an accommodative theme in Soviet rhetoric. Soviet rhetoric has softened somewhat since the death of Stalin, but the assertion that the Soviets have relaxed their national security requirements as a result of a doctrinal evolution is simply false. The Soviets have become increasingly able to soften their rhetoric precisely because they have greatly expanded their military power relative to the West's.

Finally, Mr. MccGwire contends that "America has consistently rejected arms limitations in areas where adanced technology or asymmetries in force structure give it an advantage." This is disproved by the United States' sacrifice of technological superiority in both SALT I and SALT II with the limitation of antiballistic missiles and MIRVs.