If Martin Luther King were President, would he exclusively rely on non-violent resistance to deal with terrorists?

I've been toiling around with me on this question for some time now. If Martin Luther King were President, we would be dealing with terrorists or the many insecurities of the world around us. I believe we wouldn't. Why? Because, MLK, had a very different set of values.

In his speech to the congregation of the Second Baptist Church, MLK suggests that to find the real problems faced by men today, we "have to look into the hearts and souls of men". How many leaders can say this, not only about the people that they lead, but about themselves.

Back to the suggestion on resistance to terrorists. I believe that MLK had a would have dealt with terrorist, successfully, with non-violent means of resistance. I believe he would of removed the proverbial "thorn under the saddle" for rogue nations by setting a different tone for conversation, non-threatening, non-aggressive. A tone that looked at nurturing the diversity of the people around the globe. Interesting enough, I wonder if our un-doing, under the leadership of MLK, would still come at the hands, not of terrorist, but of our own self-interests and greed.

A question I have is "what would Martin Luther King, Jr. do if he had Green Speak as a tool in his life?"

Ciao