Would Trump survive the Cuban Missile Crisis?

WASHINGTON, Oct. 27 (UPI) -- Fifty-four years ago this week, we passed through the most dangerous crisis the United States has ever known. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a time when the world held its breath. Leaders on both sides were under enormous psychological strains. President Kennedy's brother recorded what it was like in those tense meetings:

"I think these few minutes were the time of gravest concern for the President. Was the world on the brink of a holocaust? Was it our error? A mistake? Was there something further that should have been done? Or not done? His hand went up to his face and covered his mouth. He opened and closed his fist. His face seemed drawn, his eyes pained, almost gray. . . . I felt we were on the edge of a precipice with no way off."

The pressure most have been excruciating. Millions of lives dangled by a thread. For that reason, the Cuban Missile Crisis makes an excellent laboratory for character. We can judge a person's fitness for the presidency of the United States by imagining how he or she might have fared (and how the nation might have fared) in that crisis. President Kennedy faced a number of difficult tests during those 13 days. Three of them shed useful light on the fitness of Mr. Trump.

The first step Kennedy took when he was told that nuclear missiles were being covertly put in Cuba was to seek sound advice. Within minutes he had chosen a large and diverse group of advisors to explore and debate the issue extensively. He removed himself from the deliberations at times so that the participants could express themselves freely. And he continually prodded and probed the different options presented, testing them from different angles.

Mr. Trump has repeatedly insisted that he is the only expert that matters. He has said that he understands the war against the Islamic State terror group better than our highest ranking generals. He has said that he himself is his most important advisor. And he has assembled a foreign policy team for his campaign that is judged by many to be short on experience and expertise. It is difficult to imagine that Mr. Trump, if he were in Kennedy's shoes, would have sought diverse opinions or examined suggested alternatives closely.

Historians have noted that on the first day of the crisis, the president and his advisors favored using airstrikes to "take out" the missiles. They felt threatened and betrayed. There was a strong impulse in the room to lash out. Many of the participants have since said that if it had not been for Kennedy's insistence that they restrain their first impulse and explore all options, the group would have chosen a military response. The airstrike that was proposed would have led to war, and might have touched off a nuclear war.

Mr. Trump has shown that he is easily angered. He responds sharply on Twitter when he feels insulted. Would an impulsive man, someone with thin skin and a tendency to react aggressively, have pulled back from airstrikes on that first day? Would Mr. Trump have ordered an attack? I suspect he would.

On Saturday, October 27th, at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, an American U-2 spy plane was shot down over Cuba, killing the pilot. Once again, there was anger in Washington. An American had been killed. The strength of the United States had been challenged. Previously, Kennedy and his advisors had agreed that if a U.S. plane was shot down they would respond with an attack on the anti-aircraft site that shot it down. This moment put enormous pressure on Kennedy to act. His advisors expected him to use force.

But Kennedy ultimately decided to break his commitment to his advisors, to risk being called "soft," to ignore the advice of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force (and others), and not to retaliate. It was his judgment, apparently, that if he ordered an attack against targets in Cuba, with tensions already so high, the crisis might escalate and end in all-out war. It took courage and restraint not to strike back.

Mr. Trump has demonstrated, throughout this campaign for president, a tendency to strike back when struck. When Hillary Clinton, for example, talked about the women who claimed that Mr. Trump harassed them, he responded by holding a press conference with women who had accused Bill Clinton of sexual improprieties. It is difficult to imagine Mr. Trump not retaliating if an American pilot were shot down.

So many things came so close to going wrong during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was only because both Kennedy and Khrushchev eventually acted with extraordinary calm and caution -- ignoring advice from more emotional, aggressive advisors -- that catastrophe was avoided. Had nuclear weapons been used during that time, an estimated 60 and 180 million U.S. citizens would have been killed and most of our largest cities devastated. Would Mr. Trump have been able to guide these precious United States through that dangerous moment?

There are no checks or balances on the use of nuclear weapons. Congress has no say; the Supreme Court does not rule; citizens do not vote. The power of nuclear weapons, therefore, represents an enormous temptation. Do you trust Mr. Trump to have the self-restraint to resist that temptation in a moment of crisis and anger?

Ward Wilson is Adjunct Senior Fellow for Rethinking Nuclear Weapons at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) and the author of "Five Myths About Nuclear Weapons."