Very good article. I think that, historically, security overreaction tends to increase as the stakes increase. From what I've read there was a lot of domestic overreaction during WW1 and WW2.
The fact that weapons are so much more effective and disguisable these days leads me to believe that, sadly, this sort of thing is only going to get worse. I can't imagine what the reactions will be when people are as concerned about biological weapons as they are about explosives.
> From what I've read there was a lot of domestic overreaction during WW1 and WW2.
Yes, there was. The unfortunate difference between then and now is that then there was a clear end to the hostilities. The "war on terror" has no such clear end. Doesn't matter that Bin Laden was killed, doesn't matter that there hasn't been a successful terror attack in more than 10 years (and that nearly all the unsuccessful ones probably wouldn't have existed if not for the assistance of undercover FBI agents). When will it end? You can always claim that there are still more "radicals" out there who want to kill us, and that further fear is justified.
Another difference is that the government generally tried to keep things orderly and calm. Not to say that government didn't engage in overreaction as well (e.g. internment camps) but the overall theme appeared to be one of reassurance.
Modern government seems to thrive on making people as afraid as possible, perpetuating the cycle instead of damping it.
The fact that weapons are so much more effective and disguisable these days leads me to believe that, sadly, this sort of thing is only going to get worse. I can't imagine what the reactions will be when people are as concerned about biological weapons as they are about explosives.