A vehicle is such a high energy, dangerous piece of equipment. Our whole society, at least in North America, is built on the idea that people treasure their vehicles and will never act in a way that damages them.
To my eyes, that is the type of assumption that makes an ass out of everyone. The gun control debate pales in comparison to what would happen if people decide their terroristic point is worth their life, and they have a car. And even kids have cars. We've got no protection against it. Only the shared cooperation of our society- and for whatever reason, people of late seem to be working to tear apart that cooperative fabric of life.
In US certainly, some parts of the world definitely have it worse.
But I think the fear and divide it generates between ethnicities/religions/countries is definitely higher.
A terrorist attack also has a much wider chilling effect for psychological reasons - it represents an existential threat, unlike a natural disaster.
As a child, I was very aware of the psychological effect of terrorism - the IRA set off a bomb very close to my home and it was covered extensively in all the media of the time: TV, radio, newspapers.
However, I would argue that putting security theatre into public life has an equally profound psychological effect - it confirms that you are constantly at risk. As a child, seeing more police officers with submachines guns (very unusual at the time) and the removal of rubbish bins and the closing of some roads to cars around where I lived only increased anxiety. As an adult, I'm aware that this too has a chilling effect, but with little benefit gained.
I'll have to politely disagree on natural disasters not being an equivalent existential threat in a world where climate change is increasing their frequency and potency.
I have heard quite a few strong arguments for how different pieces of vital infrastructure require extra protection from terrorism and also for military defence (power, hospitals, water treatment, banking, data centres, etc.). However, from my albeit limited experience, I feel like the vast majority of terrorism is very low tech and unambitious.
A quick look at Wikipedia shows that in US in the last 20 years, the vast majority of terrorist attacks are shootings, followed by starting fires and bombs. What can you realistically do with a grant to prevent these from happening?
> $14 million has been sought for law enforcement communication, SWAT training, and bomb detection [in Florida 2019-2020].
This is just one example from the article, but my gut instinct is that you could save many more lives and much more infrastructure spending that on preparing for natural disasters rather than terrorism - especially in a state that had tens of billions of damage a year earlier. Both are important, but I think public budgets should be carefully scruntinised - this smells of corruption and/or "defence theatre".