I can't say I totally agree with Iain Murray. In his discussion of this article about irrational fears over terrorism, he says,

No value is given in this analysis to the deterrent effect of a strong reaction, to the lives that may be saved in other countries, or to the extremely high value we, as a culture, place on our symbols.

Unlike Iain, I happen to agree with the most of the article, particularly this passage:

Terrorism, by design, evokes disproportionate responses to antisocial acts by a malicious few. By minimizing our negative reactions, we might contribute to undermining terrorists' goals as effectively as by waging war on them or by mounting homeland defenses.

The trouble is, "we, as a culture," are all too often full of crap and unable to approach things rationally, and even if any of our leaders are rational (a big if), they'd worry about getting blamed for not having taken appropriate precautions.
(As for me, although I agree with the thrust of the argument, I find my own inability to wrap my mind around the danger of asteroid impacts ironic.)

Similarly, here's something on the failure of terrorism (link via Instapundit):

Terrorists can steal lives but terrorism operates within strict limits. The IRA, for example, an organisation founded to drive the British from the island of Ireland by force, has been obliged to hold fire in return for the opportunity to adminster schools and hospitals � an experience which has since been suspended. This is not what Bobby Sands starved himself to death for. It is fashionable to argue that the terrorists �always win� but, in truth, most of the time they lose. That is because no number of recruits, size of arsenal, or source of funds can make up for the advantages held by those in command of a nation state.

Which happens to be an argument that rogue governments are far more dangerous than terrorists.