I think you have the situation reversed.

It was not attacked by people most of whom were in US legally. It was not attacked by civilian airplanes. Protecting US skies from Japanese was a nonissue comparing to defending against a 9/11-style attack.

Actually, with Pearl Harbor, it was the act of outright aggression. The death totals were similar - 2,335 in Pearl Harbor, 3,025 in 9/11. But you forget that while the Pearl Harbor deaths were lower, they sank 26 of our fighting fleet. (Weakening our Pacific Coast for a possible invasion.)

So, we were looking at not only protecting US skies from Japanese - but also our native soil.

Suppose simeone load a car bomb into a plane and dives into a federal building. Is it likely? No. Is it impossible? No. And imagine the effect of such happenning on Sept 13.

But hasn't that already happened? Did we have a car bomb already attempted against the WTC? (In fact, wasn't the guy who did that supposed to stand trial 9/12?)

As for the Federal Building - didn't we have that with the Oklahoma City bombing?

Have we suspended truck driving? Outlawed the selling of diesel fuel and fertilizer?

Admittedly, there were allegations - lots and lots of allegations, that they could have chemical weapons and attacks could be made with crop dusters and other light planes. That's how they could justify what they did to GA.

Trouble is - there wasn't much in the way of proof. Even the 9/11 attackers never used any WMD...just ordinary knives, boxcutters, and possibly pistols.

There's been allegations about dirty bombs - dangerous semi-nuclear devices. (Lots and lots of knee-jerking).

But has there really been changes to operations and security at places that could kill millions (like Chemical plants)?

And no one seems too concerned about the poisoning of water sources - which would affect whole cities. (Well, there is people concerned, but they are poo-poo'ed as being Wacko Environmentalists).