I got a call from a Bush supporter the other day, but it might as well have been from a Kerry supporter. He said he was voting for Bush because Bush would make him feel safer. Bush claims that Kerry doesn’t understand the true nature of the terrorist threat. Kerry claims he will hunt down and kill the terrorists. In fact, their positions aren’t all that different, because what neither of them will tell you is that the real threat of terrorism for average Americans is practically nil.

Since the event that Bush calls “the first terrorist attack” on America (the first WTC bombing in 1991), perhaps 4,000 Americans have died in terrorist attacks, averaging out to somewhat less than 300 Americans per year. Even if you believe that “September 11 changed everything,” you’re still only talking about less than a thousand Americans per year since 2001.

Yes, a thousand sounds like a lot of people, but contrast that to some other numbers:

• 640,000 deaths a year from smoking
• 30,000 a year from suicide
• 18,000 a year from homicide
• 17,000 a year due to drunk driving
• 16,000 a year from AIDS
• 3,000 a year from choking on food
• 1,400 a year from falling from stairs or steps

Where is the outcry over the menace lurking on the staircases of America? Who will save us from the vile threat of chunky lobster bisque? If terrorism merits a $300 billion investment, should we not be spending at least $500 billion on the choking hazard?

Bush and Kerry will tell you that the real threat is not from conventional terrorism, but from terrorists using weapons of mass destruction. But we’ve already had WMD terror: a horrible episode involving sarin nerve gas on the Tokyo subway. The death toll there was a paltry 12. We’ve had bioterror as well: the anthrax attacks of 2001, with 5 dead. This is not to say that a future event couldn’t involve a more significant death toll, but for the time being, these threats have been minimal.

The biggest threat, Kerry argued in the debates, is nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists. I’m not going to downplay the potential of a nuclear device detonating in an American city, but if that’s truly the biggest threat, then what is being done to stop it? Why did we attack Afghanistan, when Pakistan is the nation that leaked nuclear secrets to the world? Why did we invade the only member of the “axis of evil” not to have a nuclear program? If Russia’s nuclear material isn’t fully secured, what was the point of bombing Macedonia? Do we really trust North Korea not to sell its nuclear devices, or even to use them against us?

We don’t attack the countries who hold nuclear devices because the threat of those bombs being used against our own invading forces — to devastating effect — is much more significant than the (still very real) threat of a terrorist somehow acquiring them and attacking America. In short, there’s nothing we can do — using force.

But not using force makes the president look “weak on terror.” So Bush found a couple of unpopular nations that wouldn’t be able to put up much of a fight, to show everyone in the world that we won’t be pushed around by terrorists. His biggest mistake was underestimating exactly how much of a fight Iraq would put up.

To sum up: all of the money being poured into the aggressive anti-terror offensive is being wasted on a relatively small problem. The money being spent on “homeland security” is only helpful to the extent it prevents terrorists from using the really damaging stuff — nuclear weapons. And the place where we could really make a difference — through cooperative, diplomatic efforts with the nations holding nuclear technology — is being compromised through the ill-will generated by the “war” on the trivial terror that has only a tiny impact on America.

So I can’t really vote for the candidate that will make me feel safer, because neither of them will. There is little doubt that Bush will continue his counterproductive, aggressive ways, but a victorious Kerry would be also obligated to continue the war in Iraq in order to demonstrate his “strength.” Both candidates will take the easy route of saving face over saving lives.

I didn’t tell any of that to the campaign worker calling me on the phone, because he said the most important thing was to feel safer. The current situation with regards to nuclear proliferation doesn’t make me feel safe at all.