At a Rockland restaurant recently, two men and a woman greeted one another cheerfully, sat at the table next to mine and enthusiastically ordered a hearty breakfast. Within a half hour, they worked their conversational way to the gloomy guess that Maine is a likely target for terrorists. Their logic centered on the vulnerable border with Canada and the long Atlantic shoreline.

It is understandable that the people of New York City and Washington, D.C. – many traumatized by the 9-11 attacks – are anxious about additional terrorist assaults. But people in more than a dozen states have told me of grim scenarios advanced locally.

In southern California, imaginative citizens and alarmist officials have suggested that a likely target is not only the super-busy Los Angeles International Airport, but also Disneyland, prototype of all fun-filled theme parks.

In Seattle, a friend mentions the poorly protected port facilities – and the local boast that the city is “the gateway to Asia.”

Some Virginians envision their state as a target because it was the home of Washington, Jefferson and other founding fathers – and thus the birthplace of democracy.

Montana, rural and rustic Montana? An Air Force base and its wing of 200 nuclear ICBMs are deployed in the center of the state.

Kansas, innocent, agricultural Kansas? What better place for a devastating blow than “the heartland of America.”

In tiny, bucolic Vermont one of my former neighbors is quite serious when he says the state would attract terrorists because “just one weapon of mass destruction would wipe out the entire state, and that would be a coup for them.”

Who can fault such nervous citizens for their pessimism, when the government has led the way with scary speculation? Countless times, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has publicly identified potential types of targets, including nuclear power plants, transportation terminals, urban water supplies, food processing facilities, sports stadiums, convention arenas, cultural centers, structures symbolic of freedom or commerce and even shopping malls.

The people of this nation have been assailed by a near-incessant stream of alerts, warnings and official reports of imminent threats in particular areas – usually accompanied by vague references to electronic “chatter” by suspected terrorists, as interpreted by the not-at-all-infallible “intelligence community.”

Several times the color-coded alerts issued by the Department of Homeland Security have been boosted from yellow to orange – remaining at that high threat level for long periods before being quietly lowered again. Worse than that have been the frequent, flat statements by national leaders that the question about another major attack on the United States is not if it would occur but when.

In May of last year, then Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and Attorney General John Ashcroft issued this dire forecast:

“We are entering a season of symbolic events that could be attractive targets for terrorism. In the months to come, we will hold significant national celebrations, host important international meetings, and conduct our democratic political process leading to our elections. Credible intelligence from multiple sources indicates that al-Qaida plans to attempt an attack on the United States during this period.”

Nothing of the sort happened.

That doesn’t mean we are home free from the terrorist threat. The threat is real. But it’s reasonable to ask this question: Has the fear of the threat, stirred by some national leaders and magnified by some elements of the news media, exceeded the actual scope of the threat?

We must wonder also: Are the terrorists causing psychic damage to the United States, not with weapons but with false clues in their “chatter” picked up by our electronic surveillance? Is the historic confidence of the American people being undermined by a spreading paranoia?

Citizens have been urged to be “vigilant” about any suspicious signs of terrorist activity. It is now equally important that Americans be vigilant about fear-mongering.

Mistakes have been inevitable in the immense bureaucracy of the Department of Homeland Security. At an April 20 committee hearing, Sen. Pete Dominici, R-N.M., noted that it was put together in a hurry a few years ago, and he called it a “hodgepodge department.”

At the same hearing, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said that she considers the new Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, a “breath of fresh air” with his straightforward, no-nonsense approach.

In his first months on the job, Secretary Chertoff has not once warned of a possible, imminent threat, and it has been reported that he is considering ending the system of color-coded alerts. America, we can hope, may finally have in him a leader to strengthen the nation’s physical security while cooling down the fear which has gone too far.

Winthrop Griffith, of Owls Head, is the author of two books on politics and for more than a decade was a Senate staff professional in Washington.