VANCOUVER, British Columbia — After devoting the single greatest part of my time to security most days at the 2010 Winter Olympics, I had to ask myself: Was it worth it? Would I willingly repeat the experience at future events of this kind?

Unequivocally, yes.

Americans and citizens of other countries must accept that we live in the Age of Terrorism. The players and rules have changed, which requires a modification of threat perceptions and accompanying behavior. It would be naive to believe a community could host the Olympics or something similar without substantial protective measures beyond the ordinary. Large, public, globally significant events with tremendous news-media coverage are simply too tempting to terrorists.

Indeed, Americans traveling to the Olympics this year received U.S. government warnings to remain vigilant about terrorist threats. One even specified that al-Qaeda’s “demonstrated capability to carry out sophisticated attacks against sizable structures” made it one of the greatest potential threats to the Games.

In addition, Canadian officials conducted a series of preparedness exercises in advance of the Olympics. Those included so-called nightmare scenarios, such as one in which a terrorist used an artificial snow-making machine to blast radioactive material into a crowd. Although some people found those mock sessions unnerving, they served a useful purpose. The effort was not aimed at creating an environment of fear and insecurity, as some suggested. Rather, it sought to raise awareness and demonstrate capability. And it could well have deterred troublemakers.

Therefore, I welcomed walking miles along specially fenced, draped, barricaded and monitored paths; presenting my credentials and tickets; passing through metal detectors; having my bag searched; discarding partly consumed beverages because open containers were routinely forbidden (at some of the Games, no drinks were allowed); emptying my pockets; removing my heavy coat in the cold; assuming the outstretched-arm position for handheld security wands; and receiving frequent direction from a multitude of police officers, security personnel and other staff. The reward was peace of mind as I watched some of the world’s greatest athletes — from the men’s ski cross competition to ice dancing to the Canada-Germany men’s ice hockey game — perform without interference by miscreants.

To those who complained about cost, disruption and visibility of security before and during the Olympics and wondered about the wisdom of having so many police officers “just standing around,” I have three words to share: Stop your whining.

It is the same advice I would give to people who grouse about the typically lengthy, slow-moving lines snaking through today’s airports. I would rather put up with a little inconvenience than risk admitting notoriously unprincipled evil-doers who relentlessly seek opportunities to inflict harm.

What about the concern that the money spent on security at the Olympics could have been directed to other, more-pressing needs in Vancouver, for example, poverty and crime? Actually, once the city was selected as the host site, that question became moot. This is not to say that those problems are unimportant. The opposite is true. But the discussion about fixing them should be separate from the Olympics.

In the end, the Games were spectacular and safe. Again, was it worth it? Would I willingly repeat the extensive security experience at future events of this kind?

Unequivocally, yes.