Instead of being based on the actual remarks made by President Biden’s, the government’s . Other political leaders’ responses appeared to have influence by previous worries about the security of the nuclear weapons. Since the background of the issue was not explained, it appeared that everyone had trouble understanding Biden’s words.
“And what I believe to be maybe one of the world’s most dangerous nations: Pakistan. The statement, “Nuclear weapons without any coherence,” was stated in the context of a list of worldwide dangers. The United States in the context of a shifting international environment.
President Biden’s meant political instability
President Biden most likely meant political instability in a nation with nuclear weapons, according to Dr. Adil Sultan, dean of the faculty of aerospace and strategic studies at Air University and a former senior official at Strategic Plans Division. He didn’t challenge Pakistan’s nuclear security, and the concern mentioned in the transcript posted on the White House website wasn’t this one.
Dr. Sultan continued, “The media’s and nearly all political parties’ response appears to be misguided. We may have raised attention to a subject (danger to nuclear arsenal) that wasn’t previously being discussed as a result of this dispute.
President Biden’s negligence
Biden has neglect Pakistan for some time, so the unexpected reference was undoubtedly justified. It may have happened as a result of a recent briefing on the state of Pakistan that he may have received.
It would be incorrect to assume that the US no longer cares about Pakistan’s nuclear security. The United States’ priorities in its defense collaboration with Pakistan are “mainly centered on counterterrorism and nuclear security,” according to Ely Ratner, assistant secretary of defense for the US. She reminded us of this only last month.
Although its main fear is that nuclear weapons may wind up in the hands of radicals. Washington does not just see nuclear security. The standpoint of the security architecture’s ability to guard and defend the N-arsenal. The problem has a larger context that has to be taken into account.
This opinion appears to be shared by Toby Dalton, co-director of the Carnegie Nuclear Policy Program in Washington.
In a discussion , he stated: “It is possible to have solid nuclear security standards and yet feel unsafe as a nation. Fears from the previous ten years are revived by the TTP’s revival and the political turmoil. I believe that is the perception.
Political unrest, economic hardship, and militancy are among the problems Pakistan is believed to be experiencing. Concerns about the stability of the nation are heightened by these issues taken together. Political polarization has reached a high in recent months, and the economic situation has gotten worse.
IMF programme
Even if the nation has signed up for an IMF programme, the people’s economic suffering is just getting worse. Currently, when the outside world looks at Pakistan, it notices warning indications of trouble.
The rumours of the Tehreek-i-Taliban returning to Pakistan and the rise of terrorism. Especially against the backdrop of the Afghan Taliban governing Afghanistan, contradict that conclusion.
Therefore, it was believed that the National Security Committee’s discussion of the worsening conditions in Swat and other areas of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa represented the highest degree of recognition of the impending catastrophe.
It’s not as if the US has suddenly become attentive to these concerns, which have a significant impact on Pakistan’s stability; they have always been at the top of the foreign policy priority list for Pakistan under the Obama administration.
These concerns have gained new life, and it is feared that President Biden’s remarks may ignite a new wave of worries about nuclear security in Western capitals and the media.
[…] Department of Energy researchers are expect to announce Tuesday that they have made a concerning nuclear fusion breakthrough 2022, which could be use as a revolutionary source of renewable […]