Biden says Pakistan may be ‘one of the most dangerous nations in the world’

Zapper

Experienced member
India Correspondent
Messages
1,694
Reactions
10 876
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
India

United States President Joe Biden said Pakistan may be “one of the most dangerous nations in the world” as the country has “nuclear weapons without any cohesion”, it emerged on Saturday.

He made the remarks while addressing a Democratic congressional campaign committee reception on Thursday.

A transcript of the address, published on the White House’s website, quoted Biden as saying: “… And what I think is maybe one of the most dangerous nations in the world: Pakistan. Nuclear weapons without any cohesion.”

The US president’s remarks were made in the context of the changing geopolitical situation globally.

(More at link)


=================================================================================


At a fundraiser, Biden said Pakistan may be one of the world’s most dangerous countries, adding, “Nuclear weapons without any cohesion.”


1665806712247.png


United States President Joe Biden has said that Pakistan may be “one of the most dangerous nations in the world” as the country has “nuclear weapons without any cohesion”, it was reported on Saturday.

The US president made the comments while addressing a Democratic congressional campaign committee reception on Thursday

“And what I think is maybe one of the most dangerous nations in the world: Pakistan. Nuclear weapons without any cohesion,” Biden was quoted as saying in a transcript of the address, published on the White House’s website.

Biden’s remarks were made with regard to the changing geopolitical situation globally, as he highlighted that the world was changing rapidly, and countries were rethinking their alliances.

“And the truth of the matter is — I genuinely believe this — that the world is looking to us. Not a joke. Even our enemies are looking to us to figure out how we figure this out, what we do,” he added.

Biden maintained that there was “a lot at stake” and that the US had the capacity to lead the world to a place it had never been to before.

“Did any of you ever think you’d have a Russian leader, since the Cuban Missile Crisis, threatening the use of tactical nuclear weapons that would — could only kill three, four thousand people and be limited to make a point?” he questioned.

“Did anybody think we’d be in a situation where China is trying to figure out its role relative to Russia and relative to India and relative to Pakistan?” the US president further added.

Biden claimed that he had spent “more time with [Chinese President] Xi Jinping than any head of state in the world”. He furthered that his Chinese counterpart was “a guy who understands what he wants but has an enormous, enormous array of problems”.

“How do we handle that? How do we handle that relative to what’s going on in Russia? And what I think is maybe one of the most dangerous nations in the world: Pakistan. Nuclear weapons without any cohesion,” Biden said.

He added that there was “a lot going on”, but emphasised that there were “enormous opportunities for the United States to change the dynamic in the second quarter of the 21st century”.


https://www.dawn.com/news/1715159/b...ne-of-the-most-dangerous-nations-in-the-world

https://tribune.com.pk/story/238170...ne-of-the-most-dangerous-nations-in-the-world
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zapper

Experienced member
India Correspondent
Messages
1,694
Reactions
10 876
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
India

Controls on Pakistan’s Nuclear Technology​


The safety of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons continue to be a concern due to political instability and rising militancy in the country

Introduction​

Political instability and increasing militancy in Pakistan have led to growing concerns about the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. Some observers fear scenarios such as the theft of nuclear weapons by terrorists, the ascension of religious extremists in Islamabad, or the proliferation of weapons by radical sympathizers within Pakistan’s nuclear complex. The assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto in December 2007 and the kidnapping of two nuclear officials inPakistan’s tribal areas in February 2008 have only heightened these worries. While U.S. and Pakistani officials have expressed confidence in controls over Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, serious concerns remain regarding the impact of continued instability in the country on these safeguards.

Nuclear Program​

Pakistan developed its nuclear weapons clandestinely beginning in the early 1970s. Many details of the program remain secret. According to October 2007 estimates, Pakistan has produced enough fissile material for up to sixty nuclear bombs or warheads. The bulk of Pakistan’s weapons are fueled by highly enriched uranium (HEU), including those detonated in the May 1998 tests that announced Pakistan’s emergence as a nuclear power. A 2007 report (PDF) from the International Panel on Fissile Materials, an independent group of arms-control and nonproliferation experts, states that Pakistan continues to produce highly enriched uranium for weapons at a rate of at least one hundred kilograms per year. In 1998, Pakistan also began producing plutonium for more advanced nuclear weapons. In all, experts say Pakistan’s nuclear program involves at least twenty facilities, including uranium mines, gas-centrifuge plants to produce HEU, light- and heavy-water research reactors, and plutonium reprocessing facilities.

When Pakistan set out to become a nuclear power, it found itself at odds with much of the rest of the world, which was focused on stopping proliferation, says Peter R. Lavoy, former director of the Center for Contemporary Conflict at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. Nearly every country signed the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which limited nuclear weapons to the five states that already had them: the United States, France, Great Britain, Russia, and China. Pakistan and rival India, however, did not sign, and India tested its first fissile weapon in 1974. Pakistan “turned to clandestine means to acquire nuclear technology—cooperating with shady middlemen, financiers, and front companies overseas,” Lavoy and Feroz Hassan Khan, a retired brigadier general in the Pakistani Army, wrote in a January 2004 op-ed in the San Jose Mercury News. “In a sense, they were experts at illicit procurement,” says David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security.

Control Over the Nukes​

Since 2000, the nation’s key nuclear institutions have been under the unified control of the National Command Authority (NCA), a ten-member body, comprising the president; prime minister; chairman of the joint chiefs of staff; ministers of defense, interior, and finance; director-general of the Strategic Plans Division (SPD); and the commanders of the army, air force, and navy. Decision-making power regarding nuclear deployment rests with the NCA. Its chairman, who is the president of Pakistan, casts the final vote. The army, air force, and navy each have a strategic force command responsible for planning, control, and directives on the use of nuclear weapons. The Strategic Plans Division acts as National Command Authority’s secretariat, is in charge of developing and managing nuclear capability and exercises day-to-day control. The operational security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, experts say, is the responsibility of General Khalid Kidwai, the three-star general who runs the SPD.

On December 13, 2007, President Pervez Musharraf formalized these authorities and structure under the National Command Authority Ordinance, 2007. A 2008 Congressional Research Service report (PDF) points out that “the timing of the ordinance was meant to help the command and control system weather political transitions and potentially preserve the military’s strong control over the system.”

More on:

Pakistan

Nonproliferation, Arms Control, and Disarmament

Before Musharraf took control of the government in a the 1999 coup, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program enjoyed considerable autonomy under the military’s oversight, many experts say. Because the program was secret, the scientists working on it were allowed great latitude. In particular, some experts say there was very loose governmental control of the nation’s main nuclear research laboratory, which was named after and run by the nuclear physicist known as the father of the Pakistani bomb, Adbul Qadeer Khan. “It was a no-questions-asked regime for the KRL [Khan Research Laboratory],” one long-serving Pakistani nuclear scientist told The Washington Post in 2004. “Dr. Khan was never supposed to answer or explain his frequent trips. He spent billions of dollars without any significant financial oversight.” In February 2004, Khan admitted on Pakistani television that he had shared nuclear technology with other countries for more than a decade.

Pakistan’s government denied any knowledge of Khan’s sales of nuclear-related parts, plans, and designs to Iran, Libya, and North Korea. According to Pakistani investigators, at least two Pakistani nuclear scientists also met with al-Qaeda representatives in 2000 and 2001, but authorities could not prove they shared nuclear-related information. And in 1990, A. Q. Khan’s nuclear laboratory reportedly sent a letter to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein offering assistance with building nuclear centrifuges. An International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) investigation concluded that the Iraqis never took up the offer—they already had sophisticated enrichment technology and suspected a scam, The New York Times reported.

In his televised statement, Khan took full responsibility for the transfers. “There was never, ever any kind of authority for these transfers from the government,” he said. But some experts inside and outside the government say it is difficult to believe that Pakistan’s nuclear secrets could have been exported without the knowledge of some in the military and the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence agency, especially because some shipments were made on Pakistani military aircraft. Former CFR Fellow Kathy Gannon argues it is likely that scientists had at least tacit approval from sympathetic elements in the Pakistani military and intelligence services. The Pakistani government inquiry into the nuclear transfers found that senior military and intelligence officials were guilty of “omissions” in the proper performance of their duties but did not actively take part in the scheme.

Safeguards for the Arsenal​

Little is known about the precise safety procedures. According to various media reports, the weapons are stored with their fissile cores separated from the nonnuclear components, so they cannot be fired at a moment’s notice or without the cooperation of a number of military officials. According to Lavoy, Pakistan could assemble and deploy several nuclear weapons within a week. “I know there are apprehensions around the world, but I’m extremely sure they [Pakistan’s nuclear weapons] are in very secure hands,” Musharraf told the UN General Assembly shortly after the September 11 attacks.

Since September 2001, the Bush administration has spent almost $100 million on a highly classified program to help Pakistan secure its nuclear arsenal, according to a November 2007 New York Times report. The aid, part of the federal budget, paid for the training of Pakistani personnel in the United States and the construction of a nuclear security training center in Pakistan that is not yet complete.

Media reports also point out that the United States helped Pakistan develop Permissive Action Links (PALs), a protective fail-safe system that the United States uses to guard against accidental or unauthorized launches of nuclear systems. PALs requires a code to be entered before a weapon can be detonated. Pakistan reportedly requires the “standard two-man rule,” that two separate operators enter codes or turn keys to arm and launch nuclear weapons. The Strategic Plans Division has about ten thousand troops to ensure security at nuclear sites.

India’s National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan said in December 2007 the country had “a contingency plan in place [to deal with a situation] of nukes falling into wrong hands and getting used by elements in Pakistan.” Experts say India’s primary strategy to deter Pakistan from using its weapons has been by possessing its own nuclear arsenal. But Ashley J. Tellis, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, says “I don’t think it makes sense for India to think of a unilateral action. There is only one country who can do this and that’s the United States.” Experts find it highly improbable that China, Israel or any other country with regional interests may try any unilateral action to secure Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program in case of breakdown of safeguards.

Concerns about Breakdown in Order​

Many experts say they believe that in the short term, oversight from Pakistan’s professional military is tight enough that the risk of theft or accidental deployment of a weapon is low. If Musharraf were assassinated by Islamic fundamentalists or other enemies, another military general with similarly pro-Western views would likely take his place, many experts say. “The army is the glue of society and will continue to be so ... and it has a very firm hold over the military facilities,” says Nicholas Platt, a former U.S. ambassador to Pakistan. In his opinion, “the specter of radical Islamists taking over and brandishing the Islamic bomb is rather far-fetched.” U.S. military and defense department officials have also repeatedly expressed confidence in the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal despite rising militancy and political instability in the country.

But the safeguards are not foolproof, say experts. In this May 2007 CFR meeting on nuclear black markets, Mark Fitzpatrick, senior fellow for nonproliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, pointed out that A.Q. Khan’s network may not be dismantled, as Pakistani officials claimed. “The assessment we heard was that it is not airtight, that there is still some leakage,” he said. Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies says “There’s basically a whole series of checks and balances in the system, but it’s also inevitably true that checks and balances can be bypassed,” he says. Experts say the risk increases if Pakistan moves to a wartime footing with nuclear-armed India. Then, the missiles or other delivery systems would be matched with their plutonium or uranium cores and accidents or theft would be easier, experts say. In the longer term, some experts fear that domestic instability in Pakistan could eventually lead to a situation in which the security around the weapons breaks down.

In January 2008, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the IAEA, expressed his fears about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. But Pakistan dismissed his concerns and reiterated that its nuclear arsenal was secure. Pervez Hoodbhoy, chairman of the department of physics at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad, writes in an International Herald Tribune op-ed that Pakistanis live in a state of denial. He says safety procedures and their associated technologies are only as safe as the men who use them and “the deliberate nurturing of jihadism by the state has, over 30 years, produced extremism inside parts of the military and intelligence.”

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/controls-pakistans-nuclear-technology?amp
 

guest12

Well-known member
Messages
417
Reactions
2 889
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Dangerous my ass. All this black propaganda because Pakistan is only nuclear weapon holder muslim majority nation thats all.
 

Heartbang

Experienced member
Messages
2,482
Reactions
8 3,830
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
"şecaat arz ederken merd-i kıpti sirkatin söyler"
(ballsy gypsy confesses of his theft while praising himself)



this was their long awaited plan, and now they dont even bother to hide it.
after all, how dare them Muslims have the A-bomb, anyway?!
 
M

Manomed

Guest
So India hurling missiles inside of pakistan is safe but pakistan having nukes makes them dangereous lol

tbh I don't even like pakistan because of them supporting shit ton of terror groups but this is just hypocrisy
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,629
Reactions
5 18,317
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
Dangerous my ass. All this black propaganda because Pakistan is only nuclear weapon holder muslim majority nation thats all.

Funny how they dont have a problem with Israel getting nukes.

This bs peaceful world without nukes is just Russia and the USA keeping all the nukes but God forbid any other nation getting their hands.

Because you know why so the Americans and Russians can go invade any country they want. If those countries they invaded had nukes I doubt they would have invaded.
 

dBSPL

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Ambassador
Messages
2,108
Reactions
86 10,941
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
If you remove Pakistan in the sentence and replace it with India, it becomes a completely correct determination.
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,500
Reactions
111 19,266
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
Quite entertaining though to see lot of Pakistanis at a certain forum, agree with and celebrate Biden/deep state saying this.

Some have a masochist pleasure on it too after going all in with the conspiracy theory that their political favourite was removed by US/Pak Army/<insert bogeyman here>.

The hate towards the Pakistan "establishment" (both the current iteration and the larger concept of it) by its population is getting quite unwieldy and ripe....more than it ever has been as each bandaid comes off.

All I can say to all of them (DHA, plebs, peasants and larps inbetween) is ....you reap what you sow.

IMO it pays to have old name with named identity (something predating the 20th century) to harness to begin with....otherwise the delusion hits quick and hard....and the psychosis/hysteria is not too far behind it....and there it sticks and ferments more with time.

Turks (see that old name?) simply do not understand this unique psyche problem in the end.

All the other "stans".... I can call them the prefix, its the tribal name.... Kazakh, Uzbek, Kyrgyz, Turkmen, Tajik....and Afghan.

But it becomes bad to do this for just one other ....spawned on a literal "purity" test.
 
Last edited:

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,500
Reactions
111 19,266
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
If you remove Pakistan in the sentence and replace it with India, it becomes a completely correct determination.

and who has India proliferated its nuclear technology to? (so brazenly with US C-130s even)
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,500
Reactions
111 19,266
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
So India hurling missiles inside of pakistan is safe but pakistan having nukes makes them dangereous lol

tbh I don't even like pakistan because of them supporting shit ton of terror groups but this is just hypocrisy

US looked the other way in the 1980's to begin with giving a strategic nod then....they are 2nd part (after China) of Pakistan's story acquiring nukes.

The 1980s detente and cooperation between US and China (and especially expanded for the soviet afghan war) is underlooked by many to this very day....especially the US deep state and its lackeys.

US will never address any of that, their hypocrisy is immense.... how things changed for their relationship with Pakistan after cold war ended and USSR broke up.

The problem is Pakistan does not learn from this and build itself up genuinely (this needs it to let go of issues that cloud its mentality and psyche)....so that foreign policy fickleness is mitigated as much as possible (as China to large degree has found out as it grown its economy and India to a certain degree as well).

Hence they bob like driftwood on larger currents increasingly...rather than being able to steer in it.
 
Last edited:

GoatsMilk

Experienced member
Messages
3,442
Reactions
11 9,062
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Its basically an insult, bidan is calling pakistan a banana republic insinuating the madness that such a backward and unstable country has nuclear weapons. He's not saying its dangerous in the sense that its a strong and organised nation with a great economy and industry.
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,500
Reactions
111 19,266
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
Its basically an insult, bidan is calling pakistan a banana republic insinuating the madness that such a backward and unstable country has nuclear weapons. He's not saying its dangerous in the sense that its a strong and organised nation with a great economy and industry.

US deep state (this biden guy is just a mouthpiece sockpuppet, theres really not much going on in his head) just has a bunch of problems/potentials with Pakistan that it seeks to prod on for its current carrot and stick policy with them (the same Biden admin announced 450 million sustainment program for Pakistan's F-16s, angering India recently).

This is a long story to get into the details.

It is telling that Biden has not made one phone call to either the last (deposed) PM (Imran Khan) or the current one. They have not met at any fora either.

US will play a good cop and bad cop routine with Pakistan. China does the same thing too in its own way.

Pakistan does not fundamentally understand what big powerful countries are like, it establishment sticks to and plugs some aggrandized version of itself...and they have ruined their growth and prosperity because that detracts from competence on what actually bulks you up and pays for the bills (and your interests).
 

GoatsMilk

Experienced member
Messages
3,442
Reactions
11 9,062
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
US deep state (this biden guy is just a mouthpiece sockpuppet, theres really not much going on in his head) just has a bunch of problems/potentials with Pakistan that it seeks to prod on for its current carrot and stick policy with them (the same Biden admin announced 450 million sustainment program for Pakistan's F-16s, angering India recently).

This is a long story to get into the details.

It is telling that Biden has not made one phone call to either the last (deposed) PM (Imran Khan) or the current one. They have not met at any fora either.

US will play a good cop and bad cop routine with Pakistan. China does the same thing too in its own way.

Pakistan does not fundamentally understand what big powerful countries are like, it establishment sticks to and plugs some aggrandized version of itself...and they have ruined their growth and prosperity because that detracts from competence on what actually bulks you up and pays for the bills (and your interests).

If there is one thing Turks know all about its the good cop, bad cop routine. The problem we have is when the USA plays bad cop we either fall into the lap of Russia or some other American lackey in Europe, or vice versa.

Also the aggrandizement is generally something that occurs in people that have a deep sense of insecurity, not always conscious of it but its there subconsciously. The aggrandizement keeps a nation and its people behind in most cases.
 
M

Manomed

Guest
If you remove Pakistan in the sentence and replace it with India, it becomes a completely correct determination.
I doubt India ever threatened anyone with nukes, Just because Its "pakistan" doesn't mean you should circlejerk these are the guys who didn't let us have the kabul international airport. And purposely sending immigrants 24/7 to Turkiye
 

GoatsMilk

Experienced member
Messages
3,442
Reactions
11 9,062
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
I doubt India ever threatened anyone with nukes, Just because Its "pakistan" doesn't mean you should circlejerk these are the guys who didn't let us have the kabul international airport.

I'm fairly ignorant of Pakistan/India relations and history. All i know about India is that she has certain domestic issues like most nations. But India despite its massive size and despite being a nuclear power it never gave off the impression it was looking to start a fight with anyone.

Even in recent years with the anti-Turkey sentiment stemming from erdogans constant shitting on India, they still haven't thrown their capabilities and weight entirely behind our foes.

The other thing is i live in England and got to know plenty of Indians, mostly Sikhs, but also Hindus and Muslims and they don't really strike me as the people who are looking to start trouble or a fight. Unless you instigate these people, all they seemed concerned with here is making a life for themselves.

If erdogan wanted to help Pakistan and India resolve their issues he should have done it quietly and behind doors, instead he antagonised India and further inflamed divisions between either state.

Other then making Pakistanis happy, i don't see any tangible results or benefits for any nation involved from it.

From what i gather Bangaladesh has a good relationship with India, we have a good relationship with Pakistan and Bangladesh. If Turkey helped resolve Pakistan/India differences, or even just helped to diminish them, thats a market of 1.5 to 2 billion people for Turkey to benefit from. And honestly if you have a good relationship with these people i don't see them looking to undermine us the same way the USA and EU does.
 

Zapper

Experienced member
India Correspondent
Messages
1,694
Reactions
10 876
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
India
If you remove Pakistan in the sentence and replace it with India, it becomes a completely correct determination.
Quite the irony when it was pakistan which threatened to retaliate with nukes every time when there are heightened tensions or escalated skirmishes at the border while India hardly ever brings up the usage of nukes on a public platform. Not to mention, we're still bound by NFU (no first use) policy

When Indian military came up with the concept of cold start doctrine against pak's aggression and terrorist activities, pak immediately made a statement they'd resort to tactical nukes ... simply reflects pak's disregard to their own populace on the potential nuclear fallout
 

Gessler

Contributor
Moderator
India Moderator
Messages
852
Reactions
38 1,896
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
The problem with Biden is that you can never know when something he says is a result of a policy decision and when it's the dementia talking.

I also heard that there was a resolution tabled in the House that seeks to recognise the 1971 Genocide of Bangladeshis.

Something tells me the US is not entirely happy with whatever came of Gen. Bajwa's recent visit to DC.
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,629
Reactions
5 18,317
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
I'm fairly ignorant of Pakistan/India relations and history. All i know about India is that she has certain domestic issues like most nations. But India despite its massive size and despite being a nuclear power it never gave off the impression it was looking to start a fight with anyone.

Even in recent years with the anti-Turkey sentiment stemming from erdogans constant shitting on India, they still haven't thrown their capabilities and weight entirely behind our foes.

The other thing is i live in England and got to know plenty of Indians, mostly Sikhs, but also Hindus and Muslims and they don't really strike me as the people who are looking to start trouble or a fight. Unless you instigate these people, all they seemed concerned with here is making a life for themselves.

If erdogan wanted to help Pakistan and India resolve their issues he should have done it quietly and behind doors, instead he antagonised India and further inflamed divisions between either state.

Other then making Pakistanis happy, i don't see any tangible results or benefits for any nation involved from it.

From what i gather Bangaladesh has a good relationship with India, we have a good relationship with Pakistan and Bangladesh. If Turkey helped resolve Pakistan/India differences, or even just helped to diminish them, thats a market of 1.5 to 2 billion people for Turkey to benefit from. And honestly if you have a good relationship with these people i don't see them looking to undermine us the same way the USA and EU does.

I doubt we can mediate as India vs Pakistan their wounds run too deep.

Its geopolitics, religion and historical grievances.

Too complex.

We should just maintain relations with both. Just like how we maintain relations with Palestine and Israel.
 

Gessler

Contributor
Moderator
India Moderator
Messages
852
Reactions
38 1,896
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
Quite the irony when it was pakistan which threatened to retaliate with nukes every time when there are heightened tensions or escalated skirmishes at the border while India hardly ever brings up the usage of nukes on a public platform. Not to mention, we're still bound by NFU (no first use) policy

When Indian military came up with the concept of cold start doctrine against pak's aggression and terrorist activities, pak immediately made a statement they'd resort to tactical nukes ... simply reflects pak's disregard to their own populace on the potential nuclear fallout

Not to mention putting a nuclear delivery system in the hands of a Brigade commander is a recipe for disaster. This on top of the nuclear arsenal having zero civilian control or oversight. The Army junta is still in control of everything, not the "elected" government.

Lets not forget this is the country where officer-rank members of the Navy sought to literally hijack a Guided Missile Frigate and use its SSMs in a terror attack.


Anyone who thinks there need not be any concerns over Pakistan's control (or lack thereof) of its arsenal is not living in reality.

Trust me, if this country was your neighbour, you'd be extremely concerned.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom