The Biden administration has recently enlisted an individual in the Department of Energy with fringe perspectives on the impact of ‘queer theory’ on US nuclear policies. Sneha Nair was engaged as a special assistant at the agency’s nuclear security subsection, the National Nuclear Security Administration, prior to penning an unconventional article promoting queer perspectives in nuclear decision-making circles.
In the op-ed, Nair aggressively pushes the idea that queer theory, often related to sexual orientation and gender identity debates, is somehow desperately needed to inform the United States’ nuclear policies. As noted by certain news outlets, such implications seem to reinforce the growing influence of identity politics on matters that are both technically and strategically intricate like nuclear policy.
Nair’s article titled, ‘Queering nuclear weapons: How LGBTQ+ inclusion strengthens security and reshapes disarmament,’ provides startling insights into the direction in which the Biden administration seems to be heading. It seems to feature a contrived attempt at merging nuclear policy with LGBTQ+ activism, displaying a skewed perspective on a fiercely technical and strategic field.
She bases her arguments on the notion that any form of argumentative tension against queer people could ‘undermine nuclear security and increase nuclear threats.’ In her own words, inclusivity for queer people is far from being an ethical exercise in social justice; rather, it is a crucial prerequisite for forming effective nuclear policy. This unorthodox ideology was shared in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
Nair, an alumnus of St. Andrews University, further suggests that nuclear conversations are inherently gendered. In her text, she claims that nuclear deterrence is tied to notions of ‘rationality’ and ‘security’ while disarmament is connected with ’emotion’ and misunderstanding of ‘real’ security mechanisms.
She strongly asserts that a ‘queer lens’ gives priority to human rights and wellbeing over the broad concept of national security. Questioning conventional wisdom around nuclear weapons, Nair wonders whether these weapons truly prevent nuclear wars, stabilize geopolitics and reduce the chances of conventional war.
Not surprisingly, she fails to answer those questions herself and instead seeks to question their origin and the interests they serve. Quite tellingly, she doesn’t substantiate her own claims or provide evidence showing how these views translate into practical policy that can enhance nuclear security and stabilize geopolitics.
Prior to joining the Biden administration, Nair was involved with the Stimson Center as a nuclear research expert. The co-author of the controversial piece, Louis Reitmann, was associated with the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation as a research associate.
This puzzling discourse emerged amidst news suggesting that Biden has purportedly ordered secret preparations against nuclear threats emanating from China, Russia, and North Korea. In retrospect, this peculiar approach that seems to prioritize identity politics above national security is consistent with Biden’s characteristically opaque approach to handling foreign affairs.
In March, Biden gave his approval to an undisclosed plan focusing on Beijing as a nuclear risk, indicating preparedness for hypothetical cooperation between the Communist nation, Pyongyang, and Moscow. It seems highly unusual, perhaps even naive, that while the administration develops plans concerning these immense potential threats, it also infuses nuclear policy with divisive identity politics.
The Biden administration seems to prioritize fringe theories and identity politics over national security, as evidenced by their new hire at the Department of Energy. This unorthodox approach to nuclear security compromises the integrity of the role, which should be focused unequivocally on national security rather than expanding the grounds of ideological debates.
The implications of such a hire should not be downplayed. Instead of prioritizing a technocratic understanding of nuclear policy, the Biden administration seems to favor ideological positionality. How can it guarantee nuclear security when it seems more focused on political correctness?
Choosing individuals with such ideologically charged views for roles associated with national security is a controversial move. It invites valid questions about the seriousness of the Biden administration to address and anticipate national security threats rigorously.
By integrating a political agenda into something as high-stakes and sophisticated as nuclear security, one has to question whether the Biden administration truly understands the gravity of these roles. By giving preference to divisive identity politics over pragmatic and comprehensive strategies, it risks undermining national security with fractured ideological battles.
Delving into Biden’s choices reveals a pattern of prioritization that should concern American citizens. While it is essential to foster equity and inclusivity, placing these factors at the core of nuclear policy seems detached from the real, unquestioning essentials of national security.
In conclusion, it is concerning that ideology and personal beliefs seem to take precedence over expertise, knowledge, and rationality in the Biden administration. This peculiar approach to nuclear policy and national security does not reassure the American public of its safety and security in the hands of the current leadership.
Identity Politics Infects Biden’s Nuclear Policy: How Safe Are We? appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
