I would be pleased to do so. If I understand your question correctly, you're asking if a single-engine fighter is as safe as a twin-engine fighter.
Of course, when you have two, it's always better than one. However, the manner in which we now understand the technology--the materials, engineering, and the manufacturing of our engines--is clearly demonstrated in both the commercial and military worlds. In the commercial world we used to cross the ocean on four engines. We now do it on two engines. Those engines are more reliable today than the four used to be.
Depending on the weight of the fighter and depending on the amount of thrust you require for this fighter, you of course have a choice. Some aircraft have been designed with two engines: the CF-18 Hornet and Super Hornet. Others have been designed on a single engine. The F-16 is an example.
We have looked at detailed statistics in operation, both in peace-time training and in conflict zones. Today's engines are so reliable that one or two does not make a significant difference. The proof of the pudding is that in the launch of this Joint Strike Fighter program at the outset, all airframe companies deemed that they could now have one engine that would generate 40,000 pounds of thrust, and each independently came with a fighter jet with one engine. Today flying on one engine is within the very much accepted level of risk.