Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) should be abolished in its current form.

RefutationsBan on NukesIt is very unrealistic because the U.S., UK, China, Russia, and France all have long "rap sheets" of violating international laws, agreements, treaties, etc.The U.S. violated international law repeatedly by sending U-2 spy planes over the USSR.[1]Russia violated the START treaty by developing new ICBM's.[2]The U.S. violated international law by producing biological weapons.[3]Russia violated international law by attacking Georgia in the South Ossetia War.[4]Some of these violations are minor, but others are rather horrifying.Regardless, Russia and the U.S. have already outright violated international laws and treaties by producing nuclear and biological weapons. This just goes to show you how ineffective these bans regarding nuclear weapons are when they are already in the hands of those that have them.So I will dismiss the notion of banning all nuclear weapons as unrealistic seeing that the signatories have trouble following bans on Bio weapons and ICBMs.Balance of PowerMy opponent has no rebuttal to the fact that North Korea attacked South Korea with no justified reason or in response to the threat Iran poses to Israel. He makes no attempt to defend the point that they are irresponsible and have malicious intentions.I've already shown that the U.S. bombings of Japan were in response to Japan's refusal to accept the Potsdam declaration (surrender terms), and therefore would have required more time, lives, and money to end the war. [5] In this case the bombs were used responsibly.The colonization of foreign powers by the UK and France does not show that they are responsible with nuclear weapons. They would have no need or motive to use them irresponsibly against their colonies especially with firm governments in place. North Korea and Iran are currently aggressive to nations that mean them no harm and would have motive to use them in a war they may instigate if they were being beaten in a military confrontation.Israel is a stable country with a firm government in place and has not been aggressive towards other major powers.Belarus, Ukraine, and South Africa were simply places were the U.S. and USSR kept nuclear weapons to be used in the event of a war. Just because the USSR kept nukes in Ukraine does not mean Ukraine could fire them. This point is moot.North Korea has crude nuclear weapons that have less yield than 1,000 tons of tnt.[6]To give you an idea of how ineffective that is I have posted a video link that shows the explosion of 100 tons. They have "nukes" in the most liberal sense of the word.South Africa was only able to create 6 nuclear bombs and only in response to the communist presencce in Africa. They quickly destroyed them showing that they were responsible. [7]DefenseU.S. restraintThe U.S. has considered using nuclear weapons in large conflicts but refused to. That shows restraint.Minor RevisionsAllowing nuclear states to be legitimate under the NPT is a minor revision. India and Israel already have nuclear weapons. Revising the NPT to allow stable states with proven safeguards is minor since every state that has nuclear weapons worth reckoning with is currently under a stable govt. Revising the NPT to include them would change nothing.Nuclear SafeguardsThe NPT does not simply oppose the production of nuclear weapons in unstable states, it also opposes the exchange of nuclear weapons between other countries.Sure the countries who manufacture nuclear weapons such as the U.S., Russia, China, etc all have complex safeguards.But say Russia decides to hand a few over to Iran. Then Iran decides to give a handful to Palestine and so on.The point is is that countries obtaining nuclear weapons will not always be the ones building them, they could simply be the buyer or allies of those that posses them.Sources[1]http://bit.ly...[2]http://bit.ly...[3]http://bit.ly...[4]http://reut.rs...[5]http://bit.ly...[6]http://bit.ly...[7]http://bit.ly...bit.ly/KjcKM <-- YT link