Members of the United Nations Security Council should strictly enforce the Nuclear NPT

Thanks again to LasseizFaire for participating in the debate tournament, the judges, and a special thanks to Johnicle. Remember only judges can vote. ==Nuclear Peace== "I don't think leaders such as Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad are foolish enough to use nukes." My opponent has conceded. My main point was that nations would be unlikely to use the nuclear weapons. ==Terrorism== PRO's statement about Pakistan as a failed state and collapsing is unsubstantiated. Pakistan has a medium human development index and improving in development, not failing[1]. Aiding terrorism means nothing, since the US does it all the time. PRO has not provided logical evidence that terrorist would likely steal a bomb. This issue of terrorist accessing nuclear weapons is refuted. ==Other WMDs== I have shown why this is relevant, since banning nuclear weapons would cause countries to build other WMDs. Extend analysis that there will always be a demand for WMDs. Biological weapons can be hidden easier the nuclear programs and can cause more damage. ==Supports Nuclear Weapons== It allows these 5 nations to own nuclear weapons. It's in the treaty. That's very relevant to this debate, since we are discussing the nuclear NPT. Extend my analysis that the nuclear NPT is hypocritical. Allowing 5 arbitrary nations to own nuclear weapons is bad. These nations can inflict terror on non-nuclear nations. Also extend analysis that if only a small amount of nations own nuclear weapons, nuclear warfare is more likely to occur. ==National Sovereignty== However, given the choice between anarchy and an unelected leader, people would choose an unelected leader. I might prefer steak instead of bologna; however I would prefer bologna instead of no food at all. PRO has not refuted my analysis that nations prefer security, and nuclear weapons ensure security from foreign threats. ==Enforcement== Enforcement does not guarantee nations won't hide their nukes. Drug smuggling is enforced, yet that does not mean it does not occur. The whole purpose of trade sanctions is to devastate a civilian population. That's the purpose. Enforcement involves punishment. Punishment must in some way cause harm. Providing monetary incentives to end nuke programs would be devastatingly expensive to be effective. The opportunity cost for nations to own nuclear weapons is at least in the billions, perhaps trillions. This would encourage nations to start nuclear programs, in order to receive bribe money to stop the program. Also, why wouldn't a country just take the money and continue the nuclear program? ==Conclusion== PRO does not refute important statements. He describes them as irrelevant, even though I have clearly emphasized their importance. The nuclear NPT is detrimental to the world's security at large. Nuclear weapons prevent warfare and nations would not be foolish enough to use them. My opponent even agreed with this statement. The treaty undermines what is in the best interest of other nations, and its people. The treaty is hypocritical and does not deter nuclear weapons at all. It creates incentives for nations to create WMDs that are more dangerous. VOTE CON! http://en.wikipedia.org...[1]