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

Thanks again to my opponent for his response. Nuclear Peace From the creation of the first nuclear weapon in 1945 to present day, a span of over 65 years, there has only been two nuclear bombs dropped. One in August 6th and one during august 9th 1945. During that time, there was only one country that owned nuclear weapons, the United States. From August 9th, 1945 to the present there has not been a single nuclear bombed dropped despite an increase in the amount of nuclear weapons and countries that own them. Countries do not aim to achieve nuclear weapons to use them offensively, but rather to protect themselves against foreign adversaries. Fear is a strong motive. Nations would not risk using nuclear warheads, knowing that others also have warheads and would retaliate. It would be irrational for a leader to put themselves and their nation at risk by launching a nuclear missile. Hence, this might explain why there has not been a major world war since 1945, and a nuclear warhead has not been used since 1945. Instead of the cold war turning into a full scale war, instead it was just proxy wars. No two sides engaged against one another, despite tensions. The only case of war between two countries with nuclear weapons was during the Kargil War between Pakistan and India. Even during the war, neither country engaged in nuclear war and peace came quickly. Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty supports nuclear weapons The nuclear non-proliferation treaty does not call for an end for nuclear weapons. Instead it states that 5 countries can own nuclear weapons: The United States, France, the United Kingdom, and China. One must ask why these five countries? Is it because they can for some reason be trusted not to use them? The United States has already used two. Is it because these countries are "peaceful"? Hardly.The United Kingdom and France owned colonies that exploited states resources[1] Here is only a brief examples of the wars fought after world war II. The United States and French fought wars in Vietnam, the Soviet Union fought a war against Afghanistan, and the United Kingdom's fought a war against Argentina during the Falklands war. Is it because these countries are more "democratic"? Russia and China are both very corrupt. Before the present, these countries were even worse. Joseph Stalin was a ruthless dictator that killed millions, some even estimating up to 60 million [2]. He purged those who would oppress him and banish others to the terrors of Siberia. He was mentally unstable and a tyrant. Present day china is known for its restriction on freedom speech [3] and inhumane working condition s. [4] There is no peaceful relationship between these country. There is still strong tension between the United States and China. There was a lot of tension between the United States and Russia during the cold war, and still some today. Other WMDs By removing the ability of countries to obtain nuclear weapons, countries will find other ways to produce weapons of mass destruction. Other weapons of mass destruction have effects as worse if not more worse than nuclear weapons. A notorious example include biological agents. It would take less than 2 kg of the toxin produced by Clostridium Botulinum to kill the entire world's population.[5] Unlike nuclear weapons, biological agents of war can spread to kill those unattended. Just imagine if Ebola, with a 90% mortality rate was used as a weapon. Issues of terrorist owning a nuclear missile It would be very unlikely that a terrorist would be able to infiltrate a military base, steal a nuclear missile, and be unnoticed. At the very best, a terrorist could be able to steal plutonium or uranium (also heavily National Sovereignty Each country has the right to national sovereignty, which includes the right to raise a military and defense. Owning nuclear weapons is part of raising a military. It might even be less costly for states to uphold a military, if they have nuclear weapons (countries with nuclear weapons are less likely to be attacked). Issues of enforcement Setting up trade sanctions would only harm and kill the citizens of these countries, unfairly punishing them. This was the case in Iraq, where death rates where hundreds of thousands of children in Iraq died due to the economic sanctions. Economic sanctions is not a merciful alternative to war, but a very cruel punishment[6]. Nuclear Weapons created in secrecy Enforcing the nuclear non-proliferation act would only cause countries to hide their nuclear weapon programs, not discourage creating them. Sources: http://tinyurl.com...[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6]