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

*Nuclear Peace* If my analysis is correct, then more nations should be allowed nuclear weapons. However the NPT only allows 5 nations to own them. Pro agrees that a rational leader would not use nuclear weapons, since a nuclear attack would only cause a retaliation attack. However, he believes some leaders are too foolish. This could be further from the truth. Even countries run by dictators would not be stupid enough to use a nuclear weapon. A dictator must be very calculated and intelligent if he wants to stay in power. Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are both leaders that have evaded assassination attempts from rebels and America's foreign policy's attempt to remove them from office. They would not be foolish enough to act in a manner that would obviously not be in their best interest. Joseph Stalin was a man that was much more power hungry, mentally unstable, and brutal then Kim John Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. A more heated conflict existed between America and Soviet Union than any other modern day conflict. However, not only did the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty allow these countries to own nuclear weapons, but a nuclear strike never occurred. It would be absurd to think that these leaders would use nuclear weapons offensively. If they wanted to, they would have done it already. Rather, they use them defensively, to protect themselves from an attack. *Terrorist Access to Nuclear Weapons* Pro doubts that terrorist could access nuclear weapons in the United States yet has doubts about Pakistan. His reasoning: Pakistan government has aided terrorist. This is non sequitur. How does aiding insurgencies undermine Pakistan's nuclear security? America has aided terrorists in the past yet terrorist would never have access to our nukes. We aided the mujahedeen in 1978, modern day Taliban.[1] Today, it aids MEK, an organization recognized as a terrorist organization worldwide [2], even by the US. Many more examples of America sponsoring terrorism exist [3]. Pakistan safely guards its nuclear equipment. It's in their best interest to. Aiding insurgencies would not cause a country to send terrorist nuclear missiles. *Other WMDs* This is very relevant. I would assume, that based on this debate, you would also be for the restriction of other WMDs. We could possibly restrict other WMDs, however states will still have a demand for WMDs. If states cannot use nuclear weapons, it would be much easier to conceal a biological weapon. A program to develop biological weapons can easily be concealed as a biotech or biology research lab. If I had to choose between two evils, an uncontrolled infectious virus and a nuclear attack, I would choose the latter. If a nuclear bomb occurs, thousands, even millions could die, but no more. If a biological attack were to occur, due to the uncontrolled nature of an attack, who knows how many would die? Infections and diseases are already the 2nd highest cause of death in the world [4]. Even before the invention of genetically modified superviruses and bacteria, disease almost wiped out the Native Americans and wiped out almost half of Europe during the black plague. *National Sovereignty* Nations have rights. If individuals have rights, then nations receive their rights from the consent of the people. People would be better off governed then in anarchy, and thus individuals give up their rights for the state's right to govern them. A nation needs to provide security to its people. This includes defense against foreign threats. Nuclear weapons are part of this defense. Even if a nation is under a dictatorship, the people can still rebel. *NPT Supports Nuclear Weapons* This point is very relevant. The nuclear non proliferation treaty allows these countries to own nuclear weapons. Thus, the treaty states it is not bad for these nations to own them. Con's excuse is that it would be impossible for these countries to disarm, even though he does not explain why. Disallowing other countries from owning nuclear weapons is hypocritical and bad. Nuclear strikes would be more likely to occur if only a few countries own them, proven by the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not to mention this leaves other nations weak and defenseless against the nuclear club. *Enforcement* CON does not address that enforcing the NPT would only cause nations to hide their nuclear weapons programs, not discourage creation. Nuclear weapon programs could easily be disguised as nuclear energy or research programs. Trade sanctions are designed to devastate civilians and will always punish them unfairly. If they didn't, they would not be effective. If peaceful diplomatic channels have failed in the past, why would they would work now? CON tries to find *peaceful* ways to enforce the NPT, however one cannot and these polices are not strict. http://tinyurl.com...[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...