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

I will be taking the stance that the NPT is a necessary and important treaty that we should continue to uphold I may add additional arguments as the debate carries on.Argument: The NPT prevents irresponsible nations from possessing nuclear arms.Nations such as North Korea, Iran, or various other 3rd world nations are not as stable as the current governments that posses nuclear weapons.The U.S., China, UK, Russia, etc all have strong safeguards in place to prevent nuclear weapons from being used irresponsibly. For example, the president of the U.S. cannot wake up one day in a bad mood and decide to attack Sweden with a nuclear bomb because damn it Sweden had it comin'. That order has to be unanimously approved by fellow political leaders and then has to be approved by multiple military leaders, go down the chain of command all the way down to the Air Force officers that are in possession of partial launch codes (since no one holds the complete launch codes).There is no doubt that such a complex safeguard will NOT be implemented in autocratic and poor nations that reside in the Middle East, Africa, South East Asia, etcRefutations:First off, let's get rid of the option of a treaty banning nuclear weapons from every nation assuming neither of us don't believe in fairy tales.That only leaves the option of allowing every nation to posses nuclear arms.NPT creates an imbalance of powerMy opponent says that the NPT creates an imbalance of power between nuclear states and non nuclear states.My response is: GOOD. There should definitely NOT be a balance of power between the United States of America and North Korea or Iran, etc. If there was the U.S. as well as other western nations would be competing militarily with nations that have clearly evil purposes such as Iran's threat to wipe Israel of the map or North Korea's continuing threats against the United States and South Korea.Currently, if Iran where to try anything against Israel, the U.S. and Israel could bomb Iran back to the stone age, granted they wouldn't have far to fall at least we'd have the upper hand in a justly fought war.With my opponent's only realistic alternative after abolishing the NPT, Iran would have a nuclear arsenal capable of inflicting millions of casualties on Israeli citizens as well as military personnel (Perhaps U.S. personnel as well).The NPT only allows state that created nuclear weapons before 1965 to keep themI concede this point. I say that stable states with strong safeguards should be allowed to keep nuclear weapons such as Russia, India, Brazil, etc.But this only means that the NPT should be slightly revised, not abolished completely.Who are we to decide who should have nuclear weapons?We are the responsible powers who don't have outright destructive intentions of instigating a nuclear holocaust or starting a genocide or expanding our territorial claims in a bloody war that could quickly deteriorate into a nuclear confrontation.Even if you're an anarchist/anti-american/libertarian/liberal/etc or a member of any other group that opposes U.S./Western foreign intervention, you must believe that the chances of the U.S. or the UK ACTUALLY using its nuclear arsenal in a war are very slim to none. Do you honestly think Iran or North Korea or some fanatic leader of a banana republic will show the same restraint?Back to you PRO.