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

Probably should've mentioned this earlier, but oh well. This debate is part of a debate tournament (http://www.debate.org...). Please only vote on this debate if you are one of the tournament judges. Members of the UN Security Council—China, Russia, France, UK, US, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Gabon, Japan, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Turkey, Uganda [5] Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty—This treaty is an attempt to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. It has three main pillars: 1) non-proliferation of nuclear arms 2) disarmament of already created nuclear arms and 3) the right to peacefully use nuclear technology. Today, its main relevance is in Pakistan, India, Iran, and North Korea ==Pakistan and Terrorism== This is perhaps the clearest example of a government that should not have nuclear weapons. Pakistan is a corrupt and nearly failed state. Even the current government, installed and controlled by the U.S., isn't working with us. Recent Wikileaks cables show that the Pakistani government has been actively aiding insurgents. [1] Others show that there's widespread fear that the ineffective and corrupt Pakistani government won't be able to keep nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists. [2] Standing by and doing nothing is not an option. If terrorists are able to get their hands on nukes, they'll almost certainly use them against Israel or the United States, causing unimaginable amounts of death and destruction. ==Pakistan and India== Another problem of nuclear weapons in this region is the potential for a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India, if something were to set off their long-standing hatred of each other. Right now, the risk of this isn't particularly high, but any risk is too much when you consider that the consequences of such an exchange could be hundreds of millions of deaths. ==Iran== Iran is yet another shining example of a country that should be stopped from obtaining nuclear weapons. Iran has repeatedly rebuffed the international communities attempts to observe and control its nuclear program, while also threatening to "wipe Israel off the map." [3] Iran's leaders publicly state that their nuclear program is for energy use only, but this claim is highly suspicious. Iran's leaders, with their religious fundamentalism and their belligerent attitude toward the world, particularly Israel, simply cannot be trusted on their word. And if their claim that they only want to use nuclear energy for peaceful means is sincere, then there is no conflict between this and the UN "strictly enforcing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," as the treaty specifically protects the right of countries to peacefully use nuclear energy. Iran would just have to cooperate with the international community, and allow UN inspectors to make sure that peaceful energy creation really is their intention. ==North Korea== Here, the government not only obtained nuclear weapons, but has repeatedly threatened to use them. N. Korea is becoming increasingly belligerent and unpredictable, as demonstrated by their recent bombing of civilians in S. Korea. [4] While international pressure hasn't worked well against them before, that's only because China refused to go along with it. If China were to cooperate with the other members of the UN security council, the terms of the Non-Proliferation treaty could be enforced. =="Strictly Enforce"== This does not mean go to war with all of the above countries. The treaty can be enforced through entirely diplomatic and peaceful means. The U.S. has tried to pressure North Korea and Iran into giving up nuclear weapons, but it doesn't work, because other countries, particularly China and Russia, refuse to cooperate. While it's true that China and Russia are unlikely to change their minds about working with the U.S. on this issue any time soon, my argument is merely that they *should*, not that they will. There are plenty of non-war ways the treaty could be enforced. Trade sanctions and other diplomatic means of pressure could be an option. Perhaps in countries that wanted nuclear power for peaceful means, the UN could send in specialists to aid them and to make sure that the technology wasn't used for weapons. [1] http://www.wired.com... [2] http://www.guardian.co.uk... [3] http://www.nytimes.com... [4] http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [5] http://www.un.org...