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

Responses to refutationsBanningBanning Nuclear weapons has never been done before but the world is moving towards it now. Four of the NPT nuclear weapons states are decreasing the number of nuclear warheads that they have and only China's stockpile is still increasing. They have already signed Partial bans and Test bans and are now moving toward a complete ban. Therefore banning is a realistic solution that my opponent can't just dismiss as unrealistic.Imbalance of power & ResponsibiltyMy opponent says that there should be an imbalance of power because North Korea attacked South Korea, Iran may possibly attack Israel, and that Iran allegedly supplied the Taliban with weapons. First, I must explain that according to Con's source, it was suspected not proved. Secondly wars happen. The US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Britain and France colonized many countries in Africa ans Asia and enslaved the populations there. It is not accurate for any nation to say that they are "the responsible powers" and that their enemies are irresponsible. "Responsibilty" is highly subjective. My opponent says that the U.S. has only used two nuclear weapons. I would like to point out that "only" two weapons caused the death of between 150,000 to 246,000 civilians. The fact remains that no country has ever used nuclear weapons besides the USA. So, the USA can't really take credit and say "only two weapons were used" and "since then they have not been used again."My opponent says that the only reason poor "banana republics" (his words, not mine) did not use nuclear weapons is because the NPT prevents them from owning any. This does not negate the fact that they have Nuclear Weapons. North Korea has nuclear weapons. It is an open secret that Israel does too. Iran and Syria are suspected of having a nuclear weapons program. Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, South Africa used to have nuclear weapons before [2]. None of these states used their nuclear weapons to kill innocent civilians so argument that "we are the responsible powers" is weak. Refutation of Con's defenseUS has shown restraint by not using Nuclear Weapons in North Korea and VietnamSame point as above.Abolition of treaty vs minor revisionsOne of the two options that I considered was "2) Any state can create Nuclear weapons with equal or no restriction for all states" (emphasis added). So, equal restrictions means a fair treaty, that is what I am arguing for. My options include a provision for revision. The whole point of the NPT was to prevent non Nuclear Weapons states from making them. So, allowing India and Brazil to join would be a pretty major revision, not a minor one as my opponent says. Nuclear Safeguards of other nationsMy opponent says that I conceded this point. I absolutely did not concede this point. Let me restate: Almost All countries have their own safeguards. My opponent attacked the word "almost" and said that it means I believe some states don't have nuclear safeguards. My opponents is actually saying that an actual sovereign country with a government may not have nuclear safeguards to protect their nuclear weapons. This is impossible as whoever manufactures nuclear weapons will want to protect them. My opponent's assertion that states could just manufacture something as powerful as nuclear weapons and not safeguard them is unfounded.Sources[1] http://www.rerf.or.jp...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...