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

In this closing round, I will adress all the points that were brought about in the debate (Note: Some arguments were dropped in the comments section with both sides agreement and will not be part of this round or the debate).My arguments(i) Banning all nuclear weaponsAs I have mentioned before the world is moving towards a ban. 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. My response to my opponent claim of it being unrealistic:Firstly, nations that are not part of the NPT nuclear five have nuclear weapons anyway, so it is just as unrealistic to expect that the NPT works as intended as it is to ban Nuclear Weapons entirely. My opponent can hardly say that bans are unrealistic when the NPT itself is not working as intended. In fact, as my opponent points out, South Africa dismantled its Nuclear Weapons program, so bans are possible.Secondly, if the U.S., UK, China, Russia, and France all have long "rap sheets" of violating international laws, agreements, treaties, as my opponent argues, why then are they entrusted with Nuclear Weapons and called "responsible states?"(ii) Imbalance of powerMy opponent says that North Korea attacked South Korea. If only South Korea had nuclear weapons, North Korea would have exercised caution. Also South Korea would be able to defend themselves accordingly. (iii) "Responsible powers"The UK and France which colonized and enslaved many countries are not more "responsible" than Iran. The colonial people never did them any harm but they enslaved people in Asia and Africa anyways. My opponent says "The U.S. has considered using nuclear weapons in large conflicts but refused to. That shows restraint."Doesn't negate the fact that the US used Nuclear Weapons that caused the death of between 150,000 to 246,000 civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians because Japan ignored the unfair "surrender terms" by the US is hardly a justified reason. Con's case(i) ProliferationCon argues that NPT opposes the exchange of NW's. This argument does not stand on its own but is dependent on the argument that the big five are "Responsible powers" who can be entrusted to have NW's and should not give NW's to "irresposible" nations.(ii)"Rap Sheets"I don't know if my opponent realizes that he is shooting himself in the foot by pointing out the long "rap sheets" of the Nuclear Five. These are the reasons why the Nuclear Five are not "resposible nations" and should not have exclusive power to make nuclear weapons. In my opponent's words:The U.S. violated international law repeatedly by sending U-2 spy planes over the USSR.Russia violated the START treaty by developing new ICBM's.The U.S. violated international law by producing biological weapons.Russia violated international law by attacking Georgia in the South Ossetia War.Some of these violations are minor, but others are rather horrifying.Regardless, Russia and the U.S. have already outright violated international laws and treaties by producing nuclear and biological weapons.Therefore, The big five cannot be trusted to uphold international law.ConclusionThe NPT is an unfair treaty which only allows the big five to use Nuclear Weapons and has a completely arbitrary time limit that only states which made weapons before 1967 can have them. It appoints these big five as "Nuclear Weapons states" and does not allow any new nations to join even if they meet UN safeguards. The big five are by no means peaceful or responsible states and entrusting them with Nuclear Weapons while other countries go without them is irresponsible. The NPT should be abolished in favor of a completely different treaty which either bans Nuclear Weapons altogether or has an objective UN specified method of allowing any state to join as long as they safeguard their weapons.