I think the (debatable ) key point here is that the treaty was a bargain between the then possessors of nuclear weapons and non-nuclear states. The deal was th

I think the (debatable ) key point here is that the treaty was a bargain between the then possessors of nuclear weapons and non-nuclear states. The deal was that non-nuclear states wouldn't develop weapons and the nuclear states would disarm. After the treaty was signed and non-nuclear states (largely) complied the number of weapons increased radically for decades and the destructive power of weapons in theater today is still massively greater than the weapons at signing. It can therefore be argued that the holders of the weapons have consistently acted contrary to the terms of the treaty. They have undisputably acted contrary to the spirit of the deal underlying the treaty.