The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More may be better

States that are unstable will be unable to produce nuclear weapons in the first place, they take a long time to develop. They are very costly to develop and any payback will only be once the weapons are complete so any regime will be stable if starting a nuclear weapons program. If it is the military who are in control then the program is unlikely to begin because they are much more interested in traditional weapons like tanks rather than spending a lot on R&D. In any internal struggle nuclear weapons are not going to be used. Who would they aim at? How would they use them as instruments for maintaining or gaining control?

Nuclear weapons under military control (rather than civilian) is likely to have too few checks and balances. It is not states and statesmen that have the real control behind nuclear weapons but the military and civilian bureaucracies. Not all new nuclear weapons states are accepting the need for the tight control over nuclear weapons that the 5 nuclear powers have enforced. Bureaucracies are large and difficult to control, corruption within the system could mean nuclear material being sold off[[Todd H. Nelson, 'Russian Realities: Nuclear Weapons, Bureaucratic Maneuvers, and Organized Crime', Demokratizatsiya, Vol. 8, No. 1, (Winter 2000)]] The states that have until now had nuclear weapons have been stable states, if an unstable state or regime gains control of the weapons then the risks are considerably greater.