Some small logical errors.
Mutually Assured Destruction possibly is the most significant factor since it takes a lot of people, at least today, to manage nuclear…
Some small logical errors. Reducing the number of nuclear players not only reduces the likelihood of accidental conflagration, but intentional conflagration as well. Although it could be argued that with more players the technologies of control against conflagration would become more sophisticated.
Mutually Assured Destruction possibly is the most significant factor since it takes a lot of people, at least today, to manage nuclear threats, and MAD plus lots of decision makers increases the likelihood that insane or accidental acts will happen.
The cognitive science says that the fiat lies that could lead to mass insanity or accidents of process relaxation are mitigated by moderated enforced dialogue. This exists in the war colleges and other places. We not only need Open Skies, but monitoring (nuclear ban/limit treaties), and more proofs of such self-control. These too might be more healthy with more than a handful of players.
Leaving or allowing any nuclear nation out of the acceptably safety regulated family of nuclear nations, like we perhaps do with North Korea, is the greatest threat whether by insanity or process accident. Absence of truthful, enforced moderated, dialogue is deadly. More than a small handful (but not too many) nuclear players may help.
It would be interesting to see the better math model and the sensitivity analysis on it. We probably have the historical data we need now. But most important it may inform the world of the need for better public education about how to detect if the ball is cracking and the hard realities that exist if it does. I like the countdown clock but it is not good enough in detail. Particularly if it goes past zero...
https://medium.com/liecatcher/consider-hard-reality-before-you-vote-e15fe839a242