Fewer are better, on the other hand, has been the focus of arms control efforts for many years. Although that level was not quite achieved, reductions did closely approach it. At some level, however, future reductions could become severely destabilizing. At very low levels, for example, nuclear weapons are much more easily targeted. So there has been a false identity between reductions in and of themselves and the all-important continual goal of stability.
Gradual reductions aimed at enhancing a continued stability, on the other hand, are useful.
A factor to keep in mind when considering the importance of stability is that Russia is increasing its emphasis on its own nuclear weapons, for the purposes of both general deterrence and internal political consumption. Stability could generally be increased after reductions to low levels if there were a shift in emphasis from SLBMs to ICBMs. As the total number of warheads declines, the value of each SLBM as a target goes up significantly. The Cold War never became hot in terms of nuclear weapons despite the magnitude of provocations and the plethora of opportunities back and forth over four decades. The evidence that nuclear weapons did deter all nuclear nations from using them is impressive.