If states are in anarchy with respect to each other, do nuclear weapons function like guns for states? If an armed society is a polite society, is a world of armed states a world largely free of inter-state war? Granted nuclear weapons haven't been ever used against seats of national government, but the prospect has got to scare them.
Why anarchy fails
One thing to consider is that governments can externalize the costs of war (through taxation), so they're more likely to engage in war.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
There is a chapter in The Myth of National Defense that uses a game theoretic agument to argue just that. IMO the case is analogous.
Well, the State has an inherent need to expand, else it collapses. Still a world of cheap nukes would make war impossible, hence states would continuously break up and reform. The cheaper the nukes, the most numerous the states. It could be said that, should nuclear secrets be widely available and nuclear reactors cheap, hence making nukes costing about a million dollar apiece, I submit that a return to “city-states” would be inevitable, with the all known implications for prosperity. Perhaps nukes are, after all, the only real hope that minarchy ever had. No wonder the US is ready to loose Afghanistan and Iran in a war against Iran, just to keep them from developing nukes.
If this is so, it's yet another way that technology seems to be moving toward the dissolution or fragmentation of state power. I'm translating some political negotiations on nuclear disarmament right now, and it seems just by the language they use that nukes are something states take seriously like nothing else. They really treat North Korea with kid gloves. I can see why Iran wants nukes so badly. I can see why all heads of State would want to have them, or at least give the illusion of having them.