It does, at least in free societies. That's one real reason for objecting to the secessionists of 1861. They didn't take the peaceful path of non-violent resistance, political organization, or action through the courts, but rushed to build up their own country, state apparatus, and army, at a time when the rights and wrongs of unilateral secession were anything but clear.
I don't doubt that there will be situations when armed revolt is excusable, necessary, and unavoidable. But ideas of unilateral secession tend to make people "politically stupid." They avoid the real political options that they have, and stop working within the system. Would-be seceders tend to see direct, unilateral action as the answer to everything, and pass up the real opportunities for compromise.
And since most countries have grown together and developed common institutions and property, it's virtually impossible for one faction or region to make a clean break on its own without involving violence. All the more so as competing parties within each state or province take up arms in order to be on one side of the frontier, rather than on the other.
Nothing in the nullification concept would lead to secession, unless the feds abused their Constitutional powers to enforce laws that were under dispute in the Courts.
That would certainly be nice if it were true. I'm not qualified to judge the matter, but I can't help being skeptical. Something tells me that Calhoun wouldn't have bowed to a federal court decision if it went against South Carolina. His view would be to put the state government above the federal courts.
Your view -- up to a point -- is what any state could do now: refuse to execute a law or ruling and until the courts decide, so it's not clear what the concept of nullification adds to such resistance. But the problem is, what happens when the courts go against you? If you recall the civil rights battles of the 1950s, the federal government got its way. And that, as many people realized at the time, wasn't an entirely bad thing.
Rightly or wrongly, ideas like nullification or interposition have come to be seen as half-way houses to secession, and have been condemned as such. In the Federalist Papers, Madison noted that in small communities one faction or other often dominates political life and imposes itself on other groups, even to the point of establishing a tyranny. In a larger "extended republic" local elites have to compromise, and cooperate, and surrender a little of their power.
In plenty of countries around the world (in Latin America and Africa, for example) tribes or factions got the kind of veto power that Calhoun wanted for his state and region. The results weren't pretty or always favorable to the cause of liberty. Madison forsaw this, and that may be a big reason why he supported Jackson and the Union against Calhoun and the nullifiers in the 1830s.
Doubtless, we have plenty of problems without nullification, but it's not the answer. At first sight, we might want vigorous, proud, defiant, self-assertive states battling the federal government at every point, but if we look at things more closely it may look like a bigger problem, rather than a solution. There may be troubles at times, but the fact that the states have grown closer together in a federal union isn't entirely bad thing.