Thanks bunches, OrthodoxPresbyterian.
Nah. Many Libertarians like Nuclear Weapons... myself included.
Among the many funky proposals to come out of the Libertarian Party (and I do not count myself a Libertarian Party Man, but like all political parties, they have their funny days) was the proposal to dispose of all military forces except the Nuclear Missile Force.
See, main battle tanks can be used for aggressive war. Libertarians hate aggressive warfare.
Carrier Battle Groups be used for aggressive war. Libertarians hate aggressive warfare.
Strategic conventional bombers be used for aggressive war. Libertarians hate aggressive warfare.
All of these weapon systems can be used to destroy and then conquer. Libertarians HATE conquest; we are all about home, and hearth; family, friends, and property.
Nuclear Weapons, by contrast, are totally useless for aggressive warfare. They invalidate the "conquest" option, because there is nothing left to conquer once you fry the entire landscape for 10,000 years.
Why "conquer" that which you have Nuked? It's a waste of effort.
As a Defensive Weapon, Nuclear Weapons allow an Isolationist Republic to say:
For some libertarians (myself included), nuclear weapons are the ultimate libertarian Weapon. They are useless for aggressive conquest. And libertarians HATE aggressive conquest.
It's very Heinlein, mind you; but Heinlein was pretty libertarian.
We're not "anti-nuke". We're "anti-aggression". And Nukes DO deter aggression.
But they don't "prevent war". That's just silly.
Nuclear Weapons redirect War -- to somewhere else, than your own Home and Hearth.
And in a Fallen World, that's often the best you can hope for... to send the Wars somewhere else.
And, when Wars happen somewhere else (as they always will).... you leave them there.