The water is muddied by two groups of people who claim the name "libertarian." To me, it sounds as if those questions are directed to the anarcho-capitalists or whatever they're called.
"What will it's economic plank be?"
I am a supporter of free enterprise.
"How will libertarianism provide for military defense of our nation?"
Taxes.
A longer answer to that would be that the federal government should bill the states for the cost of running the federal government. It should be up to the states to decide how to collect revenue. I believe in the repeal of the 16th amendment, and do not believe the federal government should tax people's income directly.
"If there is an epidemic of terrorism, disease, anarchy, what will be their philosophy or course of action?"
Not all "libertarians" are peaceniks. I am all for peace and trade until we're attacked, at which time I become quite hawkish.
I believe in a strong national defense. The answer to terrorism is to capture or kill those responsibile, and destroy the capability to perform more acts of war. This requires a military, and as suggested above I support taxes be levied to pay for our military.
Disease, likewise, is a subject that requires government attention. Contageous diseases do not respect political boundries, and frequently outbreak cross international boundries. I see a place for the National Centers for Disease Control to deal with epidemics of contageous diseases. Of course, the CDC is hopelessly politicized nowadays in looking to cure such "diseases" as obsesity.
By anarchy, I assume you mean riots and other mayhem. I have little sympathy with looters and rioters, and feel they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
"Are they for nuclear disarmament or against it?"
Against. I support some reduction in our arsenel, because our largest nuclear enemy no longer has their proverbial finger on the button. Otherwise, I am a strong supporter of national defense and strategic weaponry.
"Are they willing to regulate disposal of hazardous materials or will they leave that to business and the states to iron out? Should that prove to be ineffectual how would they deal with inter-state issues?"
Pollution, like virulent disease, knows no political boundries. I see that there is a place for the federal government is regulating hazardous waste, such as radioactive materials, the release of which would contaminate large areas.
However, I do not believe that the federal government has a place in regulating the bruning of leaves and the draining of swamps. Land-use regulation belongs at the state level, not the federal.
"I'm really not asking for line by line specifics; generalities with some illustrations will do."
Hope this helps.
Then again, I am often told by libertarians that I am not one, so maybe you can ignore this post.
First, thanks for giving me the opportunity to respond to your specific concerns. Before I give you my opinion on the issues you've raised, I would direct you to www.lp.org for the party's official positions in the interest of accuracy on my part. That said I believe its economic plank would be no income tax and government funded by tariffs on imported goods that we already collect. National defense would be funded by those tariffs and by selling off federal property that the government shouldn't own in the first place. For example The Nature Conservancy, a national nonprofit organization which purchases environmentally sensitive lands could take over many of the wetlands and similar areas that are now under government supervision. As I appear to be running out of room here I'll respond to the rest of your concerns in my next reply.
Any epidemic of anarchy/terrorism/disease should be handled by the National Guard and existing state and local governments which would still be coordinated with the federal government since their only Constitutional function is the protection of citizens' lives and property. That would not change in a Libertarian society. Mutual and independently verified nuclear arms reduction is our policy since we definitely have more nuclear weapons than we need for self-defense.
Regulation of hazardous materials should be handled by the states as there is no legitimate reason for the federal government to own property outside of possibly military bases. There is no "right to pollute" for businesses contrary to what some Libertarians have said. (I'm thinking here of Interior Secretary and former Libertarian Gale Norton who is said to have made that remark). Businesses have no more right to pollute our water or air than they do to pollute our backyards or front lawns. We all have private property rights and since the air and water belong to all of us as citizens businesses cannot pollute them without making full financial restitution to the people in the affected communities. The federal government shouldn't have to get involved in that issue at all unless polluters disregard states' authority.