You bet they do!

Nuclear weapons give a weak, motivated force the opportunity to wreak havoc on a much stronger enemy. Nations deter each other by assuring mutual destruction, but how do you stop a determined foe with money and time from acquiring a weapon and using it against you?

Here we have the $quadrillion question. Consider some alternatives and decide which offers the greatest probability that a major city will be destroyed in the next hundred years.

a) Pursue a policy of low level warfare that in itself terrorizes a broad civilian population and by its very nature keeps the fighting going. Simultaneously pump huge amounts of money into the hands of sympathetic neighboring countries filled with antagonism towards you.

b) Fragment your international alliances, irritate your international competitors, threaten adversaries and divide your own population. Meet internal protests with harsh measures and new security rules.

c) Expand the warfare by bombing countries suspected to be relishing your defeat.  If bombing provokes a reaction, escalate hostilities with force. If  there is still resistance use tactical and strategic nuclear weapons to prevent or retaliate for military losses.

or

1) Disengage from warfare, withdrawing troops and stopping air strikes while engaging friend and foe alike in discussions focused on mutual interests and needs.

2) Act to reduce suffering by removing land mines, unexpended munitions, weapons, troops fortifications and bases.

3) Provide assistance in rebuilding vital infrastructure especially schools, courts, hospitals and the professions. Forget about profiteering.