Would Texas have nuclear weapons?

That would be a decision for the government Texans elect, not a promise the movement makes. What can be said now is that Texas would be fully capable of defending itself either way, and that its security does not hinge on nuclear arms.

This is a sovereign decision for the future Republic

The Texas Nationalist Movement’s job is to win independence and secure the result, not to pre-write the defense policy of a nation that does not yet exist. Whether an independent Texas pursues, declines, or forgoes nuclear weapons is precisely the kind of question that belongs to the elected government and the people it answers to. Locking in that answer today would be putting the cart generations before the horse.

Texas does not need nuclear weapons to be secure

An independent Texas faces no realistic threat of conventional invasion. Its security challenges are the practical ones: a secure border, protection against terrorism, and cybersecurity. Those are met with capable conventional forces and good intelligence, not with warheads. Plenty of stable, prosperous, secure nations maintain strong militaries and no nuclear arsenal at all. Texas would be one of them by default, and a well-resourced one. Treaty law points the same way: the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty counts as nuclear-weapon states only those that exploded a device before January 1, 1967, so a new Texas could join it only as a non-nuclear-weapon state.

The defense foundation is already here

Texas would build on a serious base. More than 160,000 people already serve in uniform in Texas, defense spending in the state runs $47 to $72 billion a year, and the Texas Military Department already exists as a functioning command. A conventional Texas military funded at the level of capable middle powers would rank among the strongest in the world. Security is not in question. The nuclear question is a separate, downstream policy choice.

Cooperation is the more likely path

It is far more probable that an independent Texas would address strategic security through a mutual-defense arrangement with the United States, a natural neighbor with deep shared interests, than by racing to build an arsenal. Shared defense among allied nations is the norm, and it is the practical, stabilizing course. That kind of partnership provides for the most extreme contingencies without Texas needing to go it alone.

The bottom line

Whether Texas ever holds nuclear weapons is for a future Texas government to decide. What is certain now is that an independent Texas can defend itself fully with conventional forces and strong alliances, and that its safety does not depend on the answer.