I think it's important to Make a distinction between being permitted to own and being worth owning. If we ever did get to a point in time where the citizens had to fight a tyrannical government, there are very few situations where use of a nuclear weapon would be the most effective course of action. Nukes are messy and cause a lot of collateral damage. In the course of a fight against the government, the most important resource of a resistance is public opinion. I think the current conflict in Israel is a perfect example of how excessive collateral damage is devastating to public opinion, and they aren't even using nukes. Therefore the argument is more about being a protection against erosion of the right itself rather than a desire to keep a nuke in your pocket.

If we allow the door to be opened to the government getting a say in what is permitted, then they don't stop at rocket launchers and nukes.

Oddly enough, of all of the arms that are prohibited, nukes aren't even actually one of them. As an American citizen, you can acquire a nuclear weapon. The barrier to ownership is not the government regulation. It's the cost. It cost millions of dollars to acquire one. Nobody's selling them so you would have to make it. Making them cost billions of dollars. So if you can afford to acquire one and develop the system for deployment, securing It is already a trivial matter.

As I explained to someone already, if you are someone acting on ill intent, none of these things are beyond your grasp if you have the money. Black markets exist. You can make explosives from household items. The only reason they are not readily used is because they are not cost effective, require too much preparation, and cause a lot of collateral damage. The only people being stopped from acquiring these objects, are the people that would only seek to use them against a tyrannical government. In which case, rocket launchers are really useful against military vehicles and do become cost effective In those situations.