It could be attacked easier than a bunker could. All you would ahve to do is blow a nuke within a couple of hundred miles of the platform and the EMP from the explosion would fry the electronics aboard. Ok, lets say you shield it. All i have to do is tartget multiple ASAT missiles at it and it will go down. Missile defense technology will never progress to the point where you will be able to kill all the incoming missiles launched by someone who REALLY wants that thing dead. One more thing, its cost prohibitive. There really isnt any reason to mount 50 nukes in a platform that needs A)reasearch money B) maintenence money to keep the thing in orbit and C) defenses. All of these things can be done by a SSBN which has 200 warheads and is also stealthy. And its probably going to be cheaper too. There simply isnt any reason for there to be nukes in space. Unless ET wants to throw down that is, and then it might make a bit of sense.

If you have the platform in GTO it would be a lot harder to hit and with defensive weaponry it would have a reaction time of however long it took any weapon used against it to traverse 36,000 km of space and still land in the general vicinity. Such attacks to be successful would almost certainly have to be launched from space a very expensive proposition for an aggressor. You don't really need nukes anyway, if there was a country you didn't like you would send a large mass of dense material with a gentle push in the right direction out of the station and let gravity take care of the rest. We all remember why we are taking such a keen interest in asteroids these days right? Nothing on the statutes saying you can't take large masses of high density metal into space is there. Now to stoke some paranoid fires... With the planned space station on the moon, it would be a great place to set up a mass driver and play with all that rock. Who says Mecca won't one day disappear in a ball of fire?

Long rods have been considered and rejected by the Department of Defense. They have less penetrating power than a GBU-28, and less explosive yield than a 1,000-pound bomb. Way to waste a couple billion dollars, eh?