Big bombs and mirvs weren't necessarily for more damage, but primarily to ensure smaller, high priority targets got destroyed. (Because accuracy of ballistic profiles and fusing abilities meant pretty bad accuracy in the downrange direction, which is an incredibly interesting and far-reaching topic itself).
Point being, more accurate weapons means (for the US, at least) about 2/3s fewer, smaller bombs are needed to take out the same target list. (The math works out to be approx 4th-root required power needed proportional to radius CEP reduction.)
And fewer, smaller, more accurate warhead targeting plus upgraded variable fusing means a target near a city doesn't automatically doom the city itself.
At least for whoever's getting nuked by the US.
There's obviously still debate on if the cities themselves would be targets, but the treaty numbers are designed to make the opportunity-cost of bombing a city relatively high, meaning not enough warheads to hit other high-value military targets.
Counterpoint: Who really knows what Russia and China are actually doing?
Your only hope would be to leave before the attack.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Base_Kitsap
"It is the home base for the Navy’s fleet throughout West Puget Sound, provides base operating services, support for both surface ships and fleet ballistic missile and other nuclear submarines as one of the U.S. Navy's four nuclear shipyards, one of two strategic nuclear weapons facilities, and the only West Coast dry dock capable of handling a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier and the Navy's largest fuel depot. Naval Base Kitsap is the third-largest Navy base in the U.S."
The most common first impression does seem to be that "of course it's not survivable, why even think about it?".
However, a quick look at any map of effects shows that the zone of survivable effects extends far beyond the reach of lethal effects, to the extent that 90%+ of the total affected zone is quite survivable for those who manage to avoid the initial thermal radiation and flying debris from the shock wave. Of course there are many who wouldn't want to live in the aftermath, but that is a different question.
A pretty important one, I think. Paramount to, "Would you like to live in hell?" And especially having children - you'd need to be extremely stupid or sadist to have a child in such a world, especially knowing the high chances of them being born malformed etc.
I mean, you don't? One dude, a family, or even a small community cannot hope replicate all the stuff that comes from modern supply chains. Surviving a civilization-ending catastrophe would basically mean navigating the glide path down to a poor subsistence lifestyle that lacks a huge amount of technology we take for granted. People got by without that stuff for pretty much all of human history.
The best survivalist could probably do is compile traditional/herbal remedies that are at least somewhat effective, but there would still be huge gaps.
So
birth control: abstinence, keeping an unplanned baby, infanticide, or some herbal abortifacient.
antibiotics: hope you can fight off that infection or we'll have to amputate
anesthetic: alcohol or a stick in the mouth
Lucky if you stashed or found some leftovers. We'd be back to some available herbal remedies.
And birth control? You'll want the opposite if you want your clan to survive. Without antibiotics & other modern medicine, or even soaps (anyone in your group know how to make that?), you'll be back to having a dozen children and being lucky if one or two survive to adulthood.
yes, for multiple reasons:
- cities are clear targets for nuking
- even if partially nuked, a city would be unsustainable once its roads and pathways are destroyed. Cities live by concentrating massive amounts of food and resources from outside cities, once the chain is broken a city falls.
However, some in rural areas would survive - the odds would not be good but some would so humanity would survive the "eye of the needle" this would cause. Just not most people individually.