>>64174433
>75%
even if we assume 100% casualty rates you would have to pixel perfect spread bombs not just over cities, but entire metropolitan areas, which are fucking huge targets to be hitting individually with nuclear strikes, even on MIRV's(not to mention rural populaces). a nuclear war is much more survivable than any popular media has lead you to believe, it's just way more disruptive than any country has been willing to tolerate so far. nations are much more resilient to 'decapitation' strikes than you'd think.
there's around 36 million people in the top 50 cities of the US, lets triple that to represent the metropolitan areas, and assume total losses. it's more like 33% casualties. even if we assume we get total losses of the top 100 cities, and I mean you kill EVERYONE in them, that's 60 million, out of a total population of 340 million, and our population density is fucking LOW by comparison to most places, you just can't nuke every blade of grass in the US, and if you're a country that would go to nuclear war against the US, you have to save missiles to double tap military centers if you want to win, and that just completely eviscerates your kill totals.
your shitty boss will be asking you when you can come in two to three weeks after the opening exchange of the war. your bank will still want you to pay your mortgage on time, and hell, chances are you'll still be paying an internet bill after the initial disruption. you'll just be looking at shit like national guard directing traffic and guarding walmarts to gun down people trying to shoplift food. stores will have more shortages and power will be intermittent, but you'll still be paying in cash or credit.
hell, if anything a civil war would be more likely to result in something resembling the 'no schools, no hospitals, no government' scenario just because it'd be more effective at paralyzing interstate commerce. the nukes won't kill the highways, but insurgents would.
