Nukes are powerful but not that powerful, most modern nukes are under a megaton because more power does not scale well in regards to more destruction, instead we moved to multiple smaller warheads.
According to nukemap[1] a Russian SS25 with a 880kt yield would devastate NYC city but not much more.
Furthermore, a good argument can be made that a counterforce strike (a strike aimed mostly at military objectives and command and control infrstracture) is more probable than a countervalue strike (a strike targeting large cities and economic and industrial centers).
[1] https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=800&lat=40.72422&lng...
This line of thinking terrifies me. Nuclear war between major powers would be the end of the world as we know it, full stop. Russia and China know that if they launch a nuke at New York the response will be overwhelming, so their only shot at surviving retaliation would be to hope that a first strike can be definitive.
They are never launching four nukes at American cities. If they launch at all it will be hundreds. At that point, the destruction will be so immense that most people outside of the blast zones will be in for an awfully rough time for whatever remains of their lifetime.
Oh just to be clear, I fully agree. I brought up the counterforce vs countervalue topic because I thought it was an interesting way to further the discussion. But I have to admit that the arguments in favor of "they would only target our silos and major bases" never really convinced me. I just wanted to point out that nuclear weapons aren't that powerful and can't destroy an area hundreds of miles in diameter. The real danger as you said is that major powers have huge stockpiles and can basically afford to blanket an entire continent with warheads. Which mean guaranteed game over for both parties.
