but i do find it funny that you think that a nuke is 100% genocide scenario. where no where is safe and everyone will be dead, no option.
seems science, history and math has not gone too much into your thinking
yes the old advice of "if a nuke is targetting your city, hide under a table". is meaningless. but if your closest city is being targetted but you live 50miles+ away, so evacuate the city and go home. can help
when you realise in the past SEVERAL nuclear events have happened, in war, in tests, and in power plant malfunctions. and yet no continent wide "nuclear winter" caused genocide level death. in many cases it was limited to small area's. the marshal island testing site was so small they actually were able to put a 'concrete dome' over top of part of the island to contain the radiation
countries do not have enough nuclear yield to take out all cities, either as a continent wide genocide level single bomb or as multiple missile in their thousands for 1 per city. so they will choose best targets.
Seems common sense has not gone too much into your thinking either.
Nuclear winters are a real concept and a real consequence to nuclear proliferation. If you'll recall to the Cold War, mutual destruction was the only thing keeping the Americans and Russians from deploying the nukes. You surely don't think either country would just stop at one, correct?
Consider that there is a difference between a nuclear test, and nuclear attack. A nuclear test stops at one deployment. Unfortunately, an attack would not, especially when there are nuclear weapons on both sides of the war.
So yes, very pointless to prep. Good luck trying to survive a nuclear attack.
seems you dont understand things..
you say the "concept".
and then you imagine it being full US territory destruction and entire 320million US population death... as your 'concept'
you first flaw is using the cold war example to explain nuclear winter. it was funny because there was no actual nuclear winter. well more precicely no actual atomic war.. no actual cuban "boom, they all dead", so no nuclear winder fallout after..
so no proof of actual damage caused. to prove YOUR "concept"
the concept of the cold war was project fear. fear of the unknown. not knowing how many nukes or where the nukes would land. it was never about full america genocide. it was about the unknown damage. to unknown targets within US territory
secondly it seems you did not look into my hints about the marshal islands or fukushima or chernobyl
if them multiple nuclear incidents were as you propose guaranteed to be country wide genocide nuclear winters.. then how come the world is not extinct already..
heck the marshal islands(bikini) done 26 nuclear tests.. that compounding amount of radiation would have turned the moon to ice if your theory was true
common sense reveals that the amount of destruction is not continent wide nor genocide level event. and instead more confined to smaller area's
fukushima
hiroshima
marshal islands(bikini)
chernobyl
look them up.
oh spoiler..
japan, china, russia and the pacific/oceania still exist, no genocide nation wide population deaths occured
but hey, if you want to ignore actual evidence of actual atomic damage and instead spend more time making posts of your "fears" of destruction based on historic "fears" of destruction..well. you continue to not understand what the real possibilities are, and thus not be able to 'prep' effectively. so yea just sit where you are and expect to die, not due to any nuclear winter. but just you lack of wanting to live and prepare for eating and drinking daily because you want to remain sat there afraid, waiting for winter