1/2: China has no incentive to waste it's nukes by trying to muscle in on a US/Russia exchange, because India is still a nuclear power that has beef with the CCP completely separate from the US.facepalm
1. you are assuming this will be entirely contained instead of spreading and resulting in every nuclear power launching all their nukes.
I seriously doubt both sides will completely leave china out of it. Especially as more and more missiles go into the air.
2. Wildly optimistic predictions that the opponent is harmless is not how I want to stake my life on
3. 100 nukes is in fact 100 too many. Your blaze attitude about being hit by this many nukes is scary.
4. Did you do a calculation? Because I did. I happen to live close enough to 2 cities that would be high priority targets, actually. So I am fucked if it does go down.
5. EMP is far more dangerous than direct hits (although we will still get direct hits)
100 nukes is many times more than needed to completely wipe out every car and electrical appliance in usa thanks to the spread on a high altitude emp nuke. With infrastructure down starvation, looting, and riots will start within days. which in turn will destroy any hope of repairing the infrastructure in a timely manner.
Unless we purposefully launch on the CCP as a 'side order' in an exchange with Russia, the CCP has a lot of reasons to save it's nukes for a potential conflict with India.
3: It's not me being blaise about nuclear conflict, it's me being realistic about how survivalable it is for the average person, which it is far more survivable than many people realize, because people like you get angry at people for even trying to make plans to survive. How many people survive in the US depends on how much warning there is that things might be going hot, how many of Russia's nukes we take out before launch, how many we can intercept after launch, what happens with the sub-fights/Status-6s, what the weather patterns are at the time, and what targets get hit by what size of warheads.
4: And that's why if you want to survive an exchange, you go for a camping trip/sick day if things look dicey and you think you can get outside the blast zones. I live in an area that likely has/had 60+ USSR/Russian warheads earmarked for it, so I know I'm in a first strike target too. I just am actually trying to figure out how to survive by not being here if things go loud, instead of resigning myself to death in nuclear fire if something happens. Don't begrudge normal people trying to figure out how to survive a nuclear war, just because you don't want to.
5: Nope, vaccuum tube eletronics, and shielded electronics will likely survive fairly well, and there are old school ways of doing things that can suffice while things are rebuilt. Learning how to do things with non-electronic tools and power transfer methods is a smart idea, and a basic survival kit in the car with a small solar panel, water purifying gear, fishing/hunting/trapping gear, a small radio, and about 4 months of iodine tabs would take care of most issues, as long as you know how to use the stuff. The US gov has put a lot of thought and work into figuring out how to survive and rebuild after a nuclear exchange, and they've squirrel'd away a lot of stores/equipment all over the nation specifically because of that.
Most people who do not like others trying to figure out how to survive nuclear war, particularly when it's other normal folks (not the mega-mansion bunker elites who would like most of the plebs dead anyway), are people who either know they can't/won't survive most levels of nuclear exchanges because they are so close to first strike targets (how dare other regular people outside the target try to survive is the general jist of this attitude) or hate it because they feel trying to figure out how to survive a nuclear war just makes them more likely.
So which are you, the spiteful 'how dare you try to survive' type or the 'don't talk about trying to survive, you make war more likely when you do' type?