Not that it entirely matters but the most likely scenario for a nuclear exchange would probably have most nukes used on hardened military targets. This is the main reason why MIRV weapons were invented.
Civilian infrastructure (like your house) is readily flattened by nuclear explosions but if you want to destroy nuclear launch silos, hardened command centers, tanks, etc you need to hit them pretty much head on. It's then a lot more productive to have many independently targetable warheads to hit enemy silos in a first strike or enemy conventional forces in a tactical exchange.
In practice, you'd still get massive civilian casualties given how many bases are built right next to cities. Also, submarines are second-strike weapons so they might go for "countervalue" (your house).
It is very hard to imagine a war where nukes are used on enemy homeland and likely on yours that does not become a total war. In such a war, the goal is not merely to secure an advantageous peace treaty, it is a struggle for survival.
I can't foresee a war starting with tactical strikes that doesn't also see further use of nuclear weapons against the population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targeta...
Civilian infrastructure (like your house) is readily flattened by nuclear explosions but if you want to destroy nuclear launch silos, hardened command centers, tanks, etc you need to hit them pretty much head on. It's then a lot more productive to have many independently targetable warheads to hit enemy silos in a first strike or enemy conventional forces in a tactical exchange.
In practice, you'd still get massive civilian casualties given how many bases are built right next to cities. Also, submarines are second-strike weapons so they might go for "countervalue" (your house).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countervalue