Of course, in the minutes waiting for the bomb to detonate one can only shelter and hide, the guide also mentions this. The guide is more for how localities can mount rescue operations within the first 12-24 hours after detonation and before Federal Aid would arrive.
What is most eye opening is that the guide recommends for first responders that zone around ~ 1 mile from ground zero of a 10 kT nuclear explosion has the greatest lifesaving potential through early responder actions.
I took the liberty to look through the document and saw this:
"This guidance also reflects evolving nuclear threats. The 2010 Planning Guidance focused on 10 kiloton (kT) and smaller-yield detonations consistent with the threat of nuclear terrorism, all occurring at the Earth’s surface. This 2021 Planning Guidance update addresses an expanded range of threat scenarios, including nation-state threats with much larger explosive yields. This guidance also considers nuclear devices delivered by ballistic missile or aircraft that can deliver detonations elevated above the surface."
However, after skimming the guide, there is no specific recommendation on what to do when a weapon over 100kT detonates.
1. Cities are not targets for high yield weapons (maybe it is not strategically valuable to completely annihilate cities).
2. Cities attacked with a 100kT or lower yield have a chance of survival and ability to mount an emergency response.
3. Cities attacked with a high yield (e.g. 800kT) have no chance of survival and making a guide for local authorities is useless.
Does anyone know if nuclear doctrine (Russian, American, or other) designate what yields would be used on cities?
For example, lets assume, a nuclear aggressor can do a surprise strike and target NYC. As of 2019 the vaults of the NY FED had 6,190 tons of gold. Wouldn't a 800kT bomb, obliterate or damage the gold? Wouldn't the infrastructure of the city be wasted? It makes senses to target locations that would help a country wage war so military bases and factories, but cities?