MAD as a concept faded out in the early 1980s. Improved accuracy led to the policy of counterforce ( against enemy military assets ) instead of countervalue ( cities and social structure ).
MAD was a necessary compromise when delivery accuracy and certainty were insufficient to target individual threat sites. It led to enormous megatonne weapons. Whereas modern counterforce involves small-yield warheads placed accurately.
I was going to say that can't be correct, otherwise some civic-minded third party could swat a global thermonuclear war, saving us all. But https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/WarheadInventorie... agrees, even if it is by warheads and not by megatonnage. So if I'm in a third world country with no foreign bases that has emergency plans for autarky, I'd not be likely to come off too poorly were everything to go elliptical?
Bonus clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecPeSmF_ikc
Edit: https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-weapons (which also shows that both the hexagonal "Force de dissuasion" and Airforce One's Tridents are in the noise)
> "These weapons have the capacity to kill millions directly and through their impact on agriculture have likely the potential to kill billions."
Maybe swatting RU/US wouldn't be so civic minded after all.