But, as I outlined in my comment, there are situations other than nuclear war where the US might want to restart nuke production.
But, as I outlined in my comment, there are situations other than nuclear war where the US might want to restart nuke production.
Electricity isn't a requirement for survival; we lived without it only a century ago. My folks in New England can pretty much live indefinitely with a wood stove, a groundwater well, and local agriculture. It might be a rough time figuring out how to feed everyone. It would certainly be a brutal existence, and a lot of people wouldn't make it, but the world would go on.
Even rural areas would be very rough. Supply lines for gasoline would probably be disrupted so unless you can grow enough food for subsistence on your own land, local agriculture wouldn't help you much. We'd have to go back to horses and carriages, but with the exception of Amish areas, I doubt there are enough horses and related equipment around to make it work. And then there's security, which is probably the biggest issue. Even if you can sustain yourself, you'll need a way to deal with packs of hungry, desperate people going around with guns.
Civilization would survive, somewhere far from NA, Europe, Asia (ie in South Africa).
There is only two scenarios for a global nuclear war:
a) first, pre-emptive strike - then you need to take out not only nuclear arsenal of the enemy, but it's C2 and weapons production capabilities, including any administrative centers, eg Moscow or Washington
b) retaliatory, responding strike - then you need to make sure nobody from the enemy attacked you could ever wage war against you, so not only you destroy enemy nuclear capabilities (silos? why though? they are already used and empty) but any C2, weapons production capabilities, including any administrative centers, eg Moscow or Washington
In both scenarios there is no way you will see an IRS agent on the porch of your bunker in less than 10 years from the war.