Perhaps then it shouldn't be nuked- though I think there's merit to the notion of taking out the core of the criminal bureaucracy that has overseen the most warlike, genocidal state in existence all the same- but it should certainly be occupied. And my personal take on it is that if I myself had anything to say about it, DC would be cleansed from existence, and its civilian population relocated to the outskirts and built new homes there. As the seat of modern evil in the 21st century, as the greatest monument to (many) genocide(s) humanity has ever seen, I think that there has to be something substantial done about it, either way- not merely a renaming of the city if and when it were taken, but a permanent military occupation, perhaps with the end goal of making it, if it were to remain, a living museum of the most warlike, monstrous state in existence.

I feel that it's deathly important that humanity takes such a stance, to disavow not only the settler-state and all its horrors- but to disavow the American empire in particular, which I'd argue is the inspiration of all modern genocides and the culmination of all the capitalist and imperialist (as the highest form of capitalism, granted) crimes in history.

Now, as for if whoever the US targets with a preemptive nuclear strike can't intercept all the missiles- that's another story. If you ask me, if MAD is invoked successfully, by all means survival- as well as maintaining MAD- becomes a matter of equal retaliation or worse. To do anything else would be a betrayal to the victims of such a preemptive strike, to the blood, sweat, and tears that went into creating such weapons to deter and retaliate against American aggression, and to the very notion of human dignity and equality across all nations, races, etc. as I see it. Because there certainly would be more incoming, and the precedent of the west getting away with invoking MAD and not receiving it in turn is frankly worse if you ask me than any other possible outcome.