No. No one will survive even a limited nuclear exchange. Leaders of both the Soviet Union and the US knew that, and that is why it never happened. Too many people today are completely ignorant of that fact, making the survival of humankind far less likely now.

The lucky ones will be killed outright. The most unlucky will freeze to death within 4 weeks, while dehydrated and starving.

Even more unlucky will be those who last longer than that, but that will only be a very few. The massive firestorms that send heat aloft (even though the surface of the Earth will be -40F to -80F) will consume a significant portion of the Oxygen. We lose half the Oxygen and humans no longer survive. No one.

See Wikipedia: Nuclear winter is a severe and prolonged global climatic cooling effect that is hypothesized[1][2] to occur after widespread firestorms following nuclear war.[3] The hypothesis is based on the fact that such fires can inject soot into the stratosphere, where it can block some direct sunlight from reaching the surface of the Earth. It is speculated that the resulting cooling would lead to widespread crop failure and famine.[4][5] When developing computer models of nuclear-winter scenarios, researchers use the conventional bombing of Hamburg, and the Hiroshima firestorm in World War II as example cases where soot might have been injected into the stratosphere,[6] alongside modern observations of natural, large-area wildfire-firestorms.[3][7][8]

The more things change the more they stay the same. Instead of degenerate kings and nobles we have degenerates like Klaus and Soros. That is why I have been saying think about the Crimean War. Same players in different costumes with the addition of the US.

Even when you get rid of the kings you have to watch out for ambitious Corporals like Napoleon. It is the perversity of human nature that war continues. Even the people who protested the Vietnam War are gleefully supporting the Ukrainian war. It seems to be a matter of who's side you are on and logic has little to do with that.

Organized warfare is part of civilization. As soon as people had the resources for long campaigns there have been war. War is different than tribal conflict for that reason. In tribal warfare you kill a few people and then it is back to trying to find enough food to survive. Civilization makes sustained conflict possible.

Our closest relatives the Chimpanzees also engage in organized conflict. Despite a big brain it seems apes still operate on primitive instincts. While war requires close cooperation it never seems to be generally recognized that cooperation is more productive than conflict. You can't just blame ambition or avarice war would be impossible with out some cooperation from the general population.

The idea that there are good wars and bad wars is delusional. All wars are bad unless you want to kill off the most productive members of society. To end wars we need to come to the understanding that evolution is purposeless. That it is driven by fitness not survival of the species. Fitness only means surviving offspring. That instinct serves that purpose not the well being of the individual.