It's unclear that many 'suitcase nukes,' if they are even operational at all, are much more potent than 1kt.
I don't know how you source 'conducted most probably with "suitcase nukes," some with a far greated yield than 1kt.'
The conventioonal wisdom has the so-called suitcase nukes at a yeild of about .1kt to 1kt, nowhere close to an attack that would destroy NY, DC, LA, Chi, and/or other major cities entirely.
Check this very rational and realistic, and not hysterical, analysis of smaller portable nuclear weapons.
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020923.htm A 1kt bomb in, for example, would not destroy any of the entire cities you listed. A 1kt bomb would most likely leave a blast crater of a couple of city blocks, with an atomic fireball radiating outward for a few more blocks. In a city as dense at NYC, that could mean the murder of 100,000 or more, and the poisoning by radiation of several more 100,000s. In Chicago and LA, the numbers would be comperable but not as high.
In NYC, I would imagine that fire would shoot down some subway tunnels for miles, starting fires, killing and asphyxiating people, and setting off gas pipes all over the city. The fires close to ground zero would be enourmous - I don't think the NYFD can contain them so the army corps of engineers and other top-shelf pros would have to be brought in immediately (hours later at best).
Is the city 'destroyed?' Is the national really economy 'annihilated?' Would we really be on the brink of 'total collapse?' What are you drinking?
We would be hurt, sure. Hurt severely, but not irreperably. But I have to say, NYers, Los Angelinos, and Second City residents have an exagerrated sense of self importance. That somehow those tragedies in their cities (as enourmous and terrible as they would be) somehow means that the Union will collapse is downright strange.
The Union survives. The worst part will be the subsequent panic in those cities and other high-risk cities. That will suibside in relatively short order - some in days, some in weeks, I am certain.
A body count of 100,000s in 3 major cities is a huge disaster. We would respond, of course. I don't see it as any kind of given that our response would be nuking innocent cities in return.
Sorry, but to me it sounds like you are getting your info and drawing your conclusions based on a lot of reading of non Ian Fleming James Bond novels.
But I have to say, NYers, Los Angelinos, and Second City residents have an exagerrated sense of self importance. Nice convienetly overlooking the "and/or other major cities" part I wrote.
And how about the destruction of D.C.? What's the "chain of command" when the entire (political) chain is gone?
Look, whether the bombs are 1kt or 20kt, utter chaos would ensue. The stock market would completely collapse (in fact Wall St. could even cease to exist), and frightened Americans would be yanking their investments left and right. I think you're seriously underestimating that damage that would be done. Yeah, we'd survive, but we'd be a whole different place.