Updated Nukemap

Here’s a few thoughts about the Atlanta strike shown.
The Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear device ever detonated, was more of a demonstration project that was intended to cause fear in NATO countries than anything else. The device was so large that it was impractical for actual wartime use. There were serious questions about whether the plane that dropped it would make it out of the blast area. If memory served, modifications of the aircraft were necessary to even carry it.
Since the 1970s, the precision of targeting, for both conventional and nuclear weapons, has advanced greatly. Reliance on predicted fallout patterns from that time would be a serious mistake. The larger devices of the 1960s fell, essentially, in the “grenade” category. Today, smaller nuclear devices are used because of sniper-like precision. They can be counted on to actually hit the target by 100 yards, maybe 200 yards, and by even less than 100 feet (for US weapons).
For this reason, it is much more damaging to bomb a large target, such as a major metropolitan area, with multiple smaller devices than one large device. (For example, some have predicted that the LA area will get hit by as many as 22 nuclear devices.) For this reason, most nuclear devices fall within the 100 kiloton to 800-kiloton range. These are the typical warhead size weapons carried by a MIRV (Multiple Independently Targeted Re-entry Vehicle) missile. 
The principle is the same as with conventional munitions. Multiple smaller detonations over an area can have a greater destructive effect than one larger detonation in the middle.
With smaller nuclear detonations, fallout patterns change. A smaller detonation does not send nuclear-contaminated debris/particles as high in the atmosphere. The fallout pattern is shorter. Crosswinds at different altitudes can change it, as well.
The most important thing to understand is that, unless there is some reason to use a ground burst (e.g., to take out an enemy missile silo or an underground command post) “more bang for the buck” is achieved in an urban area by using an airburst. This explains why we used airbursts on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (Back to conventional munitions again, a conventional artillery shell’s detonation over the heads of troops in the open will be, in general, far more destructive than an artillery detonation on the ground whose destructive capacity is muffled.)
While there is LOCALIZED radiation from the bomb’s material in a nuclear airburst, there is no radioactively-contaminated soil and debris that will be sucked up high into the atmosphere to then flow downwind as fallout. While people living in the urban area will die in greater numbers from the heat and shock wave from the airbursts, those living downwind will be much safer.
Last of all, nuclear weapons must be serviced and maintained every so often to actually work. The US spent about 80% of the ENTIRE RUSSIAN MILITARY BUDGET (as of 2021) to maintain its nuclear weaponry. How much did the Russians spend? It is an open question about how many of Russia’s weapons sitting in silos will actually work after the passage of 30+ years since the Soviet Union fell.
The whole world saw during the invasion of Ukraine the effect of Russia’s neglect, corruption, and poor maintenance of its conventional military weaponry. Would we see the same results if its nuclear forces were ever used?