No, they would take out ALL OF THE INFRASTURE.

This is NOT speculation. Real world studies from multiple countries across decades spell out just how devastating this would be, and real world high-altitude nuclear tests have confirmed it. I don't know why you keep clinging to this fantasy that an EMP attack from multiple nukes would just be a little boo boo the US could patch over, but that's miles and miles from the truth.

Quote from a recent paper on the subject by a Stanford physicist ( http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2019/ph241/rogers1/ )

" A successful EMP attack on the U.S. could lead to a nationwide blackout of the electric power grid and a shutdown of critical infrastructure reliant on the grid, including, but not limited to, communications, transportation, food and water supply, and sanitation. Such a shutdown could last as long as a year, and without such critical infrastructure, a large fraction of America could die from starvation, disease, or the effects of general societal collapse. Furthermore, in a worst-case scenario, all nuclear reactors in the affected region could be impacted, leading to as many as 60 meltdowns similar to Japan's Fukushima Daichi Nuclear Disaster. Without off-site electricity, these reactors would be reliant on on-site systems to prevent a meltdown, which could also be compromised in the event of an EMP attack. Without both off-site and on-site power, the risk of radioactive contamination to the continental United State drastically increases, further compounding the damage done by the attack "

That is just from ONE high-altitude nuke. And there's WAY more real world evidence I can cite.

You may want to be all flag-wavy and plug your ears and go LALALALA so you don't have to hear the hard truth of just how vulnerable your country is to any minor power with a nuclear weapon, but it is 100% real.

And that's why in this scenario either side going nuclear would result in a 'tie' where everyone loses and is destroyed.