Contingency planing should start from the particular contingency being addressed. What you do in one situation is totally inappropriate in others. Lennyjoe - what contingencies are you interested in addressing?
Personally, I don't plan to leave my home in any contingency the area becomes NBC uninhabitable. There are a couple reasons for this. The property itself is spacious enough and far enough away from high population density that I feel fairly secure. It is close enough to a low SES area that low level property crime could become an issue in economic collapse. But history has shown that folks in those areas generally prefer to burn their own communities down in times of real unrest. But, more than all that, my resources are here. Tools, equipment, energy sources, materials... it's all accumulated here. I'd be starting at a massive disadvantage going elsewhere.
To the question of nuclear combat - we are probably closer to it than any time since the end of the cold war, but it still remains a highly improbable event. There's a lot of escalations between the current Ukraine war and nuclear detonations on US soil. That said, keep an eye on it, because things can develop quickly. "There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen" (Gods, forgive me for quoting Lenin, but it does fit)
If you're serious about planning for the contingency of nuclear combat, I suggest reading Nuclear war survival skills, available for free,
here. The material is dated, but nuclear weapons are much the same as they ever have been, and the information about how to deal with them is too. At a minimum, think about what you will do for shelter and information.
Where exactly gets hit, if it's airburst or surface burst, and weather conditions will dictate much about fallout.
