You're too shallow to think such a way. climate change affects the earth... land or sea. Sea water rising doesn't merely means the sea "is winning" and less and less land are livable by humans.

By starting to find ways to make undersea dwelling possible in a massive way, humans must utilise what's on the land. let's just assume in 100 years from now, living undersea is possible, we humans still needs to go aground for resources to expand the cities below the sea.

It's not human nature to live undersea. To start adapting humans for this, the efforts are highly time consuming (persuading the masses to migrate down there) , and the resources (yea.. harvested from our beloved "land", from aluminium to zinc) required are much more.

But humans require more than just dates to get their nutrient fix . Alot of variety of veges (and other food) must be able to be grown undersea to sustain the population.


You're comparing weapons of different magnitude

Nuclear warhead annihilation spans many kms... both undersea and on land

but in undersea, it took a small explosion to cause a leak, hence drowning the people that was unluckily living inside the part of that doomed eeer... domed area , assuming the access to other domes are quickly sealed if this happens.

back on the land, a small explosion won't cause so much damage and fatalities to the humans,compared to those living under the sea.