It's admittedly been a little while since I read the book, but I don't think that we have to assume that it was nuclear. The book is quite explicit that there was some kind of war, and the implication from the end of the book (with the naval ship visible at the end) that it was brutal and in some way analogous to the war that took place on the island, but it never says (or, to my knowledge, implies) that it was nuclear; the story line could have just as easily applied to a conventional war.
For example, according to Wikipedia, Germany launched 1,402 V-2 rockets at the U.K., 1358 of which were launched at London. These missiles weren't especially accurate, but they were spectacular at intimidation; they could, as I understand it, fly above the cloud cover, so from the observers' perspective, they "appeared out of nowhere" with little warning and at seemingly arbitrary targets. (The fact that nearly 97% of them were launched at London gives you a sense of how extensively the city was targeted during WWII).
It was actually quite common to evacuate people (especially children) from populated areas, and that did actually appear in literature of the time. For comparison, in the Narnia series, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is quite explicit about the fact that the Pevensies had been sent to the country to escape the bombing of London. There was never a nuclear bomb detonated in the U.K. (although the book was written after the nuclear bombing of Japan). Although this book was obviously written by a different author for a different audience, the point is that this kind of evacuation was hardly unique to Lord of the Flies, nor was it all that uncommon historically (especially in areas like London that experienced heavy bombing), nor do we have to assume that authors were referring to nuclear weapons. Conventional warfare was more than brutal enough to justify the evacuations.