[quote=@Shorticus] Yeah, there's other states that could probably produce the gas / oil needed that would fare better in the nuclear apocalypse. I mean, frankly... A few cities in Texas might get struck, but a lot of it isn't very high priority, and there are oil wells in those regions. [/quote] If we're going for MAD then chances are they would get fucked. The only thing effecting the number of nuclear weapons would be ICBM defense systems filtering out incoming missiles, but the anti-missile defense network may not be big enough to down them all and we'd get a significant enough rain. And a lot of big population and industrial centers will probably be targeted by several to assure their physical annihilation. [quote=@ClocktowerEchos] That would be an issue. I would say biofuels but even today we aren't really implimenting those so that's off the table. The contested refinery could be an interesting plot point tho. [/quote] It's an issue today because it means higher food costs and people actually want to eat. Food cost would be even more contentious in the apocalypse than it would now when you actually need to put more people in the field to pick crops than we do now (we have GPS-controlled combines that do the work of an army with only the button press of one, modern society has stepped way back from rural agricultural life).