I have a problem. My book takes place ~50 years after a global nuclear war. Obviously this will have a very dramatic effect on weather patterns. And megatons of nukes being detonated may cause seismic disruptions. Earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, derechos, etc., would presumably become commonplace. My book also involves an advanced extraterrestrial race occupying the planet, and an underground resistance rising up in the form of a rag-tag underdog insurgent militia. Being that there is such a difference in capability and power, I had thought that perhaps natural disasters, like the ones mentioned above, could potentially play a role in levelling the playing field, so to speak. The ET occupation government may not be too familiar with Earth weather and may not respond appropriately or effectively to such disasters - which my resistance could take advantage of, potentially capturing large swaths of territory in blitzkrieg fashion before the government is able to effectively respond. Now, it may sound good at first, but I'm very, very, very cautious about using weather events in such a way. Personally, if I were reading a book about a raggedy resistance movement getting pounded by the enemy, "taking one step forward and two steps back" for a week, suffering heavy casualties, and then all of the sudden a hurricane or earthquake pops up out of nowhere and just hands them a victory, I don't know if I'd want to keep reading. I'd look at it as a sloppy, poorly-done cliché and a hallmark of bad writing. But on the other hand, keeping in mind that there HAS been a nuclear war and that WOULD dramatically alter the climate and weather, I would also think it somewhat odd if the weather didn't have any bearing on the plot. I'm stuck between a rock and a hard spot here, so I'm asking opinions. It's like I have two buttons in front of me, one says "Your story calls for crazy weather" and the other says "Weather plots are terrible" and I'm sweating profusely not knowing which to press. What do you guys think?