28 Days Later-Geopolitical Repercussions

[Father Maryland]

So the basic premise is what would the international Geopolitical repercussions of 28 Days later be. Essentially the rage virus has completely infected something like 99 percent of the pre Rage British population with survivors in Great Britain being limited to rather small scattered groups hiding. The infection is stopped from effecting the rest of the world. So how do the rest of the world's countries react to one of the most powerful nation state being essentially wiped out from within in a matter of days? Do we see the emergence of various national "Bunker State" mentalities as countries fortify their border and invest more heavily in various military and preventative measures?

Personally in 28 Days Later I assume a large reason why the Rage Virus didn't spread into Europe was because France and the other nearby European nation states started shooting down anything flying out of Britain sometime on the first day or so. I believe in 28 Days later before it's revealed that the rest of the world survived that the last thing British survivors heard from abroad was out breaking emerging elsewhere. I assume if that was true (instead of just false info spread into Britain in a attempt to prevent infected survivors from trying to flee abroad) that it was probably something like outbreaks at Airports which had received airliners of infected from Britain. If that did happen I'm wagering that the infections were contained by nearby nations panic bombing their effected airports.

Personally I also think that we'd see foreign military interventions into infected Great Britain fairly rapidly. I'm not saying other nations would send in ground troops (other then say small scale covert spec ops raids) but would resort to air bombardment and having naval vessels shell coastal cities.

So any thoughts?

 

[MaxGerke01]

I dont think every plane or ship coming out of Britain was shot down on sight. A certain number of Britons were evacuated from mainland Britain which means ships and planes had to be involved.Once it was established that those infected were impacted pretty much instantly it would be known that anyone lucid enough to fly a plane or steer a ship or allow themselves to be transported on one without a murderous rampage are not infected.Of course samples of the virus would be obtained and each and every refugee would be blood tested before they were allowed to disembark.Not many got out of Britain because there wasnt enough time but I dont think every plane or ship was shot down or turned back.

 

[Jedi Dragon]

Considering that it's been less than a year since 9/11, paranoia goes through the roof, especially in America. NATO will quarantine the islands and start launching airstrikes on cities near the coastline to make sure nothing gets out. After the infected die of starvation, they will be extremely cautious about resettlement, more than in the sequel at any rate, but British refugees will eventually be resettled. Samples of the virus will be kept for research, but they will be very heavily guarded in areas far away from the general public.

 

[Resurgam]

@Ogrebear before someone says it spreads to Europe, let alone out of the UK...

 

[MaxGerke01]

Another thing to consider is what would the essential destruction of the British pound do to the world economy ? Nothing nice seems likely...

 

[mapuche lautarino]

and if an outbreak occurred in the indus river🤔

 

[Father Maryland]

Considering that it's been less than a year since 9/11, paranoia goes through the roof, especially in America. NATO will quarantine the islands and start launching airstrikes on cities near the coastline to make sure nothing gets out. After the infected die of starvation, they will be extremely cautious about resettlement, more than in the sequel at any rate, but British refugees will eventually be resettled. Samples of the virus will be kept for research, but they will be very heavily guarded in areas far away from the general public.

Pretty much my thought. Border fortifications are going to be a big thing again. You might see a decline of the EU (or at least the death of the Schengen zone). I think nations will be a lot more hesitant about having easy access by foreign tourists and merchantmen. A lot more thorough inspections of transports entering and exiting countries. That will of course have massive economic repercussions.

I agree. We'll be seeing air strikes on Britain within a week or so. At first combat aircraft like Mirage IV's and B52s and later just old fashioned cargo planes dumping barrel bombs and FAE devices off the cargo ramp. To be honest I'd be surprised if there's anything left unburnt or unbombed in London by the 28 day mark. It will definitely kill some uninfected survivors but I think the countries involved in the airstrikes will rationalize that the vast majority of the urban populations are already dead or infected and that removing the hordes of Rage infectees from pouring out of the cities into the country side will actually save lives overall. Or they'll just prioritize their own national survivor over any remaining British survivors.

Definitely plausible that we might see a large scale usage of chemical weapons (as we saw in the second movie). By the time of the first movie most of the world's powers (including the US and Russia) had signed the chemical weapon ban. But for the countries with the largest arsenals the process of actually safely disposing of their arsenals of nerve gases took well over another decade. So by this point the US and Russia (and a number of other countries) still have massive arsenals of various compounds ready to use. And frankly any country with a half decent chemical industry could build their own fairly easily. We'd probably see heavy usage of agents that disperse fairly rapidly.

I imagine countries might after the UK outbreak create their own Epidemic protocols that involve the use of Chemical or even nuclear weapons if a outbreak occurs within one of their own cities. It seems like the UK had completely collapsed within something like less then a week. Combating a outbreak in one of you're own cities would be nearly impossible conventionally. By the time you could mobilize the troops the outbreak would have already burnt across most entire countries.

I agree that eventually resettlement would occur but the way the second movie treated it was pretty unrealistic. I could see London having a very strong symbolic value for the first settlement but it seems like say one of the smaller coastal ports that survived mostly intact would get chosen. Something with some port facilities to unload people and supplies but defensible surrounding terrain. I imagine the colonies would be very very heavily fortified and militarized (both overall and individually for each family/apartment building/block). Instead of having a completely unarmed and seemingly helpless civilian populace you'd probably have any civilians formed into some form of militia for defense.

Does whatever happened to Ireland ever get mentioned in either movie? If Northern Ireland managed to survive it now makes up by a majority the largest surviving section of the UK. The capitol of whatever provisional government get's formed might get moved to Belfast for a while anyways.

Do we ever actually see Rage infectees drink water? If they don't have even the remaining instinct to seek hydration the lifespan of the epidemic might only be a week or two before all of the infectees die of dehydration.

If the Rage Epidemic occurs in 2002 I suppose the Iraq War get's butterflied (unless Saddam get's blamed for the Epidemic.) The UK is obviously in no shape to aid in any invasion and it's military forces will be desperately needed at home. The US will similarly be too busy with the UK and scared shit domestically fortifying the borders and in general looking inward.

It occurs to me that a very large percentage of the surviving British population might be active duty military who were deployed abroad at the time of the Outbreak and didn't have time to reach home. Things like British forces in Afghanistan, the British Army of the Rhine,British Forces Cyrprus, the Falklands garrison, and the like. Probably be very heavy trauma among that group over the fact that when their country and families needed them the most they couldn't get home in time.

The UK will be very heavily dependent on European allies and especially the US for a very long time. I could see the French getting involved from the perspective that it's better to contain the infection to the UK instead of having to guard every meter of the French Atlantic coast.

 

[Father Maryland]

Another thing to consider is what would the essential destruction of the British pound do to the world economy ? Nothing nice seems likely...

The almost instant complete removal of the UK from the world's economy will probably cause at least a severe recession. But honestly the worst economic effects might be from countries slowing down transport and travel in order to make sure the infection doesn't spread to them. Even money there is at least a decade long global depression.

 

[Father Maryland]

So it occurred to me that the Rage Virus epidemic in Britain might cause a significant increase in proliferation of Nuclear/Chemical weapons from nations paranoid about facing their own epidemics.

I'm also trying to think of a good choice for a first resettlement colony in Britain. I think London wouldn't really work even if it hadn't been burned. There would just be way too many bodies. We don't know how long the Rage virus lives on in dead tissue/blood but we are shown it can definitely infect people. Even with tens of thousands of soldiers working around the clock it would take years to deal with all of the dead. Too much risk of some civilian accidentally getting infected. And even without the Rage Virus millions of rotting corpses would cause a massive bio hazard risk. It'd be like setting down a colony in the middle of a Biological warfare lab.

I'm thinking they'd choose something on the coast. A large town or small city that didn't get bombed to pieces. Anybody have any suggestions? I'm thinking a large town/small city with some at least basic port facilities or at least a good harbor. Preferably something that's relatively isolated from the rest of the country? Perhaps an island? If possible existing defenses of some kind that can be expanded. So any recommendations?

 

[MaxGerke01]

So it occurred to me that the Rage Virus epidemic in Britain might cause a significant increase in proliferation of Nuclear/Chemical weapons from nations paranoid about facing their own epidemics.

I'm also trying to think of a good choice for a first resettlement colony in Britain. I think London wouldn't really work even if it hadn't been burned. There would just be way too many bodies. We don't know how long the Rage virus lives on in dead tissue/blood but we are shown it can definitely infect people. Even with tens of thousands of soldiers working around the clock it would take years to deal with all of the dead. Too much risk of some civilian accidentally getting infected. And even without the Rage Virus millions of rotting corpses would cause a massive bio hazard risk. It'd be like setting down a colony in the middle of a Biological warfare lab.

I'm thinking they'd choose something on the coast. A large town or small city that didn't get bombed to pieces. Anybody have any suggestions? I'm thinking a large town/small city with some at least basic port facilities or at least a good harbor. Preferably something that's relatively isolated from the rest of the country? Perhaps an island? If possible existing defenses of some kind that can be expanded. So any recommendations?

Looking at the first movie you actually dont see that many bodies in London. In the 28 Days timeline in this forum London was largely evacuated. I think it was a bad spot for initial resettlement mainly because its too far inland.Some place on the coast that would be easier to evacuate quickly if need be would have made more sense, What about Southhampton or Portsmouth ?

 

[Father Maryland]

Looking at the first movie you actually dont see that many bodies in London. In the 28 Days timeline in this forum London was largely evacuated. I think it was a bad spot for initial resettlement mainly because its too far inland.Some place on the coast that would be easier to evacuate quickly if need be would have made more sense, What about Southhampton or Portsmouth ?

Got a link to that TL?

I mean even if the city was largely evacuated we'd still be dealing with hundreds of thousands of corpses both human and various pets. And scattered across a city the size of London it would take years to find them all. That is if the city hadn't burned. Even without heavy air bombing much of London would still have burnt. Six months without any fire departments (and plenty of survivors using fire bombs) would cause a massive series of fires. Things like gas mains going up starting fire storms.

You'd also see the septic system (and all the waste in it) starting to break down leaching the contaminants into the water table.

I could see the symbolic value of London but it'd be like starting a colony in a half burnt bio weapon petri dish.

I agree some small port in the south makes sense. Any large islands off the coast of mainland Britain that would make good choices?

 

[rfmcdonald]

Isle of Wight?

 

[TheReformer]

Thought I'd mention, there is a sequel called 28 weeks later which shows the virus does escape Britain and that there are attempts to secure the island post crisis.

See HERE for the synopsis.

 

[Father Maryland]

Thought I'd mention, there is a sequel called 28 weeks later which shows the virus does escape Britain and that there are attempts to secure the island post crisis.

See HERE for the synopsis.

Kind of strange to imagine that in the end the soldiers dressed in Chemical Warfare suits trying to use mustard gas to kill children ended up being the "good guys" and because they failed millions if not billions of people ended up getting killed.


SPOILERs.
From the very end part it becomes Paris has been overrun. So unless somebody get's profligate with chemical/nuclear weapons it's probably going to spread far beyond France. Realistically the best case scenario might be the Old World (Europe, Africa, Asia, potentially Oceania) being overrun bar a few fortress states (Like Israel which I could seriously see in the aftermath of "Twenty Eight Days Later" building a massive wall/fortifications around the entire country sort of like WWZ). With at best the Western Hemisphere (and various fortified islands in the Old World) being the sole remnant of mankind.

If "Twenty Eight months later" ends up getting made it might be about "Fortress America" as the various nations of North America, Central America, South America, and the Carribbean joining together to fortify and Quarantine the entire Western Hemisphere.

 

[Father Maryland]

So anyone got a link to that 28 Days later TL here?

 

[MaxGerke01]

So anyone got a link to that 28 Days later TL here?

This is it -it includes the 28 Weeks Later material as well. https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...r-outbreak-timeline-death-of-a-nation.225381/

 

[MaxGerke01]

I also found this not long ago its much shorter and sticks more to the two movie plots. https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-28-days-weeks-months-universe-timeline.179352/

 

[Father Maryland]

Anybody else bothered by the Settlement in London? More then anything else the defenses made more sense. I mean their entire plan in the event of a outbreak was to crowd every civilian into the same large dark room protected by nothing but standard crappy door.

I was thinking besides the extensive fortifications surrounding the entire thing the interior should be fortified as well. Basically have the interior divided by fortified walls, barbed wire, mine fields, watch towers, and heavy weapons. In the event of outbreak a lockdown goes into effect and civilians are kept in whatever subsection there in. Every tower flat building or house is also fortified with a small wall around the front and with the outside doors, doors to the stairs, and internal flat doors also heavily built and fortified. For those away from home their are frequently distributed small bunkers/ pill boxes equipped with supplies and guns. The idea is that even if the infected can break through one door or wall it will take them a lot of time to break into every pillbox and flat. The Civilians hunker down to wait it out while being able to defend themselves. This give the soldiers the freedom to shoot pretty much any infected roaming around from watch towers equipped with sniper rifles and machine guns. There would be a couple of small armored units to act as a rapid reaction force. In the worst case scenario the civilians are all provided with gas masks and chemical warfare gear. If the initial conventional defense fails the army can relatively "safely" just bombard the settlement with chemical weapons. The civilians and soldiers will be protected from the effects while the Infected out in the open will quickly die.

I know this goes against a lot of British beliefs but I'd say forming the civilians into a armed part time militia makes too much sense to avoid. The idea would be less using them as the first line against the infected and more having them being able to defend their flats and houses in the event of a outbreak. The soldiers can then focus on containing the epidemic. If nothing else some of the militia can chip in during an outbreak by using rifles from their roofs, watch towers, windows, and balconies to fire at the infected rampaging through the streets.

Seems a lot better then "Crowd all the survivors in the same poorly lit room protected by a single door that looks like they scavenged it from a high school and then when the infected break in and the survivors just start running through the street meaning they get in the line of fire of the soldiers.

So any reccomendations for good islands near the coast that would make good first colonization choices?