The day after The Day After Tomorrow

[Xenophonte]

I think that would be overlooked a bit the consequences and/or the effects of this scenario for the great mountain chains and theirs surrounding zones that already would be outside of the actual Glacial zone. If we would take, as an example or precedent, the situation of the main land mass that were outside of the main ice sheets in the last glacial period there were a widespread glaciation in the Mountain chains.
Therefore, in this scenario the ice sheet remnants of the last Glacial period it's probably that begin to grow again and would be starting to form local glaciers in the main European mountain chains, e.g. the Pyrenees, the Alps and the Carpathians.
Also, we must expect the formation and/or advance of the great ice sheets in most of the mountainous areas. For America those would be the Andes (with the Andean valleys and the Bolivian plateau affected too), the Rocky mountains and the Appalachian Mountains.
The main (mountains) zones that would be affected, in Asia, would be the Caucasus Mountains and the Himalayas.
I suppose that would be included too the Tibetan Plateau.
Also the same situation would be probable, although I suppose that to a lesser degree than the European ones, the great African Mountains (either Mount Kenya, the Kilimanjaro also the Cape Fold Belt) and in specific the Atlas Mountains.

 

[History Learner]

I'm not sure which of the three images you are referring to, but happy to help anyway .

All of them.

If you're right about the snowfall, there's hope for a lot more Europeans. Temporary refugees camps can be set up in Iberia whilst the European militaries evacuate whoever they can.

Southern Iberia, at the least it would seem.

How far south do we think the ice has reached in Europe, and how much of it is glacial (and therefore long-term) rather than compressed snow (and therefore short-term)? I quickly rustled up this diagram - I think that either the yellow or orange line is closest to the true furthest line of advance.

And this at the height of the disaster:

As @AcaciaSgt noted, it does appear the simulations showed the European contingent of the storms getting as low as Southern Italy. However, in the image here, it appears the eye of the storm only got as far South as Southern France (It's still visible) before noticeably dissipating as the ISS crewed reported; we know for a fact the European storm developed above Scotland, so I don't think it went as far South as Sicily and then begun moving back North. On the whole, it's hard to say. The visuals in the film show North Africa relatively fine and Southern Iberia still having noticeable amounts of green within it, so it might have something to do with the Med as Acacia noted. Maybe the Storm just couldn't manage to get over the Alps without weakening itself too much? The Northern American portion definitely was weakening after it crossed the Appalachian Mountains into the Midwest.

I'm not sure they'd have the same GDP from the time pre-disaster.

Absolutely agreed and my bad for not making it more clear, but I kept their GDPs the same on the basis of not counting other surviving areas. Hawaii, the portions of the Upper South that appear to have definitely made it, the Southwest, Southern California, etc. You could shave off another 50% and not count any of those areas, and the U.S. remnant would still have a larger economy than any of the other four.

 

[History Learner]

Some more thoughts, based on some of the posts so far.


Middle East -

Originally, my thinking was that the Middle East would experience a boom here given their lands would likely become temperate, need for oil would remain, and they could recruit many skilled European refugees to diversify their economy. Given what others have brought up, I’m no longer sure on any of that beyond their lands becoming more fertile.

For one, while need for Oil might remain, it’s going to be significantly curtailed as compared to before the events given that China and Europe have essentially been removed as customers while the United States can meet its own reduced demand with its native production from the Gulf and Texas. This means the underlying base of the Arab world has just collapsed and, without the international patron of the United States, it’s doubtful any of the Oil Monarchies could survive such an event. That the U.S. is likely to be doing an immediate pull out due to needs in the Americas is going to increase the chaos, as Iraq is likely to collapse and thus you get sectarian war breaking out there while Sunni Fundamentalists get a base from which to propagate their message from with force.

That last point is critical because, as was noted elsewhere in the thread, the destruction of the Northern Hemisphere will appear as Divine Revelation to many in the Islamic World, given the ongoing War on Terror. In the context of the collapse of their economies and the Western-backed Governments in addition to what appears to be a Divine act, Fundamentalism will likely gain a greater following throughout the region. If the chaos alone wasn’t enough to discourage Europeans from fleeing to the Middle East, the spread of Fundamentalism will as it’ll be unlikely any new Governments will be willing to accept them if not remove the ones already there. Ethnic tensions between refugees and the host populations will probably be inevitable in this scenario, but adding the religious element will probably dial it up to 11.


Mexico and the U.S. -

Putting aside the issue of how much of CONUS will remain habitable, the question of what will happen with regards to Mexico is a major issue. The movie doesn’t give exact numbers, but it’s heavily implied tens of millions of Americans have fled across the Rio Grande into our Southern neighbor. This alone presents a serious issue because not only has the population within Mexico exploded with all that means for housing among other issues, but the most critical one becomes the matter of food; Mexico is deficient in production of meats and corn for its own population, nevermind providing for massive numbers of Americans. Alternative suppliers do exist, however, in Brazil and Argentina which probably explains why the U.S. forgave all Latin American debt instead of just Mexican to open the border.

Expanding upon the underlying issues, I get the impression the event has thrown Mexico into turmoil. It’s extremely unlikely the U.S. just began evacuating into Mexico without making arrangements with the Mexican Government first, so the closure of the border to American citizens makes me feel such a movie was a gesture on the part of the Mexicans. Throughout the rest of the movie we also repeatedly see serious U.S. Military elements operating from within Mexico, but not once, or at least from what I can tell, do we see any Mexican Army elements. The scene in the OP that I mentioned about the Embassy is especially revealing, in that you have U.S. Army elements arrayed around the Embassy and doing crowd control against a native Mexican crowd with no apparent support from local authorities. This suggests to me that either:

A) The Mexican Government is incapable of doing anything

B) Relations are sufficiently strained that the Mexican Government has chosen not to do anything and is siding with what appears to be the domestic discontent.

C) The Mexican Government is trying to help where it can, but is being constrained by domestic opinion; the face saving gesture with the border closure, and the inability to restrain its citizens.

A is entirely possible, given the likely collapse of their economy with the collapse of the Global Market. Regional actors, such as Cartels, vigilante movements, and autonomy minded locaties could also have reduced the Mexican Government’s effective authority. A and B, meanwhile, can be explained by the issues of allowing in so many American refugees along with the fact you have large formations of the U.S. Military operating armed on Mexican soil and performing policing duties; Nationalist anger stoked by all of this is entirely possible.

The inevitable result of B is war between the two sides, as the United States cannot tolerate a hostile government in Mexico at this point. C is untenable for both sides, as the issues presented with inevitably result in forcing the Mexican Government into either B or collapsing as outlined in A, in which case War is still the likely outcome. Option A will likely avoid a formal war for the most part, but will still probably result in the United States taking over the place. The United States Armed Forces, as outlined elsewhere in the thread, retain more than enough firepower to defeat their Mexican counterparts conventionally and they (U.S. Military) will be aided in the following COIN phase by the fact that they have tens of millions of definite friendlies in country. I also wouldn’t be surprised if many native Mexicans sided with the Americans in such a conflict.

 

[eltf177]

One wonders how the Mexican Drug Lords are exploiting this situation...

 

[Talwar]

One wonders how the Mexican Drug Lords are exploiting this situation...

A large percentage of their user base are now frozen corpses, those who are not are homeless refugees, and there are apparently oodles of heavily armed American troops all over Mexico.

Doesn't strike me as their preferred scenario.

 

[Ilúphatar]

I think those maps were also simulations, but since people seem to want to take them as hard fact, then the fact the simulation has the eye of the European storm as low as Sicily, then it's likely the ice reached the red line of your map.

However, in the image here, it appears the eye of the storm only got as far South as Southern France (It's still visible

I hadn't noticed that, thanks for pointing it out. I think it's safer to take @AcaciaSgt 's view that the simulations are to some degree incorrect, especially as the space-view represents what characters would actually see physically; whereas simulations are, to some extent, subject to error and estimation.

so it might have something to do with the Med as Acacia noted.

I'm not sure that the Med would slow or halt such a vast storm. Wouldn't the rising warm air from the Med encourage the cold storm to move further south over the sea, thus producing the opposite effect to that seen in the film? I suspect that your idea about the Alps (and probably the Pyrenees as well) is more likely.

I’m no longer sure on any of that beyond their lands becoming more fertile.

I don't think we can rely upon even that assumption. I could be wrong, but if global temperatures are much cooler ITTL won't that mean less evaporation, and therefore less precipitation? We could be looking at long-term drought in some areas which already experience relatively little rainfall, such as the Middle East and the Sahel region of Africa.

If the chaos alone wasn’t enough to discourage Europeans from fleeing to the Middle East,

Maybe the surviving European militaries could seize land from unstable, 'non-countries' such as Libya and establish 'safe zones' for refugees instead? A kind of 'Europe-in-exile? I imagine that many Brits and French would be resettled in their respective Overseas Territories - perhaps the Dutch also. I'm not sure there's much hope for most of the Norwegians, Swedes, Danes or Germans however.

Most probably the British government-in-exile sets up shop in Canberra and administers the Overseas Territories from there - it's quite possible that the remnants of the British military will be placed under Australian command (including the four nuclear submarines) in exchange for resettling refugees.

 

[Sovereign12]

Mexico and the U.S. -

Putting aside the issue of how much of CONUS will remain habitable, the question of what will happen with regards to Mexico is a major issue. The movie doesn’t give exact numbers, but it’s heavily implied tens of millions of Americans have fled across the Rio Grande into our Southern neighbor. This alone presents a serious issue because not only has the population within Mexico exploded with all that means for housing among other issues, but the most critical one becomes the matter of food; Mexico is deficient in production of meats and corn for its own population, nevermind providing for massive numbers of Americans. Alternative suppliers do exist, however, in Brazil and Argentina which probably explains why the U.S. forgave all Latin American debt instead of just Mexican to open the border.

Expanding upon the underlying issues, I get the impression the event has thrown Mexico into turmoil. It’s extremely unlikely the U.S. just began evacuating into Mexico without making arrangements with the Mexican Government first, so the closure of the border to American citizens makes me feel such a movie was a gesture on the part of the Mexicans. Throughout the rest of the movie we also repeatedly see serious U.S. Military elements operating from within Mexico, but not once, or at least from what I can tell, do we see any Mexican Army elements. The scene in the OP that I mentioned about the Embassy is especially revealing, in that you have U.S. Army elements arrayed around the Embassy and doing crowd control against a native Mexican crowd with no apparent support from local authorities. This suggests to me that either:

A) The Mexican Government is incapable of doing anything

B) Relations are sufficiently strained that the Mexican Government has chosen not to do anything and is siding with what appears to be the domestic discontent.

C) The Mexican Government is trying to help where it can, but is being constrained by domestic opinion; the face saving gesture with the border closure, and the inability to restrain its citizens.

A is entirely possible, given the likely collapse of their economy with the collapse of the Global Market. Regional actors, such as Cartels, vigilante movements, and autonomy minded locaties could also have reduced the Mexican Government’s effective authority. A and B, meanwhile, can be explained by the issues of allowing in so many American refugees along with the fact you have large formations of the U.S. Military operating armed on Mexican soil and performing policing duties; Nationalist anger stoked by all of this is entirely possible.

The inevitable result of B is war between the two sides, as the United States cannot tolerate a hostile government in Mexico at this point. C is untenable for both sides, as the issues presented with inevitably result in forcing the Mexican Government into either B or collapsing as outlined in A, in which case War is still the likely outcome. Option A will likely avoid a formal war for the most part, but will still probably result in the United States taking over the place. The United States Armed Forces, as outlined elsewhere in the thread, retain more than enough firepower to defeat their Mexican counterparts conventionally and they (U.S. Military) will be aided in the following COIN phase by the fact that they have tens of millions of definite friendlies in country. I also wouldn’t be surprised if many native Mexicans sided with the Americans in such a conflict.

One wonders how the Mexican Drug Lords are exploiting this situation...

A large percentage of their user base are now frozen corpses, those who are not are homeless refugees, and there are apparently oodles of heavily armed American troops all over Mexico.

Doesn't strike me as their preferred scenario.

I think there may be a "D" option here.
I can see many Mexicans from northern Mexico fleeing south, before any massive influx of US citizens. The environment of the northern Mexican states has changed temperature and weather-wise, but the flora and fauna will take years to adapt to these new conditions. Agriculture will have failed in these areas, and many Mexicans will go where the food is and also seeking better weather down in southern Mexico and Central America. Much of the Mexican military could have been in the areas needed to police the southern Mexican states.

This would also apply, as Talwar said, to the Drug Lords whose crops have now failed and who's users have basically dropped in numbers and ability to pay. The smart thing for them to do now is move south and control the supple of food stuffs from farms to stores. Initially to sell to the Mexican people, but eventually to sell to the American refugees. Besides, why would the Drug Lords stay in northern Mexico when the US Army is now active and in their former territory.

 

[eltf177]

My thoughts exactly: food is the new money maker (the market for drugs has collapsed) along with necessary supplies like coats, blankets and medicines. Hell, they can even control roads and bridges; demanding tolls to cross their turf. There's a LOT of money to be made off of this...

 

[stodge]

Okay, I'll play - two thoughts

First, wouldn't the southern hemisphere see a similar glaciation in its coming winter ? Or would it ? If the oceanic currents have been affected globally wouldn't that impact south of the equator as well as north ? I have read some articles suggesting however ice ages weren't uniform between the north and south poles and indeed the last major glaciation affected the northern hemisphere far more than the southern.

New Zealand is about as far south as the Mediterranean basin is north so if the southern winter was as severe as the northern you might expect the South Island to see snow but the North Island (where most of the people are) wouldn't be too badly affected.

Cape Town is only 33 degrees south while Cape Horn is 55 degrees south so it's likely the far south of Argentina and Chile will be affected but not the southern tip of Africa.

The notion of Sydney and Rio under ice is absurd - yes, they might suffer the weather extremes suffered by LA in the movie - but they are too far north to have the snow hit them as it did the northern cities.

Second, the storms themselves are odd and make little or no climatic or physical sense. Yes, you could have three very large storms simultaneously I suppose but assuming normal clockwise rotation in the northern hemisphere you'd have cold air down the western or left side but conversely you'd have warm air sucked up the right hand side so the eastern side of each storm would be warm.

I don't think the romanticised image of ice ages with miles of snow actually fits the facts. Ice ages are much drier (falling sea level means weaker storms and less precipitation) and it's the persistence of ice in the form of permafrost that accentuates the cold. Studies of Greenland ice cores have shown colder winters to be drier winters as cold High Pressure persists over northern latitudes (Greenland, Scandinavia, Siberia) keeping the rain and snow bearing systems to the south. Magnify that and you'd have the start of your Ice Age but that wouldn't look anywhere near as dramatic.

Read accounts of the winter of 1739-40 and the key message isn't snow but frost and ice. It was a dry winter but with brutally cold air moving east to west across northern Europe.

The idea of a storm drawing cold air directly from the stratosphere to the ground was done in a book called "The Sixth Winter" from the late 70s where the snow tornadoes were called "Dancers". So we are seeing in "Day After Tomorrow" is three snow hurricanes or mega-tornadoes moving south and obliterating everything in their path.

 

[History Learner]

I hadn't noticed that, thanks for pointing it out. I think it's safer to take @AcaciaSgt 's view that the simulations are to some degree incorrect, especially as the space-view represents what characters would actually see physically; whereas simulations are, to some extent, subject to error and estimation.

Agreed.

I'm not sure that the Med would slow or halt such a vast storm. Wouldn't the rising warm air from the Med encourage the cold storm to move further south over the sea, thus producing the opposite effect to that seen in the film? I suspect that your idea about the Alps (and probably the Pyrenees as well) is more likely.

I don't know enough to answer with regards to this, although my thinking was that the Med as a warm body of water helped contain the storm to a degree.

I don't think we can rely upon even that assumption. I could be wrong, but if global temperatures are much cooler ITTL won't that mean less evaporation, and therefore less precipitation? We could be looking at long-term drought in some areas which already experience relatively little rainfall, such as the Middle East and the Sahel region of Africa.

Did some looking into this, and got some conflicting information; I've read the last Ice Age made the MENA area much drier than current, but I also found studies that showed Arabia was a major refugee for Ice Age-era Humanity and that a mini-Ice Age 1,500 years ago fostered an opening for the Arabs to expand.

Maybe the surviving European militaries could seize land from unstable, 'non-countries' such as Libya and establish 'safe zones' for refugees instead?

Haven't looked into the Royal Navy, but I did find out the French Navy should probably survive. The Charles de Gaulle, as part of Task Force 473, was deployed off India and the Persian Gulf for the first half of the year before returning to Toulon in the later half of the year for a Fleet review as part of the 60th Anniversary of Operation Dragoon; near as I can tell there was also several French surface ships and attack submarines there as well. Further forces, as part of Task Force 150, were deployed off the Middle East for Anti-Terrorism and Anti-Piracy operations. As far as ground forces go, there was numerous personnel deployed overseas at the time, including:

• 4,000 in the Ivory Coast, with strong air and armor support
• 1,200 in Chad, primarily special forces and logistics personnel
• ~1,000 in Haiti
• 700 in the Congo (As part of a 1,400 EU group)
• ~1,500 in Senegal
  
• 4,000 on Reunion, including paratroopers with C-160s for deployment
• 700 in Gabon, including an airfield used to provide support to other African deployments
• Several hundred, including transport planes, in Togo and the Central African Republic
• Several thousand on formal French territories

Several thousand were deployed in the former Yugoslavia and to Afghanistan, but whether they survived or not is dubious enough for me not to include them here. For an example of other European forces deployed overseas, the British still had 8,600 in Iraq at the time. Spain's military should still be relatively intact, although the Italians are an unknown given the space observations. Given the lack of logistics tail since the French mainland has been destroyed, the main question thus becomes whether the Spanish, with the aid of these scattered French forces, will have the capability or even desire to go conquering portions of North Africa for Europeans.

A kind of 'Europe-in-exile? I imagine that many Brits and French would be resettled in their respective Overseas Territories - perhaps the Dutch also. I'm not sure there's much hope for most of the Norwegians, Swedes, Danes or Germans however. Most probably the British government-in-exile sets up shop in Canberra and administers the Overseas Territories from there - it's quite possible that the remnants of the British military will be placed under Australian command (including the four nuclear submarines) in exchange for resettling refugees.

Personally I don't see the use of the Overseas Territories as a viable prospect; they're far too scattered and the lack of the metropolitan areas to support them renders them indefensible and unsustainable in the long run for the most part. The remnants of the British Military and civilian survivors joining up with the Australians certainly seems like a good idea, although the long term result of that is their absorption into Australia.

 

[History Learner]

I think there may be a "D" option here.
I can see many Mexicans from northern Mexico fleeing south, before any massive influx of US citizens. The environment of the northern Mexican states has changed temperature and weather-wise, but the flora and fauna will take years to adapt to these new conditions. Agriculture will have failed in these areas, and many Mexicans will go where the food is and also seeking better weather down in southern Mexico and Central America. Much of the Mexican military could have been in the areas needed to police the southern Mexican states.

I personally see some issues with this analysis:

1) If agriculture has failed in these areas, then the Americans are going to keep moving South just as the Mexicans are because to stay in place will mean sure death from starvation.
2) Being forced out of their homes, as you propose, is still likely to provoke the backlash that make a conflict likely. Closing the border down was enough to get the VP and Military ready to go to war right then, according to the deleted scenes.
3) The Embassy scene, where the U.S. Army was policing the Mexicans, was in Mexico City. If the Mexican government has lost control of its main city (and capitol) and that deep into its territory, it's already a non-entity at this point.

This would also apply, as Talwar said, to the Drug Lords whose crops have now failed and who's users have basically dropped in numbers and ability to pay. The smart thing for them to do now is move south and control the supple of food stuffs from farms to stores. Initially to sell to the Mexican people, but eventually to sell to the American refugees. Besides, why would the Drug Lords stay in northern Mexico when the US Army is now active and in their former territory.

Presuming the Cartels do abandon their bases of power without a fight to move South, attempting to gain control over the food supplies will provoke an American response since it risks their food security.

 

[Ilúphatar]

Did some looking into this, and got some conflicting information; I've read the last Ice Age made the MENA area much drier than current, but I also found studies that showed Arabia was a major refugee for Ice Age-era Humanity and that a mini-Ice Age 1,500 years ago fostered an opening for the Arabs to expand.

Interesting. The mini-Ice Age in the second article was probably small enough to simply 'push' temperate climate southwards, as opposed to a full Ice Age where the change is so drastic that the whole climate system is disrupted. Perhaps the Arabian 'refugia' was sustained by rivers formed by glacial melt? I suppose that could happen again.

Spain's military should still be relatively intact

Probably, but we should also consider the possibility that Spain has suffered a similar fate to Mexico and collapsed under the weight of the refugee influx (particularly French and British). If we're looking at a worldwide economic collapse (given that the world's major consumer nations, as well as some of the principal manufacturers, have been hit hard), it's possible that many countries simply disintegrate under the strain.

the main question thus becomes whether the Spanish, with the aid of these scattered French forces, will have the capability or even desire to go conquering portions of North Africa for Europeans.

It really depends how desperate they are. If most of Europe is uninhabitable, and if they need land badly enough, there's always the nuclear option.

More likely we have a 'Mexico scenario' where a load of heavily armed Frenchmen turn up in Algiers or Tunis and start 'assisting' the local institutions to police the refugee facilities.

I don't see the use of the Overseas Territories as a viable prospect; they're far too scattered and the lack of the metropolitan areas to support them renders them indefensible and unsustainable in the long run for the most part.

I think you're right long-term. However, if the British/French/Dutch are struggling to overcome legal/political/economic obstacles with regards to resettling their surviving populations in other countries, they could be a useful temporary solution.

I think some British Overseas Territories which would remain viable include Bermuda, Gibraltar, most of the Caribbean territories and the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia.

On that topic, I think the British might use their significant military resources on the island to help 'persuade' the Cypriot government to accept some refugees from Britain. If Turkey is out of the picture, the UK government could help the Greek Cypriots reconquer the north of the island in return.

the long term result of that is their absorption into Australia.

Yes, I agree. But there will probably be a de jure British government-in-exile unless they and the Australian government decide to unify the two nations into one. The Australians might actually be quite keen on this, as a means of gaining legal authority over the Royal Navy, RAF and British Army, as well as any gold reserves rescued from the UK.

 

[Sovereign12]

I personally see some issues with this analysis:

1) If agriculture has failed in these areas, then the Americans are going to keep moving South just as the Mexicans are because to stay in place will mean sure death from starvation.
2) Being forced out of their homes, as you propose, is still likely to provoke the backlash that make a conflict likely. Closing the border down was enough to get the VP and Military ready to go to war right then, according to the deleted scenes.
3) The Embassy scene, where the U.S. Army was policing the Mexicans, was in Mexico City. If the Mexican government has lost control of its main city (and capitol) and that deep into its territory, it's already a non-entity at this point.

1) Totally agree, but most would stop in the northern Mexican states first, catch their breath as it were , and continue to migrate south. We just didn't see the migration further south. If anything, those US citizens that do move will be those from northern states as the southern states can still live in their homes and the military would have incentive to protect the existing farmers and the farmland in the southern US. While many of the same crops are grown in the north Mexican states, those crops were not bred to grow properly in the new climate. Some will still grow, but many would fail due to temperature, over/under irrigation from new rain patterns, and the death of pollinators which have died off due to the change in their environment.
2 & 3) I think Mexico did collapse. But I think it was a soft collapse. Mexico, outside of cities, probably lacked the support infrastructure to protect much of rural Mexico. So the government in place at the time, probably saw the writing on the wall, as a wave of Americans were coming across the border either way. The US still has a stronger military than Mexico, plus many Mexican government officials probably assumed most American had guns with them anyway(whether true or not is pointless to conjecture). So the Mexican government probably asked for or just allowed for American military intervention to police their cities and states.

Presuming the Cartels do abandon their bases of power without a fight to move South, attempting to gain control over the food supplies will provoke an American response since it risks their food security.

I would assume some would stay. There is always money to be made somehow. But these are people used to exploiting others, and the most profitable way is going to be to control the farms. Now will the US respond to this, most assuredly, but it will take time for the US to even have their reach that far south. That is, unless the Mexican government asks for their help. The the US military can project their force southward.

In the long run, what I can see happening is a forced take over of Mexico by the US, to "protect" Mexican and American citizens. The new nation would probably be called the United States of America and Mexico (USAM). It would be a bilingual nation. I cannot see English be forced on Spanish speaking citizens. As you said, US soldier were policing Mexico City. It would be interesting to see the three main Mexican political parties and the Two American parties campaigning for votes. (As an aside, could it eventually absorb all of Central America? In order to protect the Panama Canal better?)

 

[Alexander North]

Ironically, if the Middle East becomes a major destination for European refugees, we might still see senseless "Eurabia" fear-mongering, just with the roles flipped.

 

[AcaciaSgt]

I'll just point one thing.

The "Embassy" scene was not in Mexico City. What is shown of the "city" isn't even close. Admitedly, I don't know where it is, either. Can't recognize the place. Heck, it's not even the embassy. The American president himself states it. He's in a consulate. And for all you know, that could not be Mexicans the ones outside the building. Even if they're being held in check, that doesn't exactly scream "they're protesting" either...

You're making a awful lot of assumptions about the scene.

Farewell...

 

[Sovereign12]

I'll just point one thing.

The "Embassy" scene was not in Mexico City. What is shown of the "city" isn't even close. Admitedly, I don't know where it is, either. Can't recognize the place. Heck, it's not even the embassy. The American president himself states it. He's in a consulate. And for all you know, that could not be Mexicans the ones outside the building. Even if they're being held in check, that doesn't exactly scream "they're protesting" either...

You're making a awful lot of assumptions about the scene.

Farewell...

Good to know. Been a while since I have seen this film.

 

[Dave Howery]

I don't think the romanticised image of ice ages with miles of snow actually fits the facts. Ice ages are much drier (falling sea level means weaker storms and less precipitation) and it's the persistence of ice in the form of permafrost that accentuates the cold. Studies of Greenland ice cores have shown colder winters to be drier winters as cold High Pressure persists over northern latitudes (Greenland, Scandinavia, Siberia) keeping the rain and snow bearing systems to the south. Magnify that and you'd have the start of your Ice Age but that wouldn't look anywhere near as dramatic.

I wondered about that too... presuming that after the 'flash-freezing' storms abate, the US could likely spend a lot of time scrounging from the ruins in the new perma-frozen areas; canned food, clothing, etc. Granted, that would only go on for a year or two, but it would help some...

 

[History Learner]

I'll just point one thing.

The "Embassy" scene was not in Mexico City. What is shown of the "city" isn't even close. Admitedly, I don't know where it is, either. Can't recognize the place. Heck, it's not even the embassy. The American president himself states it. He's in a consulate. And for all you know, that could not be Mexicans the ones outside the building. Even if they're being held in check, that doesn't exactly scream "they're protesting" either...

You're making a awful lot of assumptions about the scene.

Farewell...

Here's a screencap from the film that shows its the Embassy and the subtitles denote it as such as well; to my knowledge and use of Google, there is no other Embassy in Mexico other than the one in Mexico City:

Here is a screencap of the policing scene:

It's brief, so its hard to tell, but most of the crowd appears to be Hispanic. Of the basis for the fact that it's a protest is the actions of the minor characters in the rest of the scene and the heavy hardware being deployed around and within the Embassy; in particular, when the President is first seen he is watching the crowd through the window and that there appear to be snipers on the rooftops.

 

[History Learner]

Interesting. The mini-Ice Age in the second article was probably small enough to simply 'push' temperate climate southwards, as opposed to a full Ice Age where the change is so drastic that the whole climate system is disrupted. Perhaps the Arabian 'refugia' was sustained by rivers formed by glacial melt? I suppose that could happen again.

I'll profess ignorance on this matter in favor of the clearly more knowledgeable sources in this thread.

Probably, but we should also consider the possibility that Spain has suffered a similar fate to Mexico and collapsed under the weight of the refugee influx (particularly French and British). If we're looking at a worldwide economic collapse (given that the world's major consumer nations, as well as some of the principal manufacturers, have been hit hard), it's possible that many countries simply disintegrate under the strain.

In firm agreement on this, and I'm increasingly coming to the viewpoint of @AcaciaSgt that there is probably nothing left in Europe, beyond scattered remnants in Southern Iberia. As far as other areas, Africa and the Middle East are definitely, to be blunt, fucked. Pullout or destruction of European troops deployed in Africa is eminent, which means Chad, the Congo, Sudan, Ivory Coast and other places are probably going to go to hell in a handbasket awfully fast. Iraq collapsing in the wake of an American pullout is obvious which, combined with the collapse of the Petro-economies will throw those nations into Chaos. Oceania and South America seem like the only places that will emerge relatively unscathed in the aftermath of this event, it appears.

Also, presumably most of Pakistan has been rendered uninhabitable or barely is so, which would probably set off a massive refugee influx into India which I doubt New Delhi will respond to given the general chaos that will be occurring at this time. Should they attempt to shut down the border, I wouldn't be surprised if Pakistan launched its weapons in desperation in order to give its citizens a chance of escape.

It really depends how desperate they are. If most of Europe is uninhabitable, and if they need land badly enough, there's always the nuclear option.

If they essentially abandon most of their possessions, I could see French Guiana being sufficient as a new home for most Europeans. They could use Iberia as the staging point, and use what's left of the French Navy to cover such an evacuation.

More likely we have a 'Mexico scenario' where a load of heavily armed Frenchmen turn up in Algiers or Tunis and start 'assisting' the local institutions to police the refugee facilities.

Depends upon what they could bring to the table, as occupying and holding territory in North Africa will probably require professional forces.

I think some British Overseas Territories which would remain viable include Bermuda, Gibraltar, most of the Caribbean territories and the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia. On that topic, I think the British might use their significant military resources on the island to help 'persuade' the Cypriot government to accept some refugees from Britain. If Turkey is out of the picture, the UK government could help the Greek Cypriots reconquer the north of the island in return.

One issue for the British is that the only aircraft carrier I can confirm that was available for them in 2004 was HMS Invincible, and then only for the summer months as it took part in Atlantic exercises and visited American ports as after that it went in for yardwork. Apparently it did have one Frigate with it, but that's it as far as I can tell for the Royal Navy, beyond a likely boomer or two, along with some ships based around the Middle East doing Anti-Terrorism work. Could be entirely possible for the Brits to end up just evacuating to the New World and /or just joining up with the Americans.

Yes, I agree. But there will probably be a de jure British government-in-exile unless they and the Australian government decide to unify the two nations into one. The Australians might actually be quite keen on this, as a means of gaining legal authority over the Royal Navy, RAF and British Army, as well as any gold reserves rescued from the UK.

There is a definite opening for such, and why I consider Australia as the likely #2 great power of the world in this scenario.

 

[AcaciaSgt]

Here's a screencap from the film that shows its the Embassy and the subtitles denote it as such as well; to my knowledge and use of Google, there is no other Embassy in Mexico other than the one in Mexico City:

The subtitles may call it the Embassy, but the President clearly says he's in a Consulate when he's making his speech. One of them has to be wrong, then. So who? Whoever wrote the script or whoever was in charge of the subtitles. Though once again, I'm going to point out the "city" we're shown as the helicopter approaches looks nothing like Mexico City.

It's brief, so its hard to tell, but most of the crowd appears to be Hispanic. Of the basis for the fact that it's a protest is the actions of the minor characters in the rest of the scene and the heavy hardware being deployed around and within the Embassy; in particular, when the President is first seen he is watching the crowd through the window and that there appear to be snipers on the rooftops.

How does one even "looks" Hispanic? Hispanic is a different denomination that, say, White, or Mestizo. Anyway, if the American president was in any of the Consulates that are near the border (Tijuana, Nogales, Ciudad Juarez, Matamoros, etc), then it doesn't matter if the crowd "looked" Hispanic. A good number of Americans in the southwest are either Hispanic or of Hispanic descent.

To be honest, the actions still don't denote if it's really a protest. Security will be tight no matter who is outside since the building is currently housing the American President. Him looking at the window doesn't really has to correlate to the nature of the crowd outside. Only that it's there. Well, you said it. "Appear". I'm looking at that scene, and it's at best just two guys shown near one of the building's satellites, and only for a fraction of a second. Can't tell if they are truly snipers. And once again, so? Building will have heavy security due to housing the POTUS, regardless of who is outside.

---

Also, if you so insist enough of the US survived to still be on top of the rotting mountain, then surely they can just pull back instead of screwing around in northern Mexico... but fine, fine. Far from God indeed...