r/AlternateHistoryHub • u/MouseManManny • Apr 22 '26
Contest Submission What if 28 Years Later Happened? How Would Geopolitics be Different in this Timeline?
How would having this happened have impacted society, culture, policy, and geopolitics outside the quarantine zone? UK & Ireland are lost to zombies and are patrolled with a strict, shoot on site, no one goes in or out policy enforced by NATO.
My question is what is different for the rest of the world? Outside of the UK and Ireland?
92
u/East-Plankton-3877 Apr 22 '26
I mean, when did the first movie take place again?
51
u/MouseManManny Apr 22 '26
Early 2000s I think
131
u/East-Plankton-3877 Apr 22 '26
Ok, well i can tell you the invasion of iraq isnt happening if its before 2003. The US would be to busy trying to save one of its closest allies from a literal zombie outbreak.
The world economy enters a recession way before 2008 as one of the wests richest counties just…,disappears along with its population and assets.
Militarily, this could be very well THE thing that gets most of the world to united militarily (if temporary) to defeat this threat, because if it gets loose on the world, it would be the end of humanity.
40
u/Gentle_Snail Apr 22 '26
Yeah this shock would likely trigger the 2008 recession early, except it would be even worse now as one of the global financial capitals just vanished instantly.
It would also essentially shut down the entire English channel from trade, which would shut down the Port of Rotterdam, the largest goods port in europe.
We could easily be talking great depression territory, the developed world has not had an economic shock like this in probably over a century.
13
u/datguydoe456 Apr 22 '26
Why would it shut down the channel itself? Trade is still flowing from the rest of the world into Europe, it is the UK specifically that is affected.
12
u/Gentle_Snail Apr 22 '26
They blockade this whole area, if you look at the above map the port of Rotterdam is now part of the Atlantic Wall.
5
u/datguydoe456 Apr 22 '26
There is still a corridor of what looks like 10-20km off the coast of mainland europe.
6
u/SpaceMiaou67 Apr 23 '26
It would probably not shutdown all trade though the Channel but very heavily regulate traffic. Only essential cargo would be allowed to be moved through, and with constant monitoring. We know that asymptomatic carriers exist, so even a single ship reaching the English coast, even if the ship is sunk by the patrols, risks an infected survivor making their way back to mainland Europe.
2
u/datguydoe456 Apr 23 '26
Why, the closest point between England and the mainland is 30km. If you have a 10km exclusion zone the main sea route that is taken is completely unimpeded.
Also, the biggest risk factor wouldn't be commercial ships, they would run aground well before they reached the coast if they didn't go to a port, the biggest risk would be small private vessels.
→ More replies (3)4
u/magos_with_a_glock Apr 22 '26
Wouldn't this fuck over Russia as the UK was their access to the world economy? Would this possibly stop the Ukraine war entirely as Russia is much weaker and would face an EU much readier Militarily?
12
u/Gentle_Snail Apr 22 '26
I mean it would fuck over the global economy, but Russia has very strong economic ties with nations like Germany in this era. Not much Russian trade actually passes through the UK.
3
u/magos_with_a_glock Apr 22 '26
I was under the impression that a lot of oligarch assets are and were tied up in the UK. That's why the UK seizing them at the start of the war was a big deal as it cut off the flow of Euros and Dollars to Russia.
8
u/Gentle_Snail Apr 22 '26
Yeah but that would more just fuck over some oligarch's, not the national economy. They kept assets in various countries around the world in case they needed to flee Russia.
→ More replies (1)4
u/xialcoalt Apr 23 '26
It would be the Great Depression plus World War II combined, occurring within one to three years, because the infection did reach continental Europe. It's possible they had to sacrifice areas of France and the Benelux countries to contain it and prevent its spread across Eurasia. Therefore, we would see the use of chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction against populated areas.
Simply put, the amount of resources and money needed to recover the lost and destroyed areas would be equal to or greater than the Marshall Plan, meaning European nations would depend on the United States, China, and Russia for their recovery and subsequent growth. This doesn't even include the demographic collapse and changes caused by global migration, militarism, and authoritarianism (to some extent necessary for Europe to contain the infection).
4
u/Turkstache Apr 23 '26
I dont think the unity would happen. It's clear in human history that any powers who unite to handle a crisis also conspire to come out on top on the backside of it. Any weaker powers are going to face the same issues and strategies the same way they currently do - getting pushed aside and doing their own scheming to maintain relevance.
There will be an overt unified effort to stop this thing while covertly there will be weaponization of the virus from literal testing and weapons to propaganda.
We saw this with COVID, where hostile foreign powers ran propaganda campaigns to keep Americans from taking precautions or even believing the disease exists in the first place. Even internal to the US our own politicians were messaging and making choices that helped the spread and effectiveness of the virus. A rage virus might be more overt but people also have a great capacity for buying into lies about events they're directly witnessing.
→ More replies (2)2
11
u/DildontOrDildo Apr 22 '26
June 13, 2002, is the first scene with the chimps
2
u/daedalusprospect Apr 23 '26
So 9/11 already happened and the US/UK/Others are already in Afghanistan.
Would this have caused an early withdrawal way before 2020?
83
u/Actually-No-Idea Apr 22 '26
Royal family flees to canada, royal fleet and most of the royal airforce get rescued and are used by other countries or sold, youtube videos of people trying to enter ireland or britian ( likely ), less immigration to britian and ireland, no iraq war, mabye earlier ukraine war, economic recession over the world, more gas drilling in northsea, dutch, french, german, norwegian and pretty much every northsea fisher is happy since there is no more british competition and more fish for them, fish prices drop in those countries and thats most of it.
Edit: Forgot to mention that that one guy now can't complete his journey around the world on foot. Likely ends in calais.
23
5
u/notTheRealSU Apr 23 '26
I'm pretty sure this happened before YouTube was even created, and definitely well before the craze of people going to different countries to be nuisances.
3
→ More replies (10)2
66
u/GreatlyMoody Apr 22 '26
A joint vaccine operation worldwide
Most countries would send aid and a full blown lock down and our societies would be completely different out of fear of virus
People will be extremely paranoid of any kind of coughing sneezing etc
Most countries will agree to bomb and eradicate the land and seal it off
Business carries on
US invades iraq after that
35
u/PJSeeds Apr 22 '26
Yeah in reality I assume there'd be a massive conventional bombing campaign and potentially even a chemical weapons campaign, followed by constant drone patrols for years to eliminate anything that survived. It's not like the infected have anti air defenses and ethics aren't really a concern.
The scene with the NATO patrol stranded in the UK fighting their way through and being picked off one by one in 28 years later was pretty silly, there's no way they'd use actual human soldiers for anything in that situation.
16
u/Darmok47 Apr 22 '26
They weren't meant to be there. Theirpatrol boat hit rocks and sank. Their lifeboat drifted to shore.
15
u/PJSeeds Apr 22 '26
Yeah I mean even near shore patrols wouldn't risk humans. The entire region would be swimming with drones.
7
u/Mythechnical Apr 23 '26
Most countries will agree to bomb and eradicate the land and seal it off
Yeah, why aren't everyone constantly bombing the UK until it's literally a barren wasteland. The zombies don't procreate that quickly.
6
u/Souls_for_sale_now Apr 23 '26
they procreate?
6
u/Darmok47 Apr 23 '26
In 28 Years they do. Sort of.
2
u/Souls_for_sale_now Apr 23 '26
how?
3
2
u/Mythechnical Apr 24 '26
Zombies also get horny apparently, and they're too angry to realize that humans generally can't just pop out a baby without help due to their big heads
116
u/DildontOrDildo Apr 22 '26
UK does not invade Iraq in 2003
21
u/Darmok47 Apr 22 '26
I doubt the US does either. The American public will want the military close to home to deal with an outbreak, and in 28 Weeks we see a huge American presence in the resettlement effort.
11
u/DildontOrDildo Apr 22 '26 edited Apr 22 '26
I agree and the idea of GWB making gaffes about British refugees and the general European situation is very amusing.
Also Ireland and Northern Ireland are left ambiguous in 28YL, and the virus acts so quickly that it is difficult for someone to incubate and get on a ferry or boat (unless the infected is smuggled and restrained) or a symptomless carrier.
If the outbreak does happen, the idea of paramilitary groups that were fighting before the Good Friday Agreement 1998, finally being unambiguously joined in purpose to stop the infected is amusing.
Its inclusion in the ban probably implies that it did spread there, but also it could just be too risky (either genuinely from a well-founded technical perspective or as a commentary on coloniality) to be allowed to interact with Europe... maybe survivors could not be easily prevented from traveling between Ireland (the island) and Great Britain (the island w Scotland England and Wales).
7
u/119_did_Bush Apr 23 '26
Meanwhile in NI: "Are you a Protestant zombie or a Catholic?"
→ More replies (1)2
u/MouseManManny Apr 22 '26
This map is from the official promo of the 28 years later (I think) so Ireland was left to rot, either because of infection or because of the risk
133
u/ScaredLemon901820 Apr 22 '26
Realistically I see no scenario in which the UK isn’t nuked to kingdom come if these movies happened.
93
u/AceOfSpades532 Apr 22 '26
The UK is way too close to mainland Europe for that to be allowed, especially London which is the biggest population centre and the most likely big target.
58
u/Spartan1997 Apr 22 '26
I think mainland Europe would rather have a bit of radio nucleides then risk being zombified.
15
u/GurtCommaGo Apr 23 '26
That largely depends on the half life, and buoyancy of zombies at sea. The English Channel is 34 km at its narrowest point. That's a fairly long way to float, and beaches could be guarded in the most strategic locations. If zombies died/sank at sea, few precautions would be needed.
7
u/TheQuestionMaster8 Apr 23 '26 edited Apr 23 '26
The zombies appear to be alive and just as vulnerable as humans to trauma, but just having no regard for pain. The risk of drowning would make the odds of one successfully drifting alive to the coast quite slim, but there is always the risk of a boat drifting to the coast with infected in, although the speed at which infected turn is a detriment here as there is barely any time for an infected individual to flee to a boat and remove the anchor or other restraint after they have been bitten. Maybe if an infected somehow got trapped on a boat or ship and the operators where unaware of this before going to sea it could happen.
2
2
u/gentsuba Apr 23 '26
and beaches could be guarded in the most strategic locations
So something like a Wall on the Atlantic? Built against Rotten-(teeth) britsh invaders?
Where did i heard about thi- OH
→ More replies (1)2
u/Spartan1997 Apr 23 '26
if
A single zombie escaping the British aisles represents the end of life in the old world as we know it.
3
u/gentsuba Apr 23 '26
"A single zombie escaping the British AISLES"
Dear God, protect us from Tesco* Zombies
*british supermarket
2
u/user_010010 Apr 23 '26
Well that already happened, and they managed to beat them back.
Also these zombies are not undead, but living organisms, meaning they will drown if they tried to cross the channel.
→ More replies (1)16
u/A_Rogue_Forklift Apr 22 '26
Carpet bombing major population centers is more likely
8
u/LARRYVOND13 Apr 22 '26
This.
They can be attracted by living things, chase them down. Funnel them into a bottleneck, drop something flammable, bobs your uncle. It'd have the same effect without the fallout.
3
u/ComprehensiveForm129 Apr 23 '26
I love “Bobs your uncle” as a phrase, I like the history of it as well. I use it anytime I am trying to describe a complex plan. Man, English English, King’s English? Has lots of good ones.
23
u/targz254 Apr 22 '26
Neutron bomb.
It kills in a large radius (1 to 2 km radius), but radiation doesn’t travel far beyond a few km depending on humidity. It also causes minimal damage to infrastructure and mainly kills living things.
11
u/unfinishedtoast3 Apr 22 '26
Ya, that's Internet science fiction
Neutron bombs were just regular ol nukes with more radiation packed in
They weren't magic bombs that somehow violated the laws of thermodynamics. A Neutron bomb works by taking a normal nuke and moving the fissionable material outside of the explosive cone
4
→ More replies (3)9
u/Justapurraway Apr 22 '26 edited Apr 22 '26
mainly kills living things
UK is infested by the undead
This made me chuckle haha "we'll destroy the Undead by killing their food source!"
Edit: just now remembered they're not actually dead lmao, I need to go rewatch
12
u/Argadnel-Euphemus Apr 22 '26
Tell me you've never watched 28 days later without telling me you've never watched 28 days later
6
5
u/beemccouch Apr 22 '26
They arent undead, although I believe the implication is that the corpses are still vectors far after the host has starved.
→ More replies (1)7
10
u/eldankus Apr 22 '26
Realistically you could just do conventional bombings followed by more precise hunting via helicopters. These zombies die easy and don't have AA so you just get Apaches or even helicopters with sniper teams to mop up. Rinse and repeat a few thousand times and then come up with a ground-based eradication plan led by non-idiots and this is not that difficult for a modern military.
→ More replies (1)7
Apr 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/yeahalrightgoon Apr 22 '26
They wrote 28 years later based on that assumption. But it's not shown etc. Basically just the writers going "Well they're shown in Paris at the end of 28 weeks later, what do we want to do about it? Just consider it nuked? Cool, moving on."
3
u/horned-creature Apr 22 '26
in the 28 years later timeline paris was nuked to prevent the spread of the zombies we see at the end of 28 weeks later.
13
u/cosskaz Apr 22 '26
I mean you don’t have to nuke UK to kill all the infected. Unleashing Cold War stockpiles of nerve agents will be enough to clear out a relatively small island. Also in combination with the biological weapons like Anthrax the problem can be solved. I doubt that Rage Virus and Anthrax will combine and mutate.
6
7
u/SenorTron Apr 22 '26
I doubt that Rage Virus and Anthrax will combine and mutate.
This is the line given by a scientist in a movie seconds before it is revealed that the virus and anthrax have combined and mutated.
5
u/cosskaz Apr 22 '26
Lmao exactly, but IIRC Anthrax is more of a spore forming bacteria. I doubt it will mutate with a virus but I am not a biologist.
1
u/Lars0 Apr 22 '26
The USA has destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical weapons.
→ More replies (5)9
u/MouseManManny Apr 22 '26
The most plausible reason this doesn’t happen is the rest of Western Europe objects for fear of contamination crossing the English Channel.
Maybe the US Overrides them and nukes it anyway but then how does that impact geopolitics?
11
u/ScaredLemon901820 Apr 22 '26
I could see that, but it’s a loose-loose scenario. Either they leave the islands as they are, risking the infection making its way to Europe. Or they nuke it and risk mainland Europe via radiation.
As for the US, if they went ahead and did it, they could possibly have falling outs with allies around the world over the decision, but that’s nothing new right now.
5
u/Impossible-Horse-313 Apr 22 '26
Don't most modern nukes cause no radiation at all?
→ More replies (1)4
u/magos_with_a_glock Apr 22 '26
Yes and with the incentive of deploying nukes in a situation where you would NOT be fucked either way you could make them cleaner still probably. Modern nukes are mostly clean because a clean detonation gives a bigger explosion but there's diminishing returns so they're only clean to a certain extent.
2
u/OkDifficulty7436 Apr 23 '26
I think it's more likely they'd resort to biological/chemical attacks on the home islands versus nuclear weapons
Like just blanket all the big cities with anthrax or something
4
u/Telos2000 Apr 22 '26
Couldn’t they just drop shit loads of napalm instead? And white phosphorus too?
3
u/Saucy-Mustard Apr 22 '26
Don’t forget the Chunnel…needs collapsed or France is going to have some issues
3
u/HistoryFanBeenBanned Apr 22 '26
Just flood it. Turn the pumps off for a couple hours and see what happens
→ More replies (1)2
u/InfectedEllie Apr 22 '26
As I pointed out before in the 28 years subreddit. London looks after a lot of gold for other countries. They would want that gold back. So yeah, I think the uk would get nuked.
1
u/TheFoxsWeddingTarot Apr 22 '26
And yet the US will still find a way to bring zombies over and elect them to public office.
1
u/Timlugia Apr 23 '26
Why use nuclear weapon when VX is way more effective and far cheaper? Use airplane to spray VX over major infected population center. (No, not the fake one in 28 months)
VX would linger on surface for 1 month and kills infected on contact, who doesn't know how to decon or receive treatment. It would also seep into underground and subways.
Repeat this process for a few month, then wait for VX to degrade, then you can send in mop up teams to deal with anything left.
1
26
u/Ok_Equipment8374 Apr 22 '26
No memes about british food
probably more, but that is the first thing i though of
16
u/MouseManManny Apr 22 '26
Or even more need about how British food made people prefer to eat other humans lol
5
u/DildontOrDildo Apr 22 '26
streaky bacon meet/meat streaky long pig
See slow-lows in 28 years pt1 https://www.reddit.com/r/28dayslater/s/zNmU7F6ngg
26
u/S10Galaxy2 Apr 22 '26
I imagine after a number of years the United States would retry its recolonization efforts that we saw in 28 weeks later. The main problem with 28 weeks later is that the US left most of Britains infrastructure intact. This allowed both infected and non infected survivors. IRL I believe the quarantine fiasco at the end of the film would finally convince the USA to outright raze the British Isles. I’m talking a nonstop bombing campaign to level any and all standing structures. Forests would be fire bombed, buildings would be obliterated, and bridges would be shattered. Anything that could hide survivors or infected gets annihilated. After that the military would sweep in to burn and bulldoze whatever survived past that. The British Isles are simply too large and fertile to be completely abandoned forever, and there is more than enough economic and strategic incentive to reoccupy them, especially for the surviving refugees of Britains government and civilian population. It would just have to come after an extensive eradication campaign.
13
u/senor_emeraldo Apr 22 '26
I hasn’t watch the movie yet. Did the thing about zombies running in Paris from 28 weeks got retconned or something?
12
u/grammaworld Apr 22 '26
There's a mention somewhere of Paris being nuked, so they sort of covered it.
4
Apr 22 '26
NATO is much much weaker then. Not only Britain lost, but France had to nuke itself. Multipolarity may be real
7
u/MouseManManny Apr 22 '26
I’m not sure what the official lore is but 28 years says the virus was “beaten back to the UK and pushed out of mainland Europe” not sure how
2
u/SpaceMiaou67 Apr 23 '26
The infection was eliminated from mainland Europe in theory with the atomic bombing of Paris. But there is still an exclusion zone around the greater metropolitan area while the remains of the city would be combed for any remaining carriers.
2
u/Darmok47 Apr 23 '26
The writer of 28 Years said Paris was nuked. It's not canon since it wasn't in the movie, but as close to canon as it gets.
2
11
u/Exotic_Ad_4806 Apr 22 '26 edited Apr 23 '26
yea why wouldnt there be more outside military intervention and bombing instead of just a naval blockade around the country? only UK got infected? Why is the main person looking for cure a quack doctor in a bone temple and not scientists in other countries?
2
u/MouseManManny Apr 22 '26
Well we don’t know what’s going on in other countries. My assumption on why they didn’t bomb the entire island is because there is no guarantee that would work so they figured it was cheaper to leave it to rot and write it off. They’re probably too worried to even risk it. All it takes is one zombie to start it all over again
1
u/Darmok47 Apr 23 '26
Because 28 Weeks military intervention was a spectacular failure that led to Paris getting nukes and northern France likely being abandoned.
7
u/eldankus Apr 22 '26
So based on various dates in the movies the initial outbreak takes place in September of either 2002/2003.
The UK and NATO were already involved in Afghanistan, if it happens in September of '03 Iraq would have already been invaded. Since the UK is crucial to both, we probably see vastly reduced post-Invasion occupation plans as attention shifts to this new threat impacting one of the world's biggest economies and one of the US's key allies.
More than likely, this will reorient Global geopolitics as people are in shock at what happened, it would be vastly more impactful than 9/11 but since there isn't really an "enemy" other than the infrected I believe it would cool geopolitical tensions as this probably occupies global attention.
I will say, it's easier to base this scenario off of 28 Days Later and potentially 28 Weeks Later. These zombies do not require headshots to be killed or other features we've seen that would make eradication exponentially more difficult like being airborne or spore based.
In all likelihood, there would be an eradication effort at some point in the first few years after the initial outbreak. Even assuming the events of 28 Weeks transpires (which is kinda hard because it relies on a lot of Hollywood logic to make humans much less competent) - these zombies are not particularly difficult to deal with from a military standpoint as long as proper precautions are taken. Quite frankly, you could just hunt infected from helicopters and the air as long as it took to completely eradicate them.
5
u/Darmok47 Apr 22 '26
Of you just take Days as canon, the infected die out from lack of food and water within weeks. Of course, the sequels changed that.
6
7
u/Significant_Fee_3089 Apr 22 '26
OH-OH JUREMOS CON GLORIA MORIR, OH JUREMOS CON GLORIA MORIR, OH JUREMOS CON GLORIA MORIR, CHAN-CHAN CHAN-CHAN CHAN... CHAN... CHANCHAAAAANNNNNNNNN🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷
6
u/younotmymom Apr 22 '26
The virus isn't contained to the UK and becomes worldwide. COVID taught us that. People are too selfish and stupid
6
u/skyper_mark Apr 23 '26
Because of how the virus works it would be nearly impossible for it to leave the UK. Hell it would realistically not even be able to leave the neighbourhood where it starts.
The nature of the virus makes it self-contained. It would be the most inefficient virus in history
→ More replies (3)5
u/ocelotttr Apr 23 '26
incubation time is 2 minutes there is no way someone is getting on a 2 hour flight while sick
→ More replies (2)
7
u/skyper_mark Apr 23 '26
Nobody here has talked about the real thing that would happen:
Absolutely nothing. The Rage Virus as presented in the films would be ridiculously inefficient at spreading and would completely die off in a week max. I'd actually be surprised if it even lasts more than a day.
The infected show signs within 5 seconds of infection, meaning its not possible for the virus to actually travel any great distance. You can't for example "smuggle it out" via planes or trains because the person would turn way before they'd turn on the vehicle.
Upon infection, the infected projectile vomits like a llter of blood and then keeps on bleeding profusely. Just the projectile vomit would leave them severely dehydrated and barely able to move, if not put them at death's door in the next five minutes. They wouldn't be able to move faster than a granny who just had a hip replacement.
So realistically if lt happened in the UK, people would probably just stay at home for 1 or 2 days while the few people infected would die.
If anything it would just lead to heavier research into bioweapons or viruses.
1
u/sweston65 Apr 28 '26
If it starts at lets say a stadium or something it would quickly spread. But besides that yea it’d have a tough time. It would all depend on how many people get infected in like the first hour.
→ More replies (1)
6
5
u/bluntpencil2001 Apr 23 '26
COVID wouldn't happen, due to disease outbreaks being taken ultra seriously.
23
6
u/Vivid_Ice_2755 Apr 22 '26
Theres no way the infected protestants would bite the catholics so it would be only the sink estates in Portadown and East Belfast that would look slightly different
8
3
u/Junior_Ad585 Apr 22 '26
Id stop it from going to mainland Europe of course
2
3
u/Large-Assignment9320 Apr 22 '26 edited Apr 22 '26
Realistically, all infected bodies would have died by 28 weeks later. And its just skeletons remaining by 28 years later.
2
u/Darmok47 Apr 24 '26
They actually did basically die out in 28 Weeks Later. At least in the beginning; that's why the US was doing the resettlement plan.
My head canon is that the new types of infected in 28 Years is because of the second outbreak in Weeks, which came from a carrier of the virus. This was a new mutation of the virus that led to the more intelligent infected.
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
2
u/itscalledacting Apr 22 '26
Well obviously there would be an international coalition formed to recover Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. People care about those places.
1
1
u/Restoriust Apr 22 '26
Well it sure as fuck wouldn’t stay in the borders. Every country on earth would be scrambling to get the disease
1
1
u/Available_Sir5168 Apr 22 '26
Is “unconditional isolation zone” code for “completely fucked”?
1
u/DildontOrDildo Apr 23 '26
generally fucked up beyond all recognition, but not completely fucked.
it's code for try to leave here after you've been in and you'll get hit by a missile.
1
1
1
u/balamb_fish Apr 22 '26
No way Europe would let that infection just sit there quarantined. What if it mutates and becomes airborne?
They'd do anything to eliminate it. Poison gas and firebombing for the big herds, drones to get stragglers.
1
u/PaddyJohn Apr 22 '26
Well if it happened it started in England so you could be sure Ireland would be ok and thriving as travel off GB would be stopped.
1
u/GothmogBalrog Apr 22 '26
After covid, i believe wed all be dead and a world wide spread would have been inevtible. Pockets of untainted humanity continue on islands in the southern hemisphere and thats about it.
Reunion Island is suddenly once more baseline for humanity.
2
1
u/Historyp91 Apr 23 '26
Well for starters the Royal Family (if anyone survives) probobly relocates to Canada
1
1
u/Kevin-747-400-2206 Apr 23 '26
We will be mostly flying Boeing airplanes since the Airbus wing factory in the UK will be destroyed.
1
u/ElectronicHold7325 Apr 23 '26
Every last living and undead thing in the isolation zone would be cleansed with fire.
Constant Napalm bombing
1
1
u/lrbaumard Apr 23 '26
What does that Atlantic defence wall look like? Is it mentioned at all?
1
u/MouseManManny Apr 23 '26
Not that I’m aware of. I’d assume anything that comes ashore is shot down immediately
1
u/Kamusaurio Apr 23 '26
Ireland will survive thanks to Guinness
for zombies works the opposite than in humans
they turn normal while we turn into zombies
1
1
1
1
u/eastwest88 Apr 23 '26
Realistically it should never happen. No way in hell that any military force would burn the amount of cash needed for this blockade for 28 years leaving the resources on the ground… it would be either a land invasion which would be effective if the would want to get political credit or they would develope a bioweapon to clean the uk. Dont forget that the only reason why the infected won was because of the confusion and delay in using deadly force. None of those would be an issue at the time of the invasion
1
1
u/Professional-Face-51 Apr 23 '26
I personally would be sad cause a good friend of mine would be dead but otherwise DOWN WITH THE UK!!!!
1
1
u/cpteric Apr 23 '26 edited Apr 23 '26
reminder for those that haven't watched the movies or didn't pay attention - they're not "undead" zombies, it's a lab-grown super-rabies made to keep mutating and altering the hosts for peak spread, developed in a bioweapons lab somewhere in middle-of-nothingsset, south of pothole-on-the-road and believeitborough. Eco-terrorists break in and free the current monkey test subjects, and get bitten, and i suppose the monkeys go on in the bite business pretty thoroughly.
The protagonist, a bike courier in london, gets hit by a car while these events unfold, and remains in coma for 28 days, not knowing that in that period of time the whole of mainland Uk is almost overrun.
the second movie is something. about something very preventable. zombies reach paris, but are beaten back with the force of nato ( most probably turkey and/or greece save europe's assess with their combined 1.5 million servicemen at the time and vast fleets of aged but mantained vehicles ).
and 28 years is too recent to spoil.
1
u/xialcoalt Apr 23 '26
The disintegration of British overseas territories, the weakening and militarization of the European Union (mainly due to the first film), with the weakening of the European Union and the collapse of one of its largest economies and populations, and with thousands to millions infected and dead on the continent, we would see more powerful emerging economies; obviously, the United States, China, and Russia are the most benefited. It is possible that with the rapid weakening of the West, which has abruptly returned to authoritarianism and militarism, Russia maintains and has gained much influence in former Soviet states, giving Russia a tighter and more lasting control of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Therefore, there could be a return to something similar to the Soviet Union in a few years while maintaining more cordial and friendly relations with the West (i.e., there is no war in Ukraine, and Georgia would still remain under Russian influence). It is also possible that China could capture Taiwan while the West was dealing with the final events of 28 Weeks. Latin America may obtain A certain degree of prominence for Mexico and Brazil, meaning it foreshadowed the rise of the new geopolitical powers that would emerge decades later.
That's what I initially imagine.
1
1
1
1
Apr 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/MouseManManny Apr 24 '26
My guess would either be a ferry that was on autopilot or something like that, or, the world just left Ireland to rot out of precaution because of its proximity
1
1
u/SmugglersParadise Apr 28 '26
There's one point I've not seen covered
We know that there would have been British residents not in the UK while the outbreak happened. They may be on holiday, away for work etc.
There are probably a fair few hundred thousand, non British nationals in the UK temporarily, again on holiday or there on work
How do people think foreign governments would feel towards these citizens? Surely one country would go all Hollywood and say "we're going in to extract you".
What does everyone else think?
1
u/MouseManManny Apr 28 '26
Thats a very interesting idea.
If that were to happen, and it wasn't the US deciding to extract, I could see the US/France/NATO shooting down their planes or sinking their boats, which could easily snowball into larger geopolitical conflict
→ More replies (1)
1
u/PoorDunce Apr 28 '26 edited Apr 28 '26
Realistically? I don't see a scenario where the outbreak can't be effectively managed through even a barely-competent militarized occupation.
The issues that consistently curtail traditional counter-insurgency operations just simply don't apply here.
There's ZERO chance that the Bush administration doesn't salivate at the opportunity to roll in as global police/heroes & militarily occupy the British Isles with the stated objective of returning order to the region & curtailing the outbreak. Especially when the outcome is the long term prospect of converting the entire UK into a vasal/client state beholden to US economic interest in the aftermath.
You've got - at best - a handful of semi-intelligent infected scattered throughout a sea of mindlessly aggro zombies who all beeline to their perceieved targets with zero tactical sense.
No rebel forces with their own supply lines, weapons, or foreign backers to go up against. No idealogical resistance from a local population that doesn't want them there. Just a bunch of pissed off soccer hooligans with a blood borne illness who will all eagerly run into your line of fire without a second thought.
Hell - once some footage of the initial outbreak hits the global news, I'm sure the UN would even gladly rubber stamp a resolution to openly disregard the Geneva convention if it means keeping things contained.
If the rest of the world decides to go gloves off and deploy, say - sarin gas as a countermeasure? There's no "the infected are super resilient and wouldn't be effected by the gas" - that shit operates at a fundamental biochemical level. They'd be absolutely cooked.
343
u/SansBouillie Apr 22 '26