Daily Mail predicts nuclear strike on London

According to an article in the  British newpspaper the Daily Mail London will cease to exist on Monday, 20 January 2025.Now the timing is precise: at 7:30 am (London time), Russia will issue the order to launch a nuclear strike, and at 8:08 am, the first warheads will detonate in Trafalgar Square.

This scenario is described in detail in the British conservative newspaper Daily Mail, which has undertaken a detailed study of the potential consequences of a nuclear strike on London. ( now why they choose trafalgar sq rather than the British Parliament buiding just down the street I don't know)
Also they don't specify the reason behind the attack after all its not as if Russia takes Perfidious Albion currently the US's yapping,snaping lap dog and its current leadership seriously regarding them as a group  of complete clowns led by Sir Wan Kier Starmer with all the personality of a potted plant and all the charm of a scunthorpe abatoir.
The decision to bomb the capital of the kingdom was taken by Russia on this date. The scenario is meticulous laid out in its timeline and  in its detail, even stating that at 8:11 am (three minutes after the missle landing on Trafalgar Square), the British Minister of Defence, while in the bunker, will open the first bottle of single malt whiskey. This indicates that the government bunker is equipped with whiskey reserves. Its worth reading the article as its so laughable.

Furthermore, the report goes on to provide a detailed account of the horror and suffering that will be endured by hundreds of thousands of people who will not survive the radiation poisoning. This scenario concludes on Monday, 3 February, two weeks later. On this day, the first British army search parties will enter the ruins of London to ascertain whether any survivors remain. The scenario concludes on a somewhat poetic note. "This great city, founded by the Romans two millennia ago, has now become a stark reminder of the darkest day in human history."
Do bear in mind that this article did not appear on April 1st and is not meant to be humerous.
Now before I continue I would like to make an appeal,if you like and enjoy my videos you can help me fund the channel and my websited sco brics insight .com and to further develop it. You can do this by making a small donation which you can do by clicking on the thanks button at the bottom of the video screen. Everybody who donates does get a personal thank you from me.

Now for those of you of a certain age will know nothing new in this apocalyptic scenario. There has been a great deal of interest in this topic, as evidenced by the numerous films and books that have been produced on the subject over the past few decdes particularly in the 1960's and 70's. In fact I remember at school in the 1970's watching a govt information film called Three Minute Warning and how you were supposed to hide under the kitchen table and you would be safe.
The prospect of a Soviet atomic bomb has caused concern among Western citizens for more than two generations as the fears were ramped up again and again .What the Daily Mail offers now is more of the same laughable propganda that they kept trying on  in the Cold War.
However, this this theme continues to  appear in  a number of other publications across Europe and the USA  does indicate a certain trend.
It is notable that over the past two and a half years, the Western press has largely avoided discussing the possibility of a nuclear apocalypse, particularly in the context of the ongoing special operation in Ukraine. Conversely, the general public were being indoctrinated  to believe that a nuclear war was not as catastrophic as previously thought, and that all the horror stories about a nuclear winter were the result of a successful propagand  campaign by the Soviet special services in the 1980s.
However, the majority of Western media outlets still have concentrated their efforts on reassuring the public that a nuclear war is not a viable option. The media landscape was awash with content bearing headlines such as "Why There Will Be No Nuclear War."
The most frequently used term by analysts in response to our regular warnings about the risks facing humanity was "bluff". The public was informed as to why the West should not be concerned about Russian nuclear threats. These statements were particularly prevalent during the spring of this year. Subsequently, the Deputy Secretary General of NATO, Mircea Geoana, asserted that Russia's nuclear rhetoric was merely a means of exerting psychological pressure on the West. The Former US Congressman and prone to crying like a baby Adam Kinzinger and the retired General Ben Hodges published a joint article entitled "Time to Call Putin's Bluff". These neo cons are hilarious as none of the things they have asserted over the years have happened as the US and NATO move on from one diaster to the next
This continued throughout the summer, up until September. For instance, a so called military expert recently provided reassurance to the German public in an article published in the Tagesspiegel newspaper. The likelihood of Russia initiating an attack on a NATO member state is estimated to be 0.0001%. The Ukraine also attempted to persuade the West that Russia would not use nuclear weapons, through the statements of its de facto leaders.
The rationale behind this campaign is clear. It is important to note that the general public has long been informed that the objective of the West and Ukraine is to "defeat Russia on the battlefield." Consequently, any cautions regarding a Russian  nuclear strike, and in general appeals for peace, were regarded as "an operation of the Russian propaganda machine."" They say that "Russia's threats to use nuclear weapons paralyze the West.
The recent speculation regarding Russia's potential for defeat on the battlefield has now receded. Conversely, an increasing number of articles are being published which concluded that it cannot lose in advance. Furthermore, a plethora of statements have emerged concerning the reality and perils of the nuclear warfare threat.
The German newspaper Bild cites the opinion of a retired general, who was previously a military adviser  for the German Chancellor, on the reality of a nuclear war in Europe. Additionally, the German newspaper Zeit has published a comprehensive article examining the potential consequences of a global nuclear war, highlighting that humanity could be annihilated within three hours.
The European Commission has published a 165-page report on security threats, with the primary focus on the potential for conflict with Russia. Furthermore, they advise Europeans to have a three-day supply of food and medicine in case of war.
It would appear that there has been no change in approach over the past year. The West continues to pursue a policy of Russophobia, stoking fears and fostering hatred towards Russia. However, it would appear that Russophobia also has two sides. One side of this situation presents promises of an expedient and decisive victory over Moscow.
Conversely, the other side entails the acknowledgment of a global catastrophe and the potential destruction of London in a matter of hours in the event of war.
It may be of benefit to consider the other side. It provides a reality check for many and acts as a deterrent to those who might otherwise be tempted to cross a dangerous line. For example, some Western analysts now believe that the fear of a nuclear winter, whipped up by the Soviet Union, helped to avert a global catastrophe. Furthermore, the current apocalyptic publications in newspapers, which cannot be classified as "Russian propaganda" (it is unlikely that Bild or the Daily Mail would be accused of this!), may encourage some individuals in the West to adopt a more measured approach.
The other day, Dmitry Medvedev, the Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council, highlighted the potential risks associated with the assumption that Russians will never cross a certain line when it comes to defending their state. Therefore, the shift from discourse on "Russia's defeat on the battlefield" to speculation about the destruction of London on 20 January 2025, somewhat paradoxically, represents a promising indication that could assist some in the West in avoiding this potentially perilous misstep.
And I tell you again it will not be April the 1st!