@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 2 days agoAt this rate, why not.mander.xyzimagemessage-square87fedilinkarrow-up1326arrow-down12
arrow-up1324arrow-down1imageAt this rate, why not.mander.xyz@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 2 days agomessage-square87fedilink
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish10•2 days agoActually, one of their feasibility assumptions is that the device is too large to be used militarily. https://arxiv.org/html/2501.06623v1#%3A~%3Atext=Confronting+the+escalating+threat+of%2CEnhanced+Rock+Weathering+(ERW).
minus-square@AdalastlinkEnglish3•16 hours agoI think they underestimate a military’s desire to use all of the things that go boom.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish7•2 days agoAh. I suppose building an 81 gigaton nuclear weapon wouldn’t be small. Let’s fire up the antimatter then!
Actually, one of their feasibility assumptions is that the device is too large to be used militarily.
https://arxiv.org/html/2501.06623v1#%3A~%3Atext=Confronting+the+escalating+threat+of%2CEnhanced+Rock+Weathering+(ERW).
I think they underestimate a military’s desire to use all of the things that go boom.
Ah. I suppose building an 81 gigaton nuclear weapon wouldn’t be small.
Let’s fire up the antimatter then!