fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 7 days agoAt this rate, why not.mander.xyzimagemessage-square90fedilinkarrow-up1359arrow-down12
arrow-up1357arrow-down1imageAt this rate, why not.mander.xyzfossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 7 days agomessage-square90fedilink
minus-squareJoeBigelow@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up12·7 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-squarepeoplebeproblems@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8·7 days agoAh. I suppose building an 81 gigaton nuclear weapon wouldn’t be small. Let’s fire up the antimatter then!
minus-squareAdalast@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·6 days agoI think they underestimate a military’s desire to use all of the things that go boom.
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).
Ah. I suppose building an 81 gigaton nuclear weapon wouldn’t be small.
Let’s fire up the antimatter then!
I think they underestimate a military’s desire to use all of the things that go boom.