@fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish • 4 months agoAt this rate, why not.mander.xyzimagemessage-square67fedilinkarrow-up1346arrow-down10
arrow-up1346arrow-down1imageAt this rate, why not.mander.xyz@fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish • 4 months agomessage-square67fedilink
minus-square@JoeBigelow@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglish11•4 months 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@peoplebeproblems@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkEnglish7•4 months agoAh. I suppose building an 81 gigaton nuclear weapon wouldn’t be small. Let’s fire up the antimatter then!
minus-square@Adalast@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglish3•4 months 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.