fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 1 day agoAt this rate, why not.mander.xyzimagemessage-square62fedilinkarrow-up1241arrow-down12
arrow-up1239arrow-down1imageAt this rate, why not.mander.xyzfossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 1 day agomessage-square62fedilink
minus-squarepeoplebeproblems@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up14·20 hours agoI think y’all are missing the point here. It’s really to justify the production and testing of an insanely large planet altering weapon that would create a really cool firework.
minus-squarei_love_FFT@jlai.lulinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up9·19 hours agoThe only way to convince conservatives to fight climate change is if we do it with guns and bombs
minus-squareJoeBigelow@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·15 hours 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-up2·14 hours agoAh. I suppose building an 81 gigaton nuclear weapon wouldn’t be small. Let’s fire up the antimatter then!
I think y’all are missing the point here.
It’s really to justify the production and testing of an insanely large planet altering weapon that would create a really cool firework.
The only way to convince conservatives to fight climate change is if we do it with guns and bombs
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!