I find this fascinating: `Yet the disturbing implication is that, under different circumstances, nuclear attacks might make sense. Finkbeiner accuses Dyson and his co-authors of "supping with the devil."'

I can't tell if that's the review author or the book author speaking. It's the point of such a group to think of such things? Isn't there indeed an unambiguous case in which "nuclear attacks made sense": Hiroshima?

I find it hard to think of cases where a nuclear attack would not be worse than not doing so, but not impossible.