How does the Unlicense most accurately reflects your intentions? The Unlicense has three different components: grants (paragraph 2), no warranty clause (paragraph 4) and the dedication to the public domain (paragraphs 1 and 3). Everything but the PD dedication is common to other PD-equivalent licenses so I believe you have two intentions:
1. You want the PD dedication whenever it works.
The dedication clause is unfortunately most problematic in that, for example, it never works in jurisdictions where copyright laws are recognized but no actual dedication to the public domain is possible. The complexity of CC0 solely exists to make it effectively PD-equivalent even in such cases.
2. You don't like "lawyer speaks" and prefer shorter licenses.
Okay, unfortunately CC0 is bulky and while legally absurd I can somehow relate to that line of thought. But does that mean the PD dedication clause should exist in the license itself? No! You can easily make a PD-like license by writing your own dedication plus very permissive and short license like zero-clause BSD. In this way your intention to the dedication remains explicit (or even stronger) and you can pick legally safer licenses. Indeed this is my preferred method for the dedication [1].
Also remember, the actual SQLite "license" [2] from which the Unlicense claims to be inspired is not the license. It is just a dedication and words of blessing. The actual license, in case the dedication doesn't work, is available for purchase elsewhere [3]. The Unlicense authors are seemingly ignorant of this fact.
[1] See https://github.com/lifthrasiir/rust-strconv/blob/master/LICE... for the example. (It eventually got into the Rust standard library, hence weird triple licensing.)
[2] https://www.sqlite.org/cgi/src/file?name=LICENSE.md&ci=trunk
[3] https://www.sqlite.org/purchase/license