> And I don't want to diminish that from Bunnie. By reframing the article whose very, very explicit aim is to demonstrate how not-at-all difficult it is to bui

> And I don't want to diminish that from Bunnie. By reframing the article whose very, very explicit aim is to demonstrate how not-at-all difficult it is to build combination batteries/hand-grenades and whitewash it as primarily a primer on the techniques behind the construction of modern lithium ion batteries, you are *absolutely* minimizing Mr. Huang's article. You can find "How it's made: Lithium Ion Battery Pouches!" tutorials in many places. What you cannot find in many places are expert folks talking clearly and explicitly about how it wouldn't actually be difficult to build a fully-functional battery with a plastic explosive layer, put in the electronics to remotely detonate it AND make it so it would probably be REALLY hard to discover that it's a bomb. > ...it was part 2 that is 3rd rail radioactive... Yes, as I mentioned before: "I get that some folks have a very strong opinion that talking about weapons of destruction is bad, bad, bad. But to shame folks for talking about the production of weapons of destruction when the stated goal of the article is to _talk about weapons of destruction_ is just plain fucked up.". The article would be useless without the technical walkthrough, but the technical walkthrough is NOT the point of the article. The entire point of the article, visible from its title ("Turning Everyday Gadgets into Bombs Is a Bad Idea") to its opening paragraphs, which I have already quoted, to the final section, (which I quote in its entirety below) is to demonstrate how absolutely nontrivial creating a booby-trapped, remotely-activateable hand grenade that's indistinguishable from an ordinary battery is, and to humbly suggest that maybe this is weapons tech that should not be proliferated. To pretend otherwise does Mr. Huang an enormous disservice. > _Pandora’s Box is Open_ > Not all things that could exist should exist, and some ideas are better left unimplemented. Technology alone has no ethics: the difference between a patch and an exploit is the method in which a technology is disclosed. Exploding batteries have probably been conceived of and tested by spy agencies around the world, but never deployed en masse because while it may achieve a tactical win, it is too easy for weaker adversaries to copy the idea and justify its re-deployment in an asymmetric and devastating retaliation. > However, now that I’ve seen it executed, I am left with the terrifying realization that not only is it feasible, it’s relatively easy for any modestly-funded entity to implement. Not just our allies can do this – a wide cast of adversaries have this capability in their reach, from nation-states to cartels and gangs, to shady copycat battery factories just looking for a big payday (if chemical suppliers can moonlight in illicit drugs, what stops battery factories from dealing in bespoke munitions?). Bottom line is: we should approach the public policy debate around this assuming that someday, we could be victims of exploding batteries, too. Turning everyday objects into fragmentation grenades should be a crime, as it blurs the line between civilian and military technologies. > I fear that if we do not universally and swiftly condemn the practice of turning everyday gadgets into bombs, we risk legitimizing a military technology that can literally bring the front line of every conflict into your pocket, purse or home.