this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2026
606 points (99.2% liked)
Funny
14266 readers
1099 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
All of the information is easily available in the academic literature. From explosive synthesis, to charge shaping, to triggering mechanisms and much much more. You just need to have the background to both read the science and put it into practice, which is difficult to do. There isn't a "simple" bomb making manual, because bomb making is difficult and application specific.
I agree, and I actually see that as a reason FOR making the info easily accessable(I know you aren't arguing against that)
Making a pipe bomb, I think you can agree, is significantly easier, cheaper, and more accessable than making something with a safety mechanism, a much smaller secondary charge in case the first fails and you don't want get near a bomb, and having the force go exactly where you want it to. It's so much easier to use these skills for destruction, but it's not hard to figure that information out on your own without the internet. Therefore, by keeping "dangerous" information restricted or censored, you are ONLY raising the bar for entry into the legitimate uses for those technologies.