i think you threw a wobbly without appreciating that what I said in my original post was 100% in concordance with what you said.
I'll be honest, I have absolutely no clue what you're saying here. My first language isn't English, so you'll have to be a little more concise next time if you want to get your point across.
In the mythbusters episode noted they seem to have shot a two part explosive (yeah i already noted this in a previous post, sometimes you need to restate so people grok what you said), perhaps hitting the detonator (a pencil thin part of the grenade).
I can't speak for the Mythbusters episode as I haven't seen it, but how much do you know about ballistic theory?
Allow me to explain; when a ballistic round (.308 caliber rifle round, for example) penetrates an object (whether that object is a human body or a grenade), the kinetic energy of the round imparts a shockwave through said object. This shockwave is what kills most people who die instantly from a gunshot; it's called shock trauma, and it destroys the tissue surrounding the entry, path, and exit of the round. You don't need to hit someone's heart to cause it to stop beating; a sufficiently powerful round impacting center mass can be enough all by itself. Now, a large part of gunshot wounds do NOT kill instantly, and those who end up dying later on usually do so because exanguination (bleeding out, whether internal or external).
When a relatively large round like the .308 hits the relatively small body of a grenade, there are very few places for the kinetic energy to go; thus, whether you hit the detonator straight on or just hit the composition charge around it, the shockwave will likely be of sufficient energy to set off the primary explosive.
This is fairly basic stuff, and it hasn't changed much in the last 100 years. We've made guns more accurate, capable of firing more rounds in less time, and we've increased caliber sizes (.338, a common rifle round for military snipers these days were developed back in the 80s as far as I know).
Now imagine an electrically detonated version of RDX (or other modern explosive) that requires a specific sinewave pattern to detonate it (so no blasting caps, no lightning bolts, no bullets to set it off).
A secondary explosive (like RDX) still requires a primary explosive to set it off. No matter how much you zap it with a "specific sinewave pattern" RDX still wouldn't detonate, with the possible exception of extremely high voltage and/or amperage (think lightning strike, and honestly, if you can harness the power of lightning to set off a grenade why aren't we just making lightning grenades...).
Look at the explosives section of the Arsenal book; notice how there are still ordinary detonators there? Sure, there are some fancier ones too, but they all have one thing in common; a primary explosive that functions as the "detonator" part of the "[whatever fancy trigger mechanism is used] detonator".
And a primary explosive can be set off by the kinetic energy imparted on a round, such as a .308...
Hard to imagine?
Yes, quite frankly.
What you describe makes absolutely no sense to me. If you want to handwave it with "because X", you might as well just say "because magic", which I personally find to be an insufficient argument. Explosives are real, as are the principles of the physics that apply to them; there is no need to come up with alternate methods when modern day tech is based on principles that are hundreds, if not thousands, of years old.
Not for me given the advancements and pervasiveness of nanotech.
Good for you.
Nanotech would still need to trigger a primary explosive in order to set off a secondary explosive, unless "because nanotech" is a sufficient explanation for why the laws of thermodynamics can suddenly be circumvented to your mind.
It isn't for me, and please try to refrain from pandering quite as much in the future. I see no need for theatrics in a factual debate.
LionofPerth; I'll check once I get home, if I got it I must have overlooked it.