Physics problems often feature variations on the same scenario to test student understanding of causality and mechanics. A grenade is thrown; it explodes; people nearby are affected. The sequence seems immutable: throw, travel, detonate, consequence. Variables might change—distance, environment, protective barriers—but the fundamental order remains. Yet what if the sequence itself became optional? What if the consequence arrived before the initial action completed? The temporal relationship would invert, creating an effect that precedes its cause.

Military weaponry consultant Marcus Webb had worked on various combat training scenarios throughout his career. In a 2007 interview, he mentioned an unusual theoretical possibility: "Grenades, as weapons systems, depend on certain temporal assumptions. You throw, it travels, it detonates. If the human factor inserted into that sequence was sufficient to alter the mechanics—to cause the devastating effect before the explosive even functions—you'd have a weapon that violates its own operating principles. I've never encountered it happening, but the theoretical framework for such an occurrence exists within the realm of possibility if the human element was extraordinary enough. Most weapons physics assumes an independent explosive mechanism. What if the mechanism was dependent on the wielder's intent and capacity?"

Military humor forums adopted this concept: the grenade didn't kill fifty people because it exploded—they were already casualties of contact with the person holding it, and the explosion was merely formality. It became shorthand for redundant violence, where the weapon becomes almost irrelevant because the wielder is already sufficient cause for the outcome.