What kind of firearms does the UN use? Rifles, Artillery, Armor, and Aircraft?

They are a big part of the world situation these days and I dont even know what they use.

UN uses whatever weapons the different (United) Nations have...

The main UN vehicle that i see on tv (painted white with UN on) is a nissan patrol, apart from that its whatever the country has.

SISUs are also comman, atleast where the scandinavians might be

And the standard gun for the XA-180 SISU that AlexKall is mentioning above is the .50 HMG. Not impossible that it is the same as the Browning M2HB .50 caliber Machine Gun...

As Redleg said, they use what ever the member countries have in their armament but this is then the armed forces part.

Beside this the Missions buy (or get donated) their own vehicles for transportation etc. for the whole civilain part.
That is then all kind of off road vehicles and trucks sometimes with special applications (water, fuel, construction etc.). I special areas additional armored off road vehicles and sometimes mine proof vehicles.
The types are just all what is fulfilling the requirements and then who is the cheapest bidder or just the one that gives his stufff or free (or almost for free) because he wants it to be seen on TV like Nissan and Toyota do and get pritty good advertisement for free (which are good cars by the way).

It is just a pitty that the armed part of a UN mission has lost it's teeth and their job gets done by KFOR, IFOR, SFOR and what so ever ...FORs. Instead of acting they were talking about "no violence" to solve the ongoing conflict while in front of their eyes children and women were slaughtered by the thousands in Sarajevo and elsewhere in the Balkans.
This happens when the flower power generation gets to power.

Yup. No use "convincing" these guys that what they're doing is no good. They already know that and don't care.
Blue helmets are priority targets. People go out to kidnap them or murder them so they can make demands to the UN. It's almost like sending over peacekeepers is doing the bad guys a favor because of the crazy ROE they are exposed to.
Like I said. Back in the 60s when Belgian Paracommandos were deployed to Africa, the Africans ran. In the 90s when the Belgian Paracommandos returned they were immediately targeted and in short order, 10 were killed.

Anyways, if the UN did have its own service rifle, it'd probably one that broke apart when the trigger got pulled, ejecting a slip of paper that says "violence doesn't solve anything."

"Like I said. Back in the 60s when Belgian Paracommandos were deployed to Africa, the Africans ran. In the 90s when the Belgian Paracommandos returned they were immediately targeted and in short order, 10 were killed."

Yeah, UN is history. Modern conflicts are much more cruel than conflicts in the past and time when UN's regulations were founded. The most of modern conflicts are civil wars fought between vary ethnic groups and tribes and are more difficult to handle than fifty years ago in the first UN missions when conflicts were mostly between different states.

Yup. No use "convincing" these guys that what they're doing is no good. They already know that and don't care.
Blue helmets are priority targets. People go out to kidnap them or murder them so they can make demands to the UN. It's almost like sending over peacekeepers is doing the bad guys a favor because of the crazy ROE they are exposed to.

I don't totally agree. Since the events in ex-Yugoslavia the "commandment" of the UN changed their minds : the UN soldier are allowed to use their guns when they're attacked (I've heard that). Of course the UN are not always efficient : many conflicts took place, but we will never know the conflicts this organization managed to prevent.

Yeah, UN is history.

The UN didn't exist before 1945 and whe all know what happened before.

You guys think the UN are to weak ? Perfect, let's reinforce it !

hey I specify i'm not a naive pacifist !

"Yeah, UN is history.


The UN didn't exist before 1945 and whe all know what happened before.

You guys think the UN are to weak ? Perfect, let's reinforce it !

hey I specify i'm not a naive pacifist ! "

Before UN was League of Nations and it was quite useless fishing club to prevent WWII or any war starting. UN like League of Nations could present their disagreement but no-one takes them seriously because there is nothing behind the words.

And rather a realistic pasifist than militaristic war nut (if there is any realistic ones)