United Nations weapons

ACTaFOOL82

Active member
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. :cowb:
 
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.
 
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." :lol:
 
"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) ;)
 
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 C

Exact, but this league was totally forgotten by many countries. The voting system was totally crazy : if Bangladesh (for example) refused a decision, this one was immediately given up ! the system was blocked. But more surprising : The League was "grounded" by Pdt Wilson and the US abandoned it... It couldn't work ! And I believe this organization didn't "own" any army...

Moreover i don't think "there is nothing behind the words" : remember the embargo against Iraq, or the differents treaty of disarmament, or the numbers of veto. Of course it's not idyllic, but that's a beginning... :?
 
"Moreover i don't think "there is nothing behind the words" : remember the embargo against Iraq, or the differents treaty of disarmament, or the numbers of veto. Of course it's not idyllic, but that's a beginning..."

UN refused US's attack to Iraq but US didn't care that and UN was unable to prevent that. US has been UN's teeth in many cases and US is able and has enough guts to send troops to solve problems. Without support from US and different NATO -led FORs like KFOR, UN would be unable to do anything but just present it's disagreements wich don't help anything or anyone.

If wanted to increase UN's military capability, should regulations and ROEs be heavily improved and modernized to answer the needs of present day.
 
EOD said:
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.

And tanks :o
 
UN refused US's attack to Iraq but US didn't care that and UN was unable to prevent that.
Mmm that's not so easy, the US tried to pass by the UN, didn't they ? It would have given* them the support of the international community, and this support is lacking right now.

US is able and has enough guts to send troops to solve problems.

Do not mix up the politicians and the soldiers : the "senders" are not sent.
Moreover I think that the US military is not able to provide more troops for an other conflict :(

*Xcuz me but i'm not sure of the conjugation :cry:
 
Well the thing is, the "return fire only" is a poor rule. Because often when you're taking fire, it's already too late. You got to find the threats, issue a warning and a short deadline (i.e. there is an artillery battery on the top of the hill. It needs removing in the next 48 hours) and if not complied will be dealt with with deadly force.
And I believe that UN peacekeeping missions must include artillery. What use is defending land with infantry when they cannot call in for any artillery support?
If you want to keep the peace, you got to go in there and show that there is a new Sheriff in town. Not a well organized flower brigade.
 
"Do not mix up the politicians and the soldiers : the "senders" are not sent."

Yes but politicians make the hard decisions and take consequences of them. Sending troops to conflict may bring some of them back in sacks. Operations cost lot of money and failures may cause lack of votes in next elections wich is very important thing to the most of politicians.


"If you want to keep the peace, you got to go in there and show that there is a new Sheriff in town. Not a well organized flower brigade."

Well said and that is true. Flower brigades won't help anything.
 
Back
Top