United nations combat equipment

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Longinthegums, Oct 31, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Please help me settle a discussion.
    "The UN has no "organic" combat equipment. This is provided by nations as required to sustain UN operations. The UN is not chartered to procure (for example) a fleet of main battle tanks."
    I believe the above to be true but cannot find an authoratative reference.
     
  2. The UN does buy armoured cars (as in up-armoured civilian 4x4s) and body armour. These items are classed by most countries as military equipments which require export licences, etc - so it could be argued that, in theory, the UN has the capability to buy and own military equipment.
     
  3. I would class these as personal (or even personnel) protection - not as warfighting equipment.
     
  4. IIRC it is in the UN charter to have a standing UN Army. The original principal was that instead of relying on nations to provide forces, the UN would have its 'own' standing Army to send off. This all soon fell apart when it became apparent the nobody would fund it, so we have the current situation of blue helmets (eg Cyprus) and fighting under the UN flag (eg Korea).

    Than again I could be talking utter bollocks.
     
  5. The UN has some comand and control and logistics groups. the main equipment dump is bassed in Italy.

    It also has it's own sort of police force. However it dosen't have any teeth arms, although the coppers and the HQ elements may be armed.

    That's what I can remember from reading the UN's web pages a few months back.

    http://www.un.org/peace/

    A slightly more intresting question is "Should" the UN have any teeth arms, with UN brought and suopplied kit?
     
  6. Forum members Dread & Inf/MP both work for the sinister World Government, they'll probably rock up in their black helicopter and answer this one sooner or later.

    V!
     
  7. Mr Happy

    Mr Happy LE Moderator

    I had a UN pillow or two and a UN mattress to boot, on a UN bed. No sure of the war-fighting abilities of a blue pillow with feathers in it but if it helps your argument to know....

    Why the question BTW?
     
  8. How embarassing :oops: I do not know the answer as I am too busy training a terrorist army errr... I mean instructing a civilian emergency and disaster management service.

    I will speak to a couple of the bookworms in the office tomorrow morning before I hit the rakia that I was given today (better than toothpaste as it also gets rid of teeth enamel) :)

    I always thought the biggest weapon the UN had was threatening to flood a country with overpaid, corrupt and useless third-world and third rate administrators each on at least 80k per annum. Look at Cyprus: the UN first went there in 1964 and are still there messing around the Brits while allowing the Argies to get away with everything and doing sweet FA to help the final situation (the UN civilians that is, not the soldiers on loan from various countries). Am I a UN civilian? You betcha! Much more dosh :)

    I will post an answer later today (Tuesday).

    Dread

    PS The black helicopters with stealth mode do not count: they are not fitted with AT missiles and I only use mine for commuting to work.
     
  9. Be afraid, be very afraid.

    We are out there with out procurement orders - only 10,000 more forms to be filled in and I will be allowed to request the form that allows me to ask permission to be given the form that allows me to suggest that the idea of buying a can of black paint be raised in the Security Council. Once that is done - I will be on a roll and then watch as I use this can of paint as justification for a whole fleet of helicopters!!!!!
     
  10. How true: I need a generator for 30 days to power the fans in the gas chamber errr... the water pumps in the relocation camp that I am building for the gypsies in north Kosovo. Can I simply put in a request to the engineering dept and get it delivered? Can I arrse! I now have to write a full MOU explaining who will be responsible for fuel, servicing, repair and security etc. Runs into about 6 pages. Cnuts. Anyway, am not supposed to be whining about the UN but answering the question about the UN Army.

    The official answer is no. The UN has no powers to purchase military equipment, nor will it ever be granted that power. Underneath (not literally) the Security Council sits the Military Staff Committee (MSC) which consists of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council. All member countries are required to maintain forces for the UN to use (subject to agreement by both parties). Articles 41 to 51 of the UN Charter show how the Security Council goes about mobilising the forces of a member country. At all times the soldiers remain under the command of their home nation, but are OPCON (or is it OPCOM) of the UN. The national contingent commander faces the task of obeying both national orders from his own government/dictator/etc as well as obeying orders from the MSC. Orders from the home nation carry precedence.

    So no, the UN does not, and cannot, have its own standing army. All equipment is loaned to it from member states. The only exceptions to this have already been alluded to: a few transport helicopters and executive jets (only 1 IIRC, the rest are on loan), armoured 4x4s and small arms for body guards and communications equipment. Nothing with offensive capacity. The UN has no capability to invade or defend (but then the UN does not need this as it controls the world through mind waves from secret sattelites (the black helicopters are used to fill in the areas of no coverage).
     
  11. Thanks Dread - maybe it was something that they originally discusses then deamed it unfeasible? Thanks for clearing it up anyway.

    (Edited to clear up formatting).
     
  12. They may have discussed it (only a historian can answer that), but I suspect that if they did then the Allied Powers would have stopped it immediately. Apart from the prohibitive cost of purchasing, maintaining and also manning such equipment, where would this force reside? Would you want a squadron of tanks and a battery of heavy artillery manned by floppies (say Sudanese and Libyans) in the UK? What would have happened in 1982 if such a force was in the UK or near a BAOR unit that was manned by Argies? Nasty.

    The thought of a UN Army is unworkable. The current situation where countries fight in coalitions acting under UN resolutions and directives is the only feasable solution at this time.
     
  13. Use of private military firms was looked at in 1996 for the rwandan refugee crisis. A scoping study by Executive outcomes of the 94 genocide estimated first troops on the ground within 14 days, complete in theatre by 6 weeks. The role would have been to provide security "islands" and a humanitarian corridor. who would pay for the operation at us$600k per day put the kibosh on it, though the eventual UN operation cost us$3mil per day.

    more detail and info in peter singer's "corporate warriors" including EO in sierra leone and NGO praise etc

    now a commercial armed UN force with interesting Comd & control and payment conditions would get most tin foil hat wearers in a tiz for many years. The source of the US militias' belief in a UN gurkha force training in Canada for the ZOG or whoever (Jon ronson in his C4 series a few years back) came from the US Government briefly considering taking on the Indian army gurkhas at partition/independance in 1947 :roll:
     
  14. Thanks to all who took the time and trouble to reply.

    I can now win my argument in the pub.
     
  15. Mercs.
    They've been around for years, and are normaly well trained. The UN could Hire them, and bingo, a well trained UN army. THat's just takeign the idea of the Security Companies (mentioned else where) a bit further.