NationStates Jolt Archive

This one's only about half done, and it's my first, so be gentle:
Approving the standards in the regulation of military issue arms and ammunition.

RECOGNIZING the danger posed upon each nation's military by unchecked or non-standardized weapons and ammunition,

APALLED by the undue and excessive medical trauma sometimes caused by non-standardized weaponry and ammunition,

NOTING that more standardized ammunition may reduce the number of incidences of weaponry malfunction during a time of war,

REALIZING that a standardization of arms and ammunition would improve areas associated with military training,

OBSERVING that weapon uniformity and shared ammunition is crucial to flexibility during operation,

UNDERSTANDING that the military standardization of arms and ammunition may reduce overall costs of equipment,

RESOLVES to protect weapons operators and to reduce cruel and excessive injuries of those under fire,

REQUIRES nations to maintain a strict ammunition standard policy,

URGES all nations to develop a policy of weapon uniformity,

REQUESTS that all nations conform to the ammunition standard


That's where I've left off. THe only problem is I'm not sure how to set up the standard. This is sort've based off of the whole STANAG thing, and I want it mostly to limit ammunition to certain types (i.e. 5.56x45mm). ANy help?

Um...one big flaw:
It'll make illegal gun trafficking a lot easier, and it means your enemy can seize your ammunition.

How would it make illegal arms trafficking easier? I'd really like to know so I can rectify the problem. Also, this is something that we have today IRL. I don't really see a problem with your second statement, because this means your allies can also share the same ammunition (and possibly even the same magazines). This is the case today with France, US, the UK, and many more countries.

Well if all the guns take the same ammunition then smuggling in guns from some cheap, lax country and selling them on the black market without worrying about compatability would be a piece of cake.

I think it's more something a coalition would work out amongst themselves, it's advantageous to a group of 5 allies perhaps. For a truly international idea? No.

Well if all the guns take the same ammunition then smuggling in guns from some cheap, lax country and selling them on the black market without worrying about compatability would be a piece of cake.

I think it's more something a coalition would work out amongst themselves, it's advantageous to a group of 5 allies perhaps. For a truly international idea? No.

We think it's important to note that, in the mythical land of Real Life, Standardization Agreements (STANAGs) are a product of the NATO alliance. Having standardized weaponry, ammunition, and equipment among allies is beneficial. But we don't see the necessary merits of such a thing among NSUN nations, some of whom may even end up at war with each other.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

1] integrated weapons systems is a problem for domestic defence planners or alliances not an international cause. You’re legislating at the domestic rathern than the international level.

2] There is a contradiction between your stated intentions to reduce casualties by improving the ability of an army to cause casualties…

3] You’re promoting arms trafficking by potentially standardising weapons systems between nations. Likewise this would reduce comparative advantages, force the disclosure of weapons research or projects. However this might limit weapons development which is always a good thing.

Particularly like the note "OBSERVING that weapon uniformity and shared ammunition is crucial to flexibility during operation". Clever observation.

It'll make illegal gun trafficking a lot easier, and it means your enemy can seize your ammunition.

Perhaps if each country set their own standard? That would cut down on the number of injuries to one's fighters, but prevent the enemy from using one's ammo against oneself.

Just a thought.

Knight Matthieu Tertulien,
Director of Foreign Affairs
Armed Republic of Schartlefritzen

NOTING that more standardized ammunition may reduce the number of incidences of weaponry malfunction during a time of war,How can this do anything to effect the performance of a weapon? If a weapon malfunctions then it does that not the ammunition used in it. So nothing is reduced here as far as weapons malfunctions by changing the size of the ammunition in a bad weapon. Nor would it account for ammuntion malfunction because if that fails then it fails regardless of cal..

REALIZING that a standardization of arms and ammunition would improve areas associated with military training,Again how? As if you train your troops to use the M-1 or M-14 or M-16 or M-60 as their weapon of choice they will be as effective with it as the training is given them on the weapons and the quality of the troops who will be using those weapons.


Also considering that for every one weapon with ammunition made by a UN nation there are two made by nations not in UN. Thus many UN member nations may buy their weapons from such non UN member nations.. since they have defense treaties with them that include trade of such items between them. Thus it may be easier and cheaper, for say my nation, to get a non UN standard weapon from a country closer than a member nation; thus why should I have to buy weapons and ammunitions from only UN member nations? As that what I'd have to do unless I start making them myself.

Okay, I see now that I'm not going to get this passed, but just for the sake of clearing things up...

1. It would reduce malfunctions because instead of getting ammunition from wherever your nation chooses, it forces nations to use ammunition that has been checked to make sure it's not deformed, overpacked, etc.

2.The choice of calibre and type is mainly so a nation cannot use a very unsafe size or type (i.e. Not allowing Black Powder rifles that really tear a person apart rather than cleanly killing them, or a bullet that might be more prone to causing infection)

3. If an entire army is trained on separate weapons, then they are limited to their own weapon during operations. If everyone were trained with an ArmaLite variant, for example, then if their's breaks and they happen to come across one on the field, then they're set. Also, to train each person with a variety of weapons would require several trainers to meet each weapon's specific needs.

4. The goal of this is not to prevent weapons from killing, that's obviously what they were created for. It's for preventing unnecessary maiming or injury when a clean death is much more humane.

5. This has very little to do with any sort of market. Even if a nation adopted 5.56 as their standard, it does not mean optaining 5.56 ammunition is any more simple. If anything, it helps fight the problem by making sure that soldiers must get their ammunition supplied to them rather than purchasing it on their own at the local Sports Store (thus creating demand, which would increase supply).

I've decided that this would need either severe changes or just to simply be cut, because you are correct that this would be more for a NATO type organization, but if there are any more questions about this, I'd be happy to debate it with you.

I would recomend that you keep your eyes open for a gun-control proposal that will be getting introduced soon.

1. It would reduce malfunctions because instead of getting ammunition from wherever your nation chooses, it forces nations to use ammunition that has been checked to make sure it's not deformed, overpacked, etc.Why would this insure perfect ammunition from any source. As any nation that buys bad ammunition from another nation deserves what they pay for. This suggests that my nation has no inspection/testing process for things we purchase from others.
2.The choice of calibre and type is mainly so a nation cannot use a very unsafe size or type (i.e. Not allowing Black Powder rifles that really tear a person apart rather than cleanly killing them, or a bullet that might be more prone to causing infection)If the purpose of a weapon and the ammunition is to kill and enemy then as long as it does that is works. So who cares if it blows them into small pieces or leaves big holes in them. As long as they are effective in stopping an enemy from doing what you might do to them any weapon or ammunitions that works is good.. No weapon or ammunition is ever 'SAFE' so to even talk about it being 'unsafe'. Also considering that certain nations spend a great deal on trying to save the lives of their wounded it might be best to just would them... Tying up troops and equipment to do this and not be shooting at your troops; instead saving, moving, and caring for wounded.

3. If an entire army is trained on separate weapons, then they are limited to their own weapon during operations. If everyone were trained with an ArmaLite variant, for example, then if their's breaks and they happen to come across one on the field, then they're set. Also, to train each person with a variety of weapons would require several trainers to meet each weapon's specific needs.But then if the troops are smart they learn fast and use what they have at hand. When the M-16 failed in Viet Nam many American troops picked up the AK-47 and used it just as well as they might the M-16 or old M-14.. which the M-16 replaced but due to malfunctions many prefered to find other earier to get and better weapons.

4. The goal of this is not to prevent weapons from killing, that's obviously what they were created for. It's for preventing unnecessary maiming or injury when a clean death is much more humane.Again it may serve to just wound them thus trying up resources trying to save them.
As figure doctors, nurces, medics, and then the equipment they might use,, mean one less person shooting at your troops and equiment that won't kill them in place instead of some weapon system.

5. This has very little to do with any sort of market. Even if a nation adopted 5.56 as their standard, it does not mean optaining 5.56 ammunition is any more simple. If anything, it helps fight the problem by making sure that soldiers must get their ammunition supplied to them rather than purchasing it on their own at the local Sports Store (thus creating demand, which would increase supply).By market it would set up that we would all as UN members purchase weapons and ammunition of a set cal. Thus some UN nations who already make this would have an advantage over nations who now use another cal.. and get it from outside the UN membership... as in a way you are banning certain weapons and ammunitions here simply by saying use only this one cal. As that one is 'unsafe'...
Also smart troops learn fast and use what they find to keep them in the battle.. Thus is they find enemy weapons and ammunitions they use them when theirs fail or run out of ammunitions for them and supply systems can't get replacements to you.. Since your factory making them has been blown up.. and the ship bringing what supplies did get made is on bottom of ocean. Now they are attacking with say M-16 a nation still holding plenty of M-14 and M-60... with not means of supplies getting to them to replace weapon or ammunition. anytime soon....
I've decided that this would need either severe changes or just to simply be cut, because you are correct that this would be more for a NATO type organization, but if there are any more questions about this, I'd be happy to debate it with you.Here it would best be down to regional level and since not all nations in NS are UN members it would allow each region to set it's standard between regional membership....

Past-tech nations?

Future-tech nations?

I would recomend that you keep your eyes open for a gun-control proposal that will be getting introduced soon.

Oh, I'm sure this'll be a gem... :rolleyes:

We have PMT ammunition in non-standard formats. 20MM personal weapons-- based on the AICW-- Advanced Individual Combat Weapon. Most other nations do not use this. There is a variety of specialized types timed airburst fragmentation, white phosphorus, carbon nanotubes penetrators surrounded by a superheated glass sabot, etc. None of our ammunition would fall under your standard categories. Our 7.62 mm x 54R bullpup assault rifle uses Russian standardized ammunition. We do not want to use NATO formats in many cases. Because we are PMT-- some of the ammunition which you would want to us to submit to wouldn't be developed-- rubberized taser shock shells-- for police work, and HEAP .10 gauge shotgun shells for example. There would be further problems as we are working on developing molten or plasma shells based on superheated rock and minerals from volcanos... There are other munitions being developed as well-- flash bang scatter munitions to incapacitate large crowds of people.

Waste of time.

Okay, just to clear something up, I haven't even begun to list which types of ammunition are acceptable or not. This list could be quite extensive, so don't plan on me excluding some of the "stranger" calibres (i.e. 4.6mm for the MP7).

Why would this insure perfect ammunition from any source. As any nation that buys bad ammunition from another nation deserves what they pay for. This suggests that my nation has no inspection/testing process for things we purchase from others.

Well, perhaps some nations do not have an inspection process when they really need one. THis would ensure that their ammunition does get inspected.

If the purpose of a weapon and the ammunition is to kill and enemy then as long as it does that is works. So who cares if it blows them into small pieces or leaves big holes in them. As long as they are effective in stopping an enemy from doing what you might do to them any weapon or ammunitions that works is good.. No weapon or ammunition is ever 'SAFE' so to even talk about it being 'unsafe'. Also considering that certain nations spend a great deal on trying to save the lives of their wounded it might be best to just would them... Tying up troops and equipment to do this and not be shooting at your troops; instead saving, moving, and caring for wounded.

So you're saying it's fine that a person get's shot with a black powder rifle, it tears holes in him, but he doesn't die for another week or so from blood poison? What if that person was an innocent bystander caught in a crossfire? Sure, that's always a bad situation, but I'd much rather hear about a person accidentally shot with a green tip that goes clean through than some "experimental" round that causes them to suffer for a month.

But then if the troops are smart they learn fast and use what they have at hand. When the M-16 failed in Viet Nam many American troops picked up the AK-47 and used it just as well as they might the M-16 or old M-14.. which the M-16 replaced but due to malfunctions many prefered to find other earier to get and better weapons.


So, if troops should learn fast, then why train them? Because there is often a right and wrong way to do something, and it prevents accidents before they happen. It's not like our soldiers have plenty of free time that they can spend trying to figure out how to operate something foreign.

Again it may serve to just wound them thus trying up resources trying to save them.
As figure doctors, nurces, medics, and then the equipment they might use,, mean one less person shooting at your troops and equiment that won't kill them in place instead of some weapon system.

Can we all safely say that that's cruel? Or am I the only one who thinks this?

By market it would set up that we would all as UN members purchase weapons and ammunition of a set cal. Thus some UN nations who already make this would have an advantage over nations who now use another cal.. and get it from outside the UN membership... as in a way you are banning certain weapons and ammunitions here simply by saying use only this one cal. As that one is 'unsafe'...
Also smart troops learn fast and use what they find to keep them in the battle.. Thus is they find enemy weapons and ammunitions they use them when theirs fail or run out of ammunitions for them and supply systems can't get replacements to you.. Since your factory making them has been blown up.. and the ship bringing what supplies did get made is on bottom of ocean. Now they are attacking with say M-16 a nation still holding plenty of M-14 and M-60... with not means of supplies getting to them to replace weapon or ammunition. anytime soon....

Well, if standardization were to come in place, it would matter what weapon the ammunition was for, because it would most likely work in the other weapons (M249, M16, L85, FaMAS, etc)

But I do agree that this would be inneffective due to different eras represented by certain UN nations.