The thing NGOs do in Africa is 3D print AK gun parts to be used to make molds to fill in where captured gun parts are lacking so that resistance groups against warlords can be better armed.
NGOs often face situations in which the people that need humanitarian aid cannot be reached because a belligerent interest intercepts all supply. This is how we ended up with ad-hoc military support vehicles (say a pickup with a machine-gun mount) being called a technical since it and its crew would be budgeted in as technical services since Red Cross can’t exactly say they hired some goons to stand guard while they dispensed first aid services.
So when NGOs scout a new region to support and ask the local villages what they need, it’s super common to hear well, our biggest problem is the warlord up-river who keeps sending guys with guns to take all our stuff. And since NATO isn’t interested in sorting that out, it’s up to our peace-corps crew to think about how to provide an ad-hoc balance of power.
The problem is with a village with nothing but pointed sticks, one or two guys with an AK-47 can throw the balance or power so far that the village is forced to capitulate to the warlord. And it’s not that the NGOs are consulting with an arms dealer (which is how the warlord is getting his guns), so they’re improvising, which sometimes means 3D printing gun parts and then smithing them locally.
As per most crisis hot spots in the world, few things are simple, and so yes, NGOs that are supposed to be non-violent (and even will present themselves as such to the international community) will resort to ad-hoc violence or violence-adjacient solutions. IRL is often messy.
The thing NGOs do in Africa is 3D print AK gun parts to be used to make molds to fill in where captured gun parts are lacking so that resistance groups against warlords can be better armed.
There are NGOs providing weapons? What are they called, “Weapons sans frontiers”?
Um, yes?
NGOs often face situations in which the people that need humanitarian aid cannot be reached because a belligerent interest intercepts all supply. This is how we ended up with ad-hoc military support vehicles (say a pickup with a machine-gun mount) being called a technical since it and its crew would be budgeted in as technical services since Red Cross can’t exactly say they hired some goons to stand guard while they dispensed first aid services.
So when NGOs scout a new region to support and ask the local villages what they need, it’s super common to hear well, our biggest problem is the warlord up-river who keeps sending guys with guns to take all our stuff. And since NATO isn’t interested in sorting that out, it’s up to our peace-corps crew to think about how to provide an ad-hoc balance of power.
The problem is with a village with nothing but pointed sticks, one or two guys with an AK-47 can throw the balance or power so far that the village is forced to capitulate to the warlord. And it’s not that the NGOs are consulting with an arms dealer (which is how the warlord is getting his guns), so they’re improvising, which sometimes means 3D printing gun parts and then smithing them locally.
As per most crisis hot spots in the world, few things are simple, and so yes, NGOs that are supposed to be non-violent (and even will present themselves as such to the international community) will resort to ad-hoc violence or violence-adjacient solutions. IRL is often messy.
[citation needed]
Pure fantasy
Metal Gear has entered the chat