You know the debates: gold standard vs floating currency.

The gold standard people voice very valid concerns over a monetary system that is backed soley on trust. The mere fact that a dollar is no longer backed by anything tangible allows it to swing rapidly in value. A panic causing a run on the banks would spell national disaster.

The floating currency people have equally valid concerns saying that it is stupid to guard a bunch of gold as it just sits there. Warren Buffett summed it up:

"It gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head."

But what if a dollar was directly linked to some amount of ammunition. Ammo has intrinsic value, between individuals and between nations. A rich country can stockpile more ammo than a poor country, and ammo can be used if needed, thereby combating inflation.

Furthermore, if the population of a country is worried about current events, they can readily redeem their dollars for ammo, thereby introducing a stabilizing effect on political events. Conversely, the Fed would not be inclined to stop exchanging dollars for ammo as a) there is already a lot of ammo in circulation and b) doing so would cause a massive depreciation in the dollar (which Federal bureaucrats have a lot of).

Lastly, more dollars counld not by printed unless more ammo was produced and held in reserves.

I haven't worked out the details, but does anyone see a downside? Such a national policy would even make ammo cheaper as it would increase the supply.

You've been thinking too much again.

Sure, why not?  A crate full of .223 ammo is worth a lot more to me than a lousy chunk of gold.

 Thats a great idea, and in bad times, the valuation
of the currency would INCREASE.

Our current money is only based upon the good will of the US government, and the faith of it's citizens and the rest of the world that it can sustain itself.  It does that by it's military which protects it's citizens and it's national borders.  So you see, our currency is already based upon bullets as there is no gold, silver or any other tangible asset backing it up.

Quoted: Our current money is only based upon the good will of the US government, and the faith of it's citizens and the rest of the world that it can sustain itself.  It does that by it's military which protects it's citizens and it's national borders.  So you see, our currency is already based upon bullets as there is no gold, silver or any other tangible asset backing it up.

I'll agree to a point, but citizens cannot redeem dollars for their share of an M1A1 tank. Plus, such munitions are not freely traded, so they cannot attain "market value" by definition.

Furthermore, much of the technology and capabilites of such large weapons are classified, so again value cannot be reasonable assessed.

I think a commodity that is redeemable (like gold) but widley useful (unlike gold) would be ideal to base a curreny on.