Summary of total contributions of uniformed personnel by Member States to UN Missions before 2010. UN police and military personnel are contributed to serve under the blue flag from over 100 countries to carry out the mandates defined by the Security Council.

This is an archived data-set that is provided for completeness.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/United_Nations_Peacekeeping_Logo.svg/1280px-United_Nations_Peacekeeping_Logo.svg.png" alt="UN Peacekeeping">

Troop and Police Contributions

UN police and military personnel are "contributed" to serve under the blue flag from over 100 countries to carry out the mandates defined by the Security Council. Military operations aim to protect populations against threats and contribute to a secure environment. Policing is central in preventing, mitigating and resolving violent conflict and contributing to early peacebuilding and reconciliation. Uniformed personnel are contributed and deployed under several different types of arrangements.

**We have presented some troop and police contributors data on our website. To delve deeper you can analyze the data sets here and answer questions such as: Which countries are increasingly participating over the past decades? Which countries have declined in their participation? Which countries are promoting the development of more sustainable peace by contributing female troops and police?
**

Common Terms

Staff Officer: Those Contingent Personnel who are generated, deployed and travelled in an individual capacity upon nomination by a Permanent Mission and selection by the Office of Military Adviser, to perform specialized functions at the Force Headquarters or integrated military, civilian or police structure . Formed Police Unit (FPU): Cohesive mobile police units, providing support to United Nations operations and ensuring the safety and security of United Nations personnel and missions, primarily in public order management.

Individual Police Officer (IPO): Police or other law enforcement personnel assigned to serve with the United Nations on secondment by Member States at the request of the Secretary-General. Military Personnel: All military contingents and individual military officers serving in United Nations Peacekeeping Missions or Special Political Missions, including Military Liaison Officers, Military Observers and military staff officers

**Police Personnel: **All United Nations police officers serving in United Nations Peacekeeping Missions or Special Political Missions, including Specialized Police Teams, Formed Police Units and Individual Police Officers.

Definition of the Uniformed Contributions by Rank Data

The Peacekeeping Uniformed Contributions by Rank of Troop- or Police-Contributing Country, provides an update as of end of last calendar month:

• Associated with unique ID
• Country ISO Code M49 DESA code
• Country Name of Troop or Police Contributing country
• Rank for the Month
• Number of male uniformed personnel
• Number of female uniformed personnel
• Monthly Report Date

Definition of the Uniformed Contributions by Gender Data

The Peacekeeping Uniformed Contributions by Gender Data, as of end of last calendar month, is :

• Associated with unique ID
• Country ISO Code of Troop- or Police-Contributing Country
• M49 DESA code for relevant country
• Country Name of Troop- or Police-Contributing country
• Mission Acronym
• Description of uniformed category
• Gender
• Monthly Report Date

As of May 2025, China had the largest armed forces in the world by active duty military personnel, with about *********** active soldiers. India, the United States, North Korea, and Russia rounded out the top five largest armies. Difference between active and reserve personnel Active personnel, also known as active duty in the United States and active service in the United Kingdom, are those individuals whose full-time occupation is being part of a military force. Active duty contrasts with a military’s reserve force, which are individuals who have both a military role and a civilian career. The number of active duty forces in the U.S. is much larger than its reserve membership. What is the strongest army? The strength of a country’s armed forces is not only determined by how many personnel they maintain, but also the number and quality of their military equipment. For example, looking only at personnel does not factor in the overwhelmingly higher number of nuclear warheads owned by Russia and the United States compared to other countries. One way to answer this question is to look at the total amount of money each country spends on their military, as spending includes both personnel and technology. In terms of countries with the highest military spending, the United States leads the world with an annual budget almost ***** times larger than second-placed China.

Peacekeeping forces are specialised military contingents deployed by international organisations, primarily the United Nations, to conflict-affected regions with the explicit mandate to create conditions for lasting peace. Unlike traditional military forces focused on combat operations, peacekeepers operate under strict principles of impartiality, consent of parties, and minimal use of force (typically only in self-defence or defence of the mandate). These forces serve as neutral intermediaries in post-conflict environments, helping implement peace agreements, monitor ceasefires, protect civilians, facilitate humanitarian aid delivery, and support political processes toward sustainable peace. The concept has evolved significantly since the first UN peacekeeping mission in 1948, expanding beyond simply monitoring buffer zones to encompass multidimensional operations that address complex political, social, and economic dimensions of conflict. Modern peacekeeping missions often include military personnel, police officers, and civilian specialists working together on tasks ranging from disarmament and demobilisation of former combatants to supporting elections, strengthening rule of law institutions, and protecting human rights. Peacekeepers operate under significant constraints—they require host country consent, must remain impartial, and face complex legal frameworks governing their activities. Their effectiveness depends on clear, achievable mandates, adequate resources, and international political support. Despite these challenges, peacekeeping remains one of the international community's most important tools for managing conflicts and supporting transitions from war to peace.

United Nations peacekeeping soldiers commit atrocities while deployed despite their mandate to protect civilians from harm. Yet, there is tremendous variation across missions in reported human rights abuses. Why are some missions more susceptible to misconduct than others? To answer this puzzle, we identify three broad sources of influence on peacekeeper behavior: institutions, society, and military culture. Using newly collected data, we find that host-country and contributing-country institutions, particularly press freedoms and rule of law, dramatically decrease violations. Compliance with international humanitarian law also decreases violations, though to a lesser degree than institutions. Societal influences, such as gender norms and income inequality, have virtually no impact on abuses. We illustrate the utility of these findings by generating out-of-sample predictions for hypothetical peacekeeping missions in countries with recent political turmoil.

Among the top seven countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) in terms of active military personnel, Iran, which topped the list, was the only non-Arab nation. Saudi Arabia had the ******-largest number of active military personnel and was the only Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) country to make the top ten. All other GCC countries were in the bottom eight, with Kuwait having the second-highest number of active personnel in the council at ****** servicemen. Among African countries, Egypt and Algeria topped the list, with *** and *** thousand active personnel, respectively. Military strength Due to their small native populations, many countries in the GCC often rely on foreign nationals to fill in force roles in the military. Equipment is often directly correlated to the number of personnel in service. When looking at the number of tanks among armies in the MENA region, there is a clear correspondence with the level of active personnel each army has. Likewise, another key indicator of military strength is the number of military aircraft MENA countries have in operation. Israel is one of the few countries in the region that has a thriving defense export industry due to investments in R&D and local manufacturing. Increased defense spending In recent years, military spending among MENA countries has increased, with GCC countries prioritizing defense and furthering cooperation with foreign manufacturers. Qatar, which has one of the highest military spending in the region, has sought to enhance strategic partnerships with mainly Western allies after neighboring countries imposed a three-year land, sea, and air blockade on the small country in 2017. Most militaries seek to ensure as much uniformity as possible when procuring military equipment to keep costs down, facilitate more efficient training, and ensure cross-platform compatibility with existing systems. However, as of 2024, Qatar placed orders for high-end equipment, particularly fighter jets, from France, the United Kingdom, and the United States simultaneously, thereby linking their defense to the potential loss of billions in equipment orders and foreign jobs.

In the aftermath of the First World War, the League of Nations was established at the Paris Peace Conference of June 28, 1919, and the Covenant of the League of Nations made up Part I of the Treaty of Versailles. The League came into being on January 10, 1920, with the primary objective of preventing further global conflicts by maintaining international peace and security through diplomacy and negotiation rather than military action, as well as a focus on the protection of human rights and international disarmament. Unfortunately for the League, the U.S. Congress refused to join (despite President Wilson being the leading architect behind the League's founding), while the other Great Powers (Britain, France, Italy, and Japan) were reluctant to provide military assistance or adhere to economic sanctions put in place by the League. By the end of 1934, League membership reached its highest level of 58 member states; however, this was the year after the two primary aggressors of the Second World War, Germany and Japan, had left the League. Over the next decade, the rise of fascism and the impact of the Second World War saw the inevitable collapse of the League of Nations, and its official dissolution in 1946. Development of the United Nations The League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations (UN) following the Second World War. The UN came into being in June 1945, when 50* governments met in San Francisco to draft the original UN Charter, which came into effect on October 24, 1945. Since its founding, there have been approximately 200 different member states of the United Nations, with some (such as Yugoslavia or East Germany) no longer existing, while others have been renamed or their borders have been redefined. The largest increases in membership came in the 1950s as many European colonies (mostly in Africa and Asia) gained independence, and again in the early 1990s, with the fall of the Soviet Union and communism in Eastern Europe. The latest member state to join the UN was South Sudan in 2011. International relations in the UN's early history were strained, as tensions caused by the Cold War impeded the UN's ability to act effectively, but since the Soviet Union's dissolution in 1991 the UN was able to expand and diversify its peacekeeping efforts with fewer obstacles. The six principal organizations of the UN are the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice and the UN Secretariat. The highest-ranking official in the UN is Secretary General António Guterres (former Prime Minister of Portugal). The UN is headquartered in New York, and has three regional headquarters in Geneva, Nairobi, and Vienna (and the International Court of Justice is based in The Hague, Netherlands). Non-member states of the UN Along with the 193 member states of the UN, there are two countries or territories with permanent observer status. The first of these is the Holy See (Vatican City), which is the only fully independent country in the world that is not a member state. However, it has full access to the UN's resources, but abstains from the voting process due to the Pope's preference not to get involved in geopolitical affairs. Palestine is the other state with this status, as the UN favors Palestine becoming a fully independent nation, but will not acknowledge this claim until Palestine's conflict with the UN member state Israel has been peacefully resolved. Since the 2023 Israeli invasion of Gaza, calls for Palestinian membership have grown, particularly from within the UN and its many organizations that have played an integral role in Gaza's daily operations since the 1950s. Of the other six states without non-member observer status, Kosovo's independence from Serbia has the most international support, and it is currently recognized by over 100 member states. The Republic of China (Taiwan) held China's seat in the UN from it's founding until 1971, where it was then transferred to the People's Republic of China (China). Since then, Taiwan has been represented at the UN by the Chinese government (who is one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council), and only 13 member states recognize Taiwan's independence. As of 2025, Indonesia remains the only country to have ever withdrawn its UN membership, in 1965, although this was reinstated the following year.

This project updates INTERNATIONAL MILITARY INTERVENTION (IMI), 1946-1988 (ICPSR 6035), compiled by Frederic S. Pearson and Robert A. Baumann (1993). This newer study documents 447 intervention events from 1989 to 2005. To ensure consistency across the full 1946-2005 time span, Pearson and Baumann's coding procedures were followed. The data collection thus "documents all cases of military intervention across international boundaries by regular armed forces of independent states" in the international system (Pearson and Baumann, 1993). "Military interventions are defined operationally in this collection as the movement of regular troops or forces (airborne, seaborne, shelling, etc.) of one country inside another, in the context of some political issue or dispute" (Pearson and Baumann, 1993). As with the original IMI (OIMI) collection, the 1989-2005 dataset includes information on actor and target states, as well as starting and ending dates. It also includes a categorical variable describing the direction of the intervention, i.e., whether it was launched in support of the target government, in opposition to the target government, or against some third party actor within the target state's borders. The intensity of the military intervention is captured in ordinal variables that document the scale of the actor's involvement, "ranging from minor engagement such as evacuation, to patrols, act of intimidation, and actual firing, shelling or bombing" (Pearson and Baumann, 1993). Casualties that are a direct result of the military intervention are coded as well. A novel aspect of IMI is the inclusion of a series of variables designed to ascertain the motivations or issues that prompted the actor to intervene, including to take sides in a domestic dispute in the target state, to affect target state policy, to protect a socio-ethnic or minority group, to attack rebels in sanctuaries in the target state, to protect economic or resource interests, to intervene for strategic purposes, to lend humanitarian aid, to acquire territory or to dispute its ownership, and to protect its own military/diplomatic interests. There are three main differences between OIMI and this update. First, the variable, civilian casualties, which complements IMI's information on the casualties suffered by actor and target military personnel has been added. Second, OIMI variables on colonial history, previous intervention, alliance partners, alignment of the target, power size of the intervener, and power size of the target have been deleted. The Web-based resources available today, such as the CIA World Fact Book, make information on the colonial history between actor and target readily available. Statistical programs allow researchers to generate all previous interventions by the actor into the target state. Since competing measures and data collections are used for alliances and state power, it was thought best to allow analysts who use IMI the freedom to choose the variables or dataset that measure the phenomena of their choice. Third, the data collection techniques differ from OIMI. OIMI relied on the scouring of printed news sources such as the New York Times Index, Facts on File, and Keesing's to collect information on international military interventions, whereas the computer-based search engine, Lexis-Nexis Academic, was used as the foundation for the new study's data search. Lexis-Nexis Academic includes print sources as well as news wire reports and many others. After Lexis-Nexis searches were conducted for each year in the update by at least four different investigators, regional sources, the United Nations Web site, and secondary works were consulted.

This collection contains data for military defense expenditures for 123 countries. The data are either in United States dollars or national currency with a monetary exchange rate provided.

Military Augmented Reality (AR) Headgear Market Outlook

The global Military Augmented Reality (AR) Headgear market size was valued at approximately USD 1.2 billion in 2023 and is expected to reach around USD 5.8 billion by 2032, growing at a CAGR of 19.3% during the forecast period. This robust growth can be attributed to the increasing adoption of advanced technologies in defense sectors worldwide, coupled with the rising demand for enhanced situational awareness and combat training solutions. The rapid advancements in AR technology, coupled with increased defense budgets, are acting as significant growth drivers for the market.

One of the primary growth factors for the Military AR Headgear market is the increasing focus on soldier safety and operational efficiency. AR headgear provides real-time data and situational awareness, thereby significantly enhancing the decision-making capabilities of soldiers on the field. This technology allows soldiers to access critical information such as maps, enemy positions, and mission objectives without having to divert their attention, thus improving reaction times and reducing risks.

Another critical driver is the rising investments in defense modernization programs by various governments. Countries are increasingly recognizing the importance of equipping their military forces with state-of-the-art technology to maintain a strategic advantage. As a result, substantial funds are being allocated towards the development and procurement of advanced AR headgear. This trend is particularly evident in developed nations like the United States and European countries, where defense budgets have been significantly increased to support technological innovations.

The technological advancements in AR hardware and software are also contributing to market growth. Innovations such as lightweight and durable materials, high-resolution displays, and advanced sensors are making AR headgear more practical and effective for military use. Additionally, improvements in software algorithms are enhancing the functionality of AR systems, offering features such as gesture control, voice commands, and real-time analytics. These advancements are making AR headgear an indispensable tool for modern military operations.

The integration of Industrial-grade AR Glasses into military operations is revolutionizing how soldiers interact with their environment. These glasses are designed to withstand harsh conditions while providing high-quality augmented reality experiences. By incorporating robust materials and advanced optics, industrial-grade AR glasses ensure durability and clarity, making them ideal for military applications. They offer enhanced features such as improved field of view, higher resolution displays, and better battery life, which are crucial for prolonged use in the field. As technology continues to advance, these glasses are becoming an essential component of military gear, providing soldiers with critical information and support during missions.

Regionally, the North American market is expected to hold the largest share, driven by substantial investments in defense technology and the presence of major market players. However, the Asia Pacific region is anticipated to witness the fastest growth, owing to increasing defense expenditures and modernization initiatives by countries such as China and India. The regional dynamics are significantly influenced by geopolitical tensions and the need for advanced military capabilities, propelling the demand for AR headgear.

Component Analysis

The Military AR Headgear market can be segmented by component into hardware, software, and services. Hardware is expected to hold the largest market share due to the essential role it plays in the overall functionality of AR systems. The hardware segment encompasses devices such as head-mounted displays and smart glasses, which are critical for delivering AR experiences to military personnel. The development of rugged, lightweight, and high-performance hardware is a key focus area for manufacturers, aiming to enhance the usability and reliability of AR headgear in various environmental conditions.

The software segment is also poised for significant growth, driven by the need for sophisticated applications that can process and display real-time data. Software solutions are crucial for integrating AR headgear with other military systems and platforms, ensuring seamless communication and data sha

In 2025, the United States had the largest number of active military personnel out of all North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries, with almost *** million troops. The country with the second-largest number of military personnel was Türkiye, at around ******* active personnel. Additionally, the U.S. has by far the most armored vehicles in NATO, as well as the largest Navy and Air Force. NATO in brief NATO, which was formed in 1949, is the most powerful military alliance in the world. At its formation, NATO began with 12 member countries, which by 2024 had increased to 32. NATO was originally formed to deter Soviet expansion into Europe, with member countries expected to come to each other’s defense in case of an attack. Member countries are also obliged to commit to spending two percent of their respective GDPs on defense, although many states have recently fallen far short of this target. NATO in the contemporary world Some questioned the purpose of NATO after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union a few years later. In 2019, French President Emmanuel Macron even called the organization 'brain-dead' amid dissatisfaction with the leadership of the U.S. President at the time, Donald Trump. NATO has, however, seen a revival after Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Following the invasion, Sweden and Finland both abandoned decades of military neutrality and applied to join the alliance, with Finland joining in 2023 and Sweden in 2024.

Estimates for the total death count of the Second World War generally range somewhere between 70 and 85 million people. The Soviet Union suffered the highest number of fatalities of any single nation, with estimates mostly falling between 22 and 27 million deaths. China then suffered the second greatest, at around 20 million, although these figures are less certain and often overlap with the Chinese Civil War. Over 80 percent of all deaths were of those from Allied countries, and the majority of these were civilians. In contrast, 15 to 20 percent were among the Axis powers, and the majority of these were military deaths, as shown in the death ratios of Germany and Japan. Civilian deaths and atrocities It is believed that 60 to 67 percent of all deaths were civilian fatalities, largely resulting from war-related famine or disease, and war crimes or atrocities. Systematic genocide, extermination campaigns, and forced labor, particularly by the Germans, Japanese, and Soviets, led to the deaths of millions. In this regard, Nazi activities alone resulted in 17 million deaths, including six million Jews in what is now known as The Holocaust. Not only was the scale of the conflict larger than any that had come before, but the nature of and reasoning behind this loss make the Second World War stand out as one of the most devastating and cruelest conflicts in history. Problems with these statistics Although the war is considered by many to be the defining event of the 20th century, exact figures for death tolls have proven impossible to determine, for a variety of reasons. Countries such as the U.S. have fairly consistent estimates due to preserved military records and comparatively few civilian casualties, although figures still vary by source. For most of Europe, records are less accurate. Border fluctuations and the upheaval of the interwar period mean that pre-war records were already poor or non-existent for many regions. The rapid and chaotic nature of the war then meant that deaths could not be accurately recorded at the time, and mass displacement or forced relocation resulted in the deaths of many civilians outside of their homeland, which makes country-specific figures more difficult to find. Early estimates of the war’s fatalities were also taken at face value and formed the basis of many historical works; these were often very inaccurate, but the validity of the source means that the figures continue to be cited today, despite contrary evidence.

In comparison to Europe, estimate ranges are often greater across Asia, where populations were larger but pre-war data was in short supply. Many of the Asian countries with high death tolls were European colonies, and the actions of authorities in the metropoles, such as the diversion of resources from Asia to Europe, led to millions of deaths through famine and disease. Additionally, over one million African soldiers were drafted into Europe’s armies during the war, yet individual statistics are unavailable for most of these colonies or successor states (notably Algeria and Libya). Thousands of Asian and African military deaths went unrecorded or are included with European or Japanese figures, and there are no reliable figures for deaths of millions from countries across North Africa or East Asia. Additionally, many concentration camp records were destroyed, and such records in Africa and Asia were even sparser than in Europe. While the Second World War is one of the most studied academic topics of the past century, it is unlikely that we will ever have a clear number for the lives lost in the conflict.

The Korean War was an international military conflict which lasted from June 1950 until July 1953, which pitted the communist forces of North Korea, the Soviet Union, and the People's Republic of China against South Korea and a U.S.-led UN force comprised of troops from over 20 additional countries. The war was the United States' first major military engagement of the Cold War, the period of rivalry and heightened tension between the world's two superpowers, the U.S. and Soviet Union. While the war was one of the deadliest in the Cold War and the 20th century in general, it resulted in a stalemate between the North and South, with the boundary between the two countries remaining to this day at the 38th parallel line. The two countries remain technically at war to the present day, as the South's dictator, Syngman Rhee, refused to sign the peace agreement which in practice ended the fighting in the war.

U.S. military deaths in Korea

The majority of U.S. military fatalities during the Korean War were battle deaths (63 percent), with a smaller number of deaths while missing (12 percent), deaths while captured (eight percent), or deaths from battle wounds (seven percent). In addition, around three percent of deaths were from airplane crashes which were not caused by hostile forces, with another seven percent dying of other causes unrelated to battle. In total around 36,000 U.S. military servicemembers were killed in Korea, out of a total of around 40,000 deaths for the UN forces combined. The war was the United States' second deadliest conflict of the Cold War, as well as its fifth deadliest ever, after the Vietnam War, World War I, World War II, and the Civil War.

Abstract

The Bhutan Living Standards Survey (BLSS) 2003 is a nation-wide survey of households undertaken by the National Statistical Bureau. BLSS 2003 is an improved version of the Pilot Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES) 2000. The BLSS followed the LSMS methodology developed by researchers at the World Bank. However, based on the unsatisfactory income data as evidence from the HIES 2000 the survey was designed to collect only consumption expenditure from the household to assess people's well-being and to construct comprehensive poverty profile for the country. Apart from collecting basic information about each household, the BLSS collected information on housing, employment, health status, fertility, education, access to public facilities, assets ownership, accompanied by a community questionnaire aimed at collecting information on service provision and prices of commodities. The information collected in the survey will enable the government to assess the effectiveness of the present policies and programmes on the living conditions of different sections of population and identify households that need assistance to formulate specific policies and programmes.

Objectives of the BLSS: The broad objective of the survey was to collect detailed information about the economic and social conditions of households. Besides, the survey also addressed the following specific objectives: - To provide useful inputs for the compilation of national accounts of the household sector as well as statistics of household expenditure and consumption pattern. - To provide benchmark information on household consumption expenditure to update weights required in the rebasing of consumer price indices. - To provide inputs in the estimation of the poverty profile for the country and various poverty indicators.

Geographic coverage

The geographical coverage extended over the entire area of Bhutan excepting a few satellite towns, which are neither identified as urban areas nor under the administrative control of gups and chupen in the rural areas. Also due to security reasons the rural area in Sarpang and Samdrup Jongkhar Dzongkhags were not covered in the survey. Therefore, the BLSS covered 86 gewogs from eighteen Dzongkhags and 27 urban settlements including the towns of Sarpang, Gelephug and Samdrup Jongkhar.

Analysis unit

• Household
• Individual

Universe

The population coverage included all households in the country except the following: - Diplomatic and expatriates households - Residents of hotels, boarding and lodging houses, monasteries, nunneries, school hostels, orphanages, rescue homes, and under trails in jails and indoor patients of hospitals, nursing homes and - Barracks of military and Para-military forces including the police

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The Bhutan Living Standard Survey followed the Living Standard Measurement Survey (LSMS) methodology developed by researchers at the World Bank. The methodology has been customized for Bhutanese population and collected information through an integrated household questionnaire covering consumption, assets, housing, education, health, fertility, accompanied by a community questionnaire aimed at collecting information on services and prices of the common commodities.

The Survey and Data Processing Division of the National Statistical Bureau maintains an updated list of households by gewog for the entire country. Mapping of the urban centers was conducted and a sketch map was drawn for all the urban centers included in the survey prior to the block selection.

The sample size for the BLSS was determined using the information relating to the co-efficient of variation (CV) of some key expenditure variables as recommended by the United Nations Statistical Office based on the log-normal distribution of key expenditure variables. Keeping in view the uses of the survey results, it was felt that sampling precision of 5 percent at the national level would serve the purpose of the survey. Taking the assumption, it was derived that n, the sample size required for estimating the population mean y with 95 percent confidence. n = 1600square(CV)

Taking into account of the CV of 1.0492 for the log-normal distribution and design effect of 2 for a stratified multi-stage sampling design, sample size of 4200 distributed to urban and rural with provisions for some non-response households was determined.

In order to get a representative sample of the households the entire country was divided into three regions based on the number of households and their geographic location; namely Western, Central and Eastern.

Western Region: Thimphu, Paro, Ha, Samtse, Chhukha, Punakha and Gasa Central Region: Wangduephodrang, Daga, Tsirang, Sarpang, Zhemgang, Trongsa and Bumthang East Region: Lhuntse, Mongar, Pemagatsel, Samdrup Jongkhar, Trashigang and Trashi Yangtse

The different areas were divided into seven strata. Each stratum composed of four urban strata (Thimphu city, rest of Western, Central and Eastern) and three rural strata (Western, Central and Eastern) has been designed to yield 600 households. Two rural areas of Sarpang and Samdrup Jongkhar were dropped out in the sample due to security reasons. The final sample size for the survey was 4120 households.

Note: Distribution of the sample household is given in table 1.1 of Bhutan Living Standard Survey 2003 report.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The 2003 Bhutan Living Standard Survey questionnaire is organized in the following sections:

Household roster: This part of the questionnaire used to list all household members their relationship to the head, sex and age.

Block 1 - Housing: The purpose of this section of the questionnaire is to collect information about the living conditions of the households.

Block 2.1 - Demographics: This section collects information about household members' demographic characteristics Block 2.2 - Education: This section collects educational information for household members age 3 and above. Block 2.3 - Health: This section collects information about current health status of all household members and use of health facilities, as well as some information on the use of family planning. Block 2.4 - Employment: This block deals with employment, which is clearly a critical issue in ensuring a household has adequate resources for its livelihood. Block 2.5 - Information on parents: This small block collects information on parents who are not current members of the household (because they live somewhere else or have died).

Block 3 - Assets ownership: This section of the questionnaire collects information about household assets ownership including livestock, poultry and ownership of land.

Block 4 - Access and distance to services: This section collects information about various services and how close they are to the household.

Block 5 - Remittances sent: This section records all money or payment in kind sent in the last 12 months to persons who are not members of the household.

Block 6 - Priorities and opinions: This section of questionnaire seeks to get some ideas from households about their living conditions.

Block 7 - Main sources of income: This section collects information about sources of household income.

Block 8 - Food consumption: This section collects detailed information on food expenditure and consumption. The person asked these questions should be the person who has primary responsibility for managing the household budget and who knows best about the household's expenditure and consumption.

Block 9 - Non-food expenditure: This section covers expenditure on non-food items, as well as any items received as gifts or payments-in-kind.

Block 10 - Home produced non-food items: This block of questions is concerned with finding out about non-food items that are produced by the household and consumed (used) by them.

Cleaning operations

Data Processing and Analysis:

After the completion of the field operation the filled-in questionnaires were reviewed by a group of trained manual editors under each supervisor. A manual scrutiny manual was prepared and distributed to the group of manual editors and the supervisors.

The data entry application was designed using CSpro software under the guidance of a technical assistance and the programmers of NSB. The office recruited 15 temporary staffs to carry out the manual scrutiny and data entry. Manual scrutiny and data entry of the BLSS was completed at the end of September 2003. Computer editing, validation of the data and analysis began at the beginning of October 2003.

Response rate

The overall response rate was 97.3 percent with 96.6 percent for urban and 98.1 percent for rural areas.

Article One, Section Eight, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution (known as the War Powers Clause) grants Congress the power to declare war. At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the general sentiment among the delegates was that no one man (i.e. the President) should have the sole power to take the country to war. Despite this, the exact wording of the clause is fairly ambiguous, leaving the process of engaging in conflict or war open to interpretation. Some even argue that the president's title as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States gives them special privileges to authorize military involvement when deemed necessary, and this has been a point of contention for decades.

Declarations and approval of war

The United States has been involved in over 100 wars or conflicts since declaring independence, but has declared war against foreign nations on just 11 occasions, pertaining to five separate wars. Germany is the only country that the United States has formally declared war on more than once (although declarations of war applied to Austria and Hungary during both world wars). The U.S. has been involved in several major conflicts since WWII, and most military actions were approved by Congress in some capacity, but not via formal declaration - President Johnson's decision to engage in the Vietnam War was almost unanimously approved by Congress through the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, while resolutions titled Authorized Use of Military Force (AUMFs) have been used to approve military action in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and across East Africa. Technically, the Korean War was never formally recognized as a war in the United States as military involvement was conducted through the United Nations, which does not have the authority to declare war itself.

Reasons for not declaring war

The Cold War is largely seen as the tipping point where presidents took greater autonomy when deciding on military matters. The need for discretion and the desire to avoid the time, administrative, and financial constraints from involving Congress (or international organizations such as the UN or NATO) meant that presidents repeatedly ordered military action in foreign conflicts without Congress' approval. Following Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War, Congress then passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973, in an attempt to curb this authority, however this resolution is widely considered to have had little effect. Formal acknowledgement of a war is considered a politically costly move for members of Congress, whereas failure to declare war is not. A politician's vote for or against a declaration of war could be used by political opponents in the next election cycle if their decision is in opposition to public opinion.

In 2024, Poland's defense spending as a share of gross domestic product was **** percent, the highest of all NATO member states, followed by Estonia at **** percent, and then the United States at **** percent. It is a target of NATO that every member country should spend at least two percent of their GDP on defense. As of this year, it is estimated that all but eight of the alliance's 31 member states were meeting this target. The average expenditure on defense expenditure across all NATO member states was **** percent in 2024, compared with **** percent in the previous year. NATO, Trump, and the War in Ukraine Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 shook many European powers out of a creeping complacency that had set in since the end of the Cold War. It led directly to the applications of Sweden and Finland to the alliance in 2022, with the latter joining later that year. The conflict has however also underlined how Europe's security is still underpinned by American military power, with the United States the main contributor of military aid to Ukraine. Furthermore, in overall defense spending, the U.S. spends far more than the rest of NATO combined. The current Trump administration has frequently criticized NATO states that they see as taking advantage of this discrepancy, urging other members to reach and even exceed the two percent threshold. Article 5 triggered in the aftermath of 9/11 While NATO was founded with the aim of deterring the Soviet Union in the Cold War, its central defense clause "Article 5" whereby an attack on one member is considered an attack on all, has only been triggered once; after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States. NATO's involvement in the subsequent War in Afghanistan was a direct result of this, with troops supporting the operation from across the alliance. Although NATO's focus drifted towards counter-insurgency, and the threat from terrorism in this period, its original purpose has become far more important recently.