Dataset

This dataset was created by Jonathan Pettit

Released under CC0: Public Domain

Contents

This dataset, released by DoD, contains geographic information for major installations, ranges, and training areas in the United States and its territories. This release integrates site information about DoD installations, training ranges, and land assets in a format which can be immediately put to work in commercial geospatial information systems. Homeland Security/Homeland Defense, law enforcement, and readiness planners will benefit from immediate access to DoD site location data during emergencies. Land use planning and renewable energy planning will also benefit from use of this data. Users are advised that the point and boundary location datasets are intended for planning purposes only, and do not represent the legal or surveyed land parcel boundaries.

The Military Bases dataset was last updated on September 02, 2025 and are defined by Fiscal Year 2024 data, from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment and is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)/Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) National Transportation Atlas Database (NTAD). The dataset depicts the authoritative locations of the most commonly known Department of Defense (DoD) sites, installations, ranges, and training areas world-wide. These sites encompass land which is federally owned or otherwise managed. This dataset was created from source data provided by the four Military Service Component headquarters and was compiled by the Defense Installation Spatial Data Infrastructure (DISDI) Program within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment. Only sites reported in the BSR or released in a map supplementing the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA) Real Estate Regulation (31 CFR Part 802) were considered for inclusion. This list does not necessarily represent a comprehensive collection of all Department of Defense facilities. For inventory purposes, installations are comprised of sites, where a site is defined as a specific geographic location of federally owned or managed land and is assigned to military installation. DoD installations are commonly referred to as a base, camp, post, station, yard, center, homeport facility for any ship, or other activity under the jurisdiction, custody, control of the DoD. While every attempt has been made to provide the best available data quality, this data set is intended for use at mapping scales between 1:50,000 and 1:3,000,000. For this reason, boundaries in this data set may not perfectly align with DoD site boundaries depicted in other federal data sources. Maps produced at a scale of 1:50,000 or smaller which otherwise comply with National Map Accuracy Standards, will remain compliant when this data is incorporated. Boundary data is most suitable for larger scale maps; point locations are better suited for mapping scales between 1:250,000 and 1:3,000,000. If a site is part of a Joint Base (effective/designated on 1 October, 2010) as established under the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure process, it is attributed with the name of the Joint Base. All sites comprising a Joint Base are also attributed to the responsible DoD Component, which is not necessarily the pre-2005 Component responsible for the site. A data dictionary, or other source of attribute information, is accessible at https://doi.org/10.21949/1529039

The world has become much more peaceful, and yet, even after adjusting for inflation, global military spending is now three times greater than at the height of the Cold War. These developments have motivated a renewed interest from both policy makers and scholars about the drivers of military spending and the implications that follow. Existing findings on the relationship between threat and arming and arms races and war hinge on the completeness and accuracy of existing military spending data. Moreover, data on military spending is used to measure important concepts from international relations such as the distribution of power, balancing, the severity of states’ military burdens, and arms races. Everything we know about which states are most powerful, whether nations are balancing, and whether military burdens and arms races are growing more or less severe rests on the accuracy of existing military spending estimates.

Military Targets

## Overview

Military Targets is a dataset for object detection tasks - it contains Car Tank Drone Soldier annotations for 905 images.

## Getting Started

You can download this dataset for use within your own projects, or fork it into a workspace on Roboflow to create your own model.

  ## License

  This dataset is available under the [CC BY 4.0 license](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/CC BY 4.0).

United States US: Military Expenditure data was reported at 609.758 USD bn in 2017. This records an increase from the previous number of 600.106 USD bn for 2016. United States US: Military Expenditure data is updated yearly, averaging 277.591 USD bn from Sep 1960 (Median) to 2017, with 58 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 711.338 USD bn in 2011 and a record low of 45.380 USD bn in 1960. United States US: Military Expenditure data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.World Bank.WDI: Defense and Official Development Assistance. Military expenditures data from SIPRI are derived from the NATO definition, which includes all current and capital expenditures on the armed forces, including peacekeeping forces; defense ministries and other government agencies engaged in defense projects; paramilitary forces, if these are judged to be trained and equipped for military operations; and military space activities. Such expenditures include military and civil personnel, including retirement pensions of military personnel and social services for personnel; operation and maintenance; procurement; military research and development; and military aid (in the military expenditures of the donor country). Excluded are civil defense and current expenditures for previous military activities, such as for veterans' benefits, demobilization, conversion, and destruction of weapons. This definition cannot be applied for all countries, however, since that would require much more detailed information than is available about what is included in military budgets and off-budget military expenditure items. (For example, military budgets might or might not cover civil defense, reserves and auxiliary forces, police and paramilitary forces, dual-purpose forces such as military and civilian police, military grants in kind, pensions for military personnel, and social security contributions paid by one part of government to another.); ; Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Yearbook: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security.; ; Data for some countries are based on partial or uncertain data or rough estimates. For additional details please refer to the military expenditure database on the SIPRI website: https://sipri.org/databases/milex

The Military Intervention by Powerful States (MIPS) project develops a rigorous, generalizable measure of the effectiveness of military force as a policy instrument and applies the measure to code the outcomes of all military interventions conducted by five major powers since the termination of World War II. The MIPS dataset provides detailed data on US, British, Chinese, French, and Russian uses of military force against both state and non-state targets between 1946 and 2003. In particular, this project focuses on the political objectives strong states pursue through the use of force, the human and material cost of their military operations, and measures of intervention outcomes relative to the intervening states' objectives. The dataset also includes extensive data on factors commonly hypothesized to be associated with war outcomes, such as the nature of the target, the type of force used by the intervening state, and military aid and assistance provided to each side.

Military Facilities. The dataset contains locations and attributes of Military Facilities, created as part of the DC Geographic Information System (DC GIS) for the D.C. Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO) and participating D.C. government agencies. Information researched by the DC Office of the Chief Technology Officer identified Military Facilities and DC GIS staff geo-processed the data.

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.

The dataset depicts the authoritative boundaries of the most commonly known Department of Defense (DoD) sites, installations, ranges, and training areas in the United States and Territories (NTAD). These sites encompass land which is federally owned or otherwise managed. This dataset was created from source data provided by the four Military Service Component headquarters and was compiled by the Defense Installation Spatial Data Infrastructure (DISDI) Program within the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment, Business Enterprise Integration Directorate. Sites were selected from the 2010 Base Structure Report (BSR), a summary of the DoD Real Property Inventory. This list does not necessarily represent a comprehensive collection of all Department of Defense facilities, and only those in the fifty United States and US Territories were considered for inclusion. For inventory purposes, installations are comprised of sites, where a site is defined as a specific geographic location of federally owned or managed land and is assigned to military installation. DoD installations are commonly referred to as a base, camp, post, station, yard, center, homeport facility for any ship, or other activity under the jurisdiction, custody, control of the DoD.

The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. The Census Bureau includes landmarks such as military installations in the MTDB for locating special features and to help enumerators during field operations. In 2012, the Census Bureau obtained the inventory and boundaries of most military installations from the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) for Air Force, Army, Marine, and Navy installations and from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for Coast Guard installations. The military installation boundaries in this release represent the updates the Census Bureau made in 2012 in collaboration with DoD.

Historical dataset showing Curacao military size by year from N/A to N/A.

Comprehensive dataset containing 6,234 verified Military base businesses in United States with complete contact information, ratings, reviews, and location data.

This dataset provides values for MILITARY reported in several countries. The data includes current values, previous releases, historical highs and record lows, release frequency, reported unit and currency.

Military Tanks

## Overview

Military Tanks is a dataset for object detection tasks - it contains Tanks annotations for 5,540 images.

## Getting Started

You can download this dataset for use within your own projects, or fork it into a workspace on Roboflow to create your own model.

  ## License

  This dataset is available under the [CC BY 4.0 license](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/CC BY 4.0).

Military expenditure (% of GDP) in United States was reported at 3.3618 % in 2023, according to the World Bank collection of development indicators, compiled from officially recognized sources. United States - Military expenditure (% of GDP) - actual values, historical data, forecasts and projections were sourced from the World Bank on September of 2025.

Data to support the analysis and conclusions presented in the paper titled 'Does expertise matter? Military versus civilian detection of camouflaged objects’

This dataset includes the main excel file, NAVBATTLE, which contains the Ships and Battles data as well as the battle visualizer. It also contains an excel file reproducing all naval figures for the paper. A ReadMe, Coding Rules and Data Dictionary, and full list of sources are also included as .doc files.

Heavy Military Equipment, Firearms & Ammunition: FGTS data was reported at 33,284.000 BRL th in 2017. This records an increase from the previous number of 24,842.000 BRL th for 2016. Heavy Military Equipment, Firearms & Ammunition: FGTS data is updated yearly, averaging 22,455.000 BRL th from Dec 2007 (Median) to 2017, with 11 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 33,284.000 BRL th in 2017 and a record low of 14,907.000 BRL th in 2007. Heavy Military Equipment, Firearms & Ammunition: FGTS data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics. The data is categorized under Brazil Premium Database’s Metal and Steel Sector – Table BR.WAM009: Metal Financial Data: Heavy Military Equipment, Firearms & Ammunition.

The dataset depicts the authoritative locations of the most commonly known Department of Defense (DoD) sites, installations, ranges, and training areas in the United States and Territories. These sites encompass land which is federally owned or otherwise managed. This dataset was created from source data provided by the four Military Service Component headquarters and was compiled by the Defense Installation Spatial Data Infrastructure (DISDI) Program within the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment, Business Enterprise Integration Directorate. Sites were selected from the 2009 Base Structure Report (BSR), a summary of the DoD Real Property Inventory. This list does not necessarily represent a comprehensive collection of all Department of Defense facilities, and only those in the fifty United States and US Territories were considered for inclusion. For inventory purposes, installations are comprised of sites, where a site is defined as a specific geographic location of federally owned or managed land and is assigned to military installation. DoD installations are commonly referred to as a base, camp, post, station, yard, center, homeport facility for any ship, or other activity under the jurisdiction, custody, control of the DoD.