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 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.

The United States Military Installations database contains the boundaries and location information for important military installations in the United States and Puerto Rico. The database includes records for 405 military installations.

Purpose

To provide graphic representation, location and attribute data for analysis, modeling and simulation, and studies. CLOSURE, REALIGN, and BRAC columns are from the office of Economic Adjustment and OSD websites at http://www.oea.gov , https://www.denix.osd.mil .

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.

The Military Bases dataset was last updated on October 23, 2024 and are defined by Fiscal Year 2023 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.

Throughout the 19th century, the share of military personnel employed by the United States government was below 0.2 percent of the total population in most years. There were noticeable spikes in enlistments and conscriptions during the American Civil War (1861-65), the First World War (1917-18*), and Second World War (1941-45*), as well as smaller increases during the Mexican-American War (1946-48) and the Spanish-American War (1898), but figures were generally much lower than the post-WWII era.

Following the Second World War, the United States abandoned many of its isolationist positions as it sought to become the world's leading superpower. This involved stationing millions of troops in overseas bases during the Cold War, in strategically important locations such as West Germany, Japan, and Taiwan. Additionally, involvement in conflicts such as the Korean War (1950-1953) and Vietnam War (1964-1973*) kept military employment high, usually between 1-2 percent until the 1970s. Figures remained just below the one percent mark until the 1990s, when the end of the Cold War and the growing influence of technology in conventional warfare saw a decrease in demand for many traditional combat roles. Despite U.S. involvement in a number of overseas conflicts in the 21st century, military personnel represented less than 0.5 percent of the total population in most years between 2000 and 2016.

This dataset is about books. It has 1 row and is filtered where the book is A revolution in military adaptation : the US Army in the Iraq War. It features 7 columns including author, publication date, language, and book publisher.

Polygons showing USACE Civil Works District boundaries. This dataset was digitized from the NRCS Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD). Where districts follow administrative boundaries, such as County and State lines, National Atlas and Census datasets were used. USACE District GIS POCs also submitted data to incorporate into this dataset. This dataset has been simplified +/- 30 feet to reduce file size and speed up drawing time. 05/05/20 - Update to show new LRC boundary. Minor change between LRL and LRH. 07/31/24 - Update to show new SAA Caribbean District.

Polygons showing USACE Civil Works Division boundaries. This dataset was digitized from the NRCS Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD). Where districts follow administrative boundaries, such as County and State lines, National Atlas and Census datasets were used. USACE District GIS POCs also submitted data to incorporate into this dataset. This dataset has been simplified +/- 30 feet to reduce file size and speed up drawing time. 04/16/20 - Update to show new LRC boundary.

The 2012 US Army Anthropometric Survey (ANSUR II) was executed by the Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center (NSRDEC) from October 2010 to April 2012 and is comprised of personnel representing the total US Army force to include the US Army Active Duty, Reserves, and National Guard. The data was made publicly available in 2017. In addition to the anthropometric and demographic data described below, the ANSUR II database also consists of 3D whole body, foot, and head scans of Soldier participants. These 3D data are not publicly available out of respect for the privacy of ANSUR II participants. The data from this survey are used for a wide range of equipment design, sizing, and tariffing applications within the military and has many potential commercial, industrial, and academic applications.These data have replaced ANSUR I as the most comprehensive publicly accessible dataset on body size and shape. The ANSUR II dataset includes 93 measurements from over 6,000 adult US military personnel, comprising 4,082 men (ANSUR_II_MALE_Public.csv) and 1,986 women (ANSUR_II_FEMALE_Public.csv).

The ANSUR II working databases contain 93 anthropometric measurements which were directly measured, and 15 demographic/administrative variables.

Much more information about the data collection methodology and content of the ANSUR II Working Databases may be found in the following Technical Reports, available from theDefense Technical Information Center (www.dtic.mil) through:

a. 2010-2012 Anthropometric Survey of U.S. Army Personnel: Methods and Summary
Statistics. (NATICK/TR-15/007)
b. Measurer’s Handbook: US Army and Marine Corps Anthropometric Surveys,
2010-2011 (NATICK/TR-11/017)

Reservoirs of the U.S. Army Corps of EngineersImportant Note: This item is in mature support as of May 2025 and will be retired in September 2025. A new version of this item is available for your use. Esri recommends updating your maps and apps to use the new version.This feature layer, utilizing data from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), displays reservoirs. They are responsible for operating and maintaining hundreds of lock and dam projects nationwide. Per USACE, “…Corps reservoirs fall into eight general categories: flood control, navigation, hydroelectric power, irrigation, municipal/industrial water supply, water quality, fish/wildlife, and recreation.”Charles Mill Lake & Mohicanville ReservoirData currency: This cached Esri service is checked monthly for updates from its federal source (USACE Reservoirs)Data modification: noneFor more information: Access to Water Resources DataFor feedback: ArcGIScomNationalMaps@esri.comU.S. Army Corp of EngineersPer USACE, "With environmental sustainability as a guiding principle, our disciplined Corps team is working diligently to strengthen our Nation’s security by building and maintaining America’s infrastructure and providing military facilities where our servicemembers train, work and live. We are also researching and developing technology for our war fighters while protecting America’s interests abroad by using our engineering expertise to promote stability and improve quality of life."

Military Divisions of the U.S. Army Corp of EngineersThis U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) feature layer depicts USACE's military divisions. Per USACE, "Military Missions provide premier engineering, construction, real estate, stability operations, and environmental management products and services for the Army, Air Force, other assigned U.S. Government agencies and foreign governments."South Atlantic Military DivisionData currency: current federal service (USACE Military Divisions)Data modification: noneFor more information, please visit: Military MissionsFor feedback: ArcGIScomNationalMaps@esri.comU.S. Army Corp of EngineersPer USACE, "With environmental sustainability as a guiding principle, our disciplined Corps team is working diligently to strengthen our Nation’s security by building and maintaining America’s infrastructure and providing military facilities where our servicemembers train, work and live. We are also researching and developing technology for our war fighters while protecting America’s interests abroad by using our engineering expertise to promote stability and improve quality of life."

The graph illustrates the number of personnel in each branch of the U.S. Military for the year 2025. The x-axis lists the military branches: Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Space Force, and Coast Guard. The y-axis represents the number of personnel, ranging from 41,477 to 449,265. Among the branches, the Army has the highest number of personnel with 449,265, followed by the Navy with 333,794 and the Air Force with 317,675. The Marine Corps and Coast Guard have 168,628 and 41,477 personnel, respectively. The data is displayed in a bar graph format, effectively highlighting the distribution of military personnel across the different branches.

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

This dataset is about books. It has 1 row and is filtered where the book is The laws of land warfare : a guide to the U.S. Army manuals. It features 7 columns including author, publication date, language, and book publisher.

Free trade has gradually shifted the burden of military service onto the American South. While trade shocks generally lead to local increases in US Army enlistment, there are two different regional dynamics that concentrate this effect in the South. First, trade-related job losses are disproportionately concentrated in this region, where manufacturing jobs grad- ually migrated during the second half of the 20th century. Second, the South’s “military tradition,” a relatively youthful population, and weak labor unions, combine to translate trade shocks into larger spikes in Army enlistment than the rest of the country. This paper uses county-level data from 1996-2010 to demonstrate the importance of meso-level, regional factors for understanding the location of trade shocks, as well as how communities adjust to such economic dislocations. We find that trade-related job losses account for roughly 7 percent of the South’s over-representation in the Army during our period of study.

United States US: Military Expenditure: % of GDP data was reported at 3.149 % in 2017. This records a decrease from the previous number of 3.222 % for 2016. United States US: Military Expenditure: % of GDP data is updated yearly, averaging 4.864 % from Sep 1960 (Median) to 2017, with 58 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 9.063 % in 1967 and a record low of 2.908 % in 1999. United States US: Military Expenditure: % of GDP 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.; Weighted average; Data for some countries are based on partial or uncertain data or rough estimates.

This graph shows the total number of soldiers who were enlisted in the Union and Confederate armies during the American Civil War, between 1861 and 1865. The total population of the Union states was 18.9 million in 1860, and the Confederate states in the south had a population of 8.6 million. The Border States, who primarily supported the Union but sent troops to both sides, had a population of 3.5 million. From the graph we can see that over the course of the war a total of 2.1 million men enlisted for the Union Army, and 1.1 million enlisted for the Confederate Army. The Union Army had roughly double the number of soldiers of the Confederacy, and although the Confederacy won more major battles than the Union in the early stages of the war, the strength of numbers in the Union forces was a decisive factor in their overall victory as the war progressed.

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 May of 2025.

United States US: Military Expenditure as % of General Government Expenditure data was reported at 8.807 % in 2017. This records a decrease from the previous number of 9.042 % for 2016. United States US: Military Expenditure as % of General Government Expenditure data is updated yearly, averaging 11.141 % from Sep 2001 (Median) to 2017, with 17 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 11.769 % in 2011 and a record low of 8.807 % in 2017. United States US: Military Expenditure as % of General Government 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.; Weighted average; Data for some countries are based on partial or uncertain data or rough estimates.