This comprehensive report chronicles the history of women in the military and as Veterans, profiles the characteristics of women Veterans in 2009, illustrates how women Veterans in 2009 utilized some of the major benefits and services offered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and discusses the future of women Veterans in relation to VA. The goal of this report is to gain an understanding of who our women Veterans are, how their military service affects their post-military lives, and how they can be better served based on these insights.

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.

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. 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.

© US Department of Defense This layer is sourced from maps.bts.dot.gov.

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 2015). 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.

© US Department of Defense

An influential model of democratic civil-military relations insists that civilian politicians and officials, accountable to the public, have “the right to be wrong” about the use of force: they, not senior military officers, decide when force will be used and set military strategy. While polls have routinely asked about Americans’ trust in the military, they have rarely probed deeply into Americans’ views of civil-military relations. This paper reports and analyzes the results of a June 2019 survey that yields two important, and troubling, findings. First, Americans do not accept the basic premises of democratic civil-military relations. They are extraordinarily deferential to the military’s judgment regarding when to use military force, and they are comfortable with high-ranking officers intervening in public debates over policy. Second, in this polarized age, Americans’ views of civil-military relations are not immune to partisanship. Consequently, with their man in the Oval Office in June 2019, Republicans—who, as political conservatives, might be expected to be more deferential to the military—were actually less so. And Democrats, similarly putting ideology aside, wanted the military to act as a check on a president they abhorred. The stakes are high: democracy is weakened when civilians relinquish their “right to be wrong.”

The American Civil War is the conflict with the largest number of American military fatalities in history. In fact, the Civil War's death toll is comparable to all other major wars combined, the deadliest of which were the World Wars, which have a combined death toll of more than 520,000 American fatalities. The ongoing series of conflicts and interventions in the Middle East and North Africa, collectively referred to as the War on Terror in the west, has a combined death toll of more than 7,000 for the U.S. military since 2001. Other records In terms of the number of deaths per day, the American Civil War is still at the top, with an average of 425 deaths per day, while the First and Second World Wars have averages of roughly 100 and 200 fatalities per day respectively. Technically, the costliest battle in U.S. military history was the Battle of Elsenborn Ridge, which was a part of the Battle of the Bulge in the Second World War, and saw upwards of 5,000 deaths over 10 days. However, the Battle of Gettysburg had more military fatalities of American soldiers, with almost 3,200 Union deaths and over 3,900 Confederate deaths, giving a combined total of more than 7,000. The Battle of Antietam is viewed as the bloodiest day in American military history, with over 3,600 combined fatalities and almost 23,000 total casualties on September 17, 1862. Revised Civil War figures For more than a century, the total death toll of the American Civil War was generally accepted to be around 620,000, a number which was first proposed by Union historians William F. Fox and Thomas L. Livermore in 1888. This number was calculated by using enlistment figures, battle reports, and census data, however many prominent historians since then have thought the number should be higher. In 2011, historian J. David Hacker conducted further investigations and claimed that the number was closer to 750,000 (and possibly as high as 850,000). While many Civil War historians agree that this is possible, and even likely, obtaining consistently accurate figures has proven to be impossible until now; both sides were poor at keeping detailed records throughout the war, and much of the Confederacy's records were lost by the war's end. Many Confederate widows also did not register their husbands death with the authorities, as they would have then been ineligible for benefits.

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.

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 July of 2025.

In 2024, 61 percent of survey respondents in the United States said they had either a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the military. This is a slight increase from the previous year, when 640percent of respondents had confidence in the U.S. military. Additionally, this is an increase of six points from 1975 levels, when only 58 percent of Americans had confidence in the military.

A dataset to advance the study of life-cycle interactions of biomedical and socioeconomic factors in the aging process. The EI project has assembled a variety of large datasets covering the life histories of approximately 39,616 white male volunteers (drawn from a random sample of 331 companies) who served in the Union Army (UA), and of about 6,000 African-American veterans from 51 randomly selected United States Colored Troops companies (USCT). Their military records were linked to pension and medical records that detailed the soldiers������?? health status and socioeconomic and family characteristics. Each soldier was searched for in the US decennial census for the years in which they were most likely to be found alive (1850, 1860, 1880, 1900, 1910). In addition, a sample consisting of 70,000 men examined for service in the Union Army between September 1864 and April 1865 has been assembled and linked only to census records. These records will be useful for life-cycle comparisons of those accepted and rejected for service. Military Data: The military service and wartime medical histories of the UA and USCT men were collected from the Union Army and United States Colored Troops military service records, carded medical records, and other wartime documents. Pension Data: Wherever possible, the UA and USCT samples have been linked to pension records, including surgeon''''s certificates. About 70% of men in the Union Army sample have a pension. These records provide the bulk of the socioeconomic and demographic information on these men from the late 1800s through the early 1900s, including family structure and employment information. In addition, the surgeon''''s certificates provide rich medical histories, with an average of 5 examinations per linked recruit for the UA, and about 2.5 exams per USCT recruit. Census Data: Both early and late-age familial and socioeconomic information is collected from the manuscript schedules of the federal censuses of 1850, 1860, 1870 (incomplete), 1880, 1900, and 1910. Data Availability: All of the datasets (Military Union Army; linked Census; Surgeon''''s Certificates; Examination Records, and supporting ecological and environmental variables) are publicly available from ICPSR. In addition, copies on CD-ROM may be obtained from the CPE, which also maintains an interactive Internet Data Archive and Documentation Library, which can be accessed on the Project Website. * Dates of Study: 1850-1910 * Study Features: Longitudinal, Minority Oversamples * Sample Size: ** Union Army: 35,747 ** Colored Troops: 6,187 ** Examination Sample: 70,800 ICPSR Link: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/06836

This report provides information regarding suicide mortality for the years 2001–2014. It incorporates the most recent mortality data from the VA/Department of Defense (DoD) Joint Suicide Data Repository and includes information for deaths from suicide among all known Veterans of U.S. military service. Data for the Joint VA/DoD Suicide Data Repository were obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics’ National Death Index through collaboration with the DoD, the CDC, and the VA/DoD Joint Suicide Data Repository initiative. Data available from the National Death Index include reports of mortality submitted from vital statistics systems in all 50 U.S. states, New York City, Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Judgement on the presence of American troops in West Germany. Topics: Most important problems of the FRG; attitude to participation of the FRG in the costs of stationing NATO military forces and to American troops remaining in the FRG; attitude to a reduction in American military forces; general judgement on the American soldiers; perceived changes in the relationship of American soldiers to the German civilian population; criticism of the way of life of American soldiers; frequency of contact with American soldiers after the war; attitude to construction of housing settlements for the families living in Germany; perception of the Americans as occupying forces or protective forces; attitude to children of members of the occupying forces and their mothers; judgement on the confiscation of buildings by Americans; residency; participation in the world war and deployment in battle against the Americans. Demography: membership in clubs, trade unions or a party und offices taken on there; party preference; age (classified); sex; marital status; religious denomination; school education; occupation; employment; household income; head of household; state; Interviewer rating: social class and willingness of respondent to cooperate; number of contact attempts; city size. Also encoded was: identification of interviewer; sex of interviewer and age of interviewer. Beurteilung der Anwesenheit der amerikanischen Truppen in Westdeutschland. Themen: Wichtigste Probleme der BRD; Einstellung zu einer Beteiligung der BRD an den Stationierungskosten der NATO-Streitkräfte und zu einem Verbleib der amerikanischen Truppen in der BRD; Einstellung zu einer Verringerung der amerikanischen Streitkräfte; allgemeine Beurteilung der amerikanischen Soldaten; wahrgenommene Veränderungen im Verhältnis der amerikanischen Soldaten zur deutschen Zivilbevölkerung; Kritik an der Lebensweise amerikanischer Soldaten; Kontakthäufigkeit zu amerikanischen Soldaten nach dem Kriege; Einstellung zum Bau von Wohnsiedlungen für die in Deutschland lebenden Familien; Wahrnehmung der Amerikaner als Besatzungstruppen oder Schutztruppe; Einstellung zu Besatzungskindern und ihren Müttern; Beurteilung der Beschlagnahme von Häusern durch Amerikaner; Teilnahme am Weltkrieg und Einsatz im Kampf gegen die Amerikaner. Demographie: Mitgliedschaft in Vereinen, Gewerkschaften oder einer Partei und dabei übernommene Ämter; Parteipräferenz; Alter (klassiert); Geschlecht; Familienstand; Konfession; Schulbildung; Beruf; Berufstätigkeit; Haushaltseinkommen; Haushaltungsvorstand; Bundesland; Flüchtlingsstatus. Interviewerrating: Schichtzugehörigkeit und Kooperationsbereitschaft des Befragten; Anzahl der Kontaktversuche; Ortsgröße. Zusätzlich verkodet wurde: Intervieweridentifikation; Interviewergeschlecht und Intervieweralter.

There is a growing sense that US military effectiveness has been on the wane in recent years. Is this the case? If so, what are the reasons for the decay in American combat performance? We first examine the available systematic evidence for American military decline, showing that the United States has indeed experienced a drop in the quality of outcomes of its military contests. Observers have offered a number of explanations for declining American military success, most predominantly an increase in intrastate conflict after the Second World War. After showing that a decline in performance is observed even after fully excluding intrastate conflict, we propose an alternative explanation: the increasing distance from home at which the United States has been fighting. Distance is tyrannical: it saps military strength and increases the cost of contests, even as it reduces US expertise and motivations to prevail. We then show that the distance from home at which the United States fights is the best predictor of the outcome of the conflict. We conclude by noting some avenues for future research and policy implications as the world returns to great power competition.

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 .

Graph and download economic data for Real Gross Domestic Product: Military in the United States (USGOVFEDMILRGSP) from 1997 to 2024 about military, GSP, federal, government, real, industry, GDP, and USA.

Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPI) make up approximately 4-5% of the total U.S. Armed Forces (U.S. Department of Defense, 2017); however, little is known about their experiences and general well-being. Recent studies that have explored the well-being of service members suggest a lack of adequate representation of AAPIs in research and also identify AAPIs as having the highest rates of suicide within the military (Eisen et al., 2012; Foynes et al., 2015; Pietrzak et al., 2015; Schoenbaum et al., 2014). Social interactions and teamwork are essential to efficient operations and functioning in the military. Positive social experiences, such as strong unit cohesion, may serve as a protective factor against negative life events, whereas instances of discrimination may place chronic strain on an individual’s well-being (Adams et al., 2017; Adler & Castro, 2013; Williams et al., 2016). To address a significant gap in the current literature and develop a better understanding of AAPIs in the military, this study examined how AAPIs’ social experiences in the U.S. military influence their health and well-being. Significant relationships were identified between perceived workplace discrimination and unit cohesion, perceived discrimination and health outcomes, and unit cohesion and health outcomes. Implications for policy, practice, and theory, limitations of the current study, and future directions for research are discussed.

Comparison of the image of the USA with that of the Soviet Union as well as attitudes to questions of international policy. Topics: The survey was conducted with a split questionnaire. The common part contained the following questions: most important domestic and foreign policy problems of the country; attitudes to selected countries; desired East-West orientation of the country; stereotype concepts of Americans (list of characteristics); judgement on the influence of American culture on one´s own country; judgement on the American economic system and American foreign policy; attitude to stationing of American troops in the country; contacts with American soldiers; attitude to the conduct of Americans regarding blacks; sources of information about America; attitude to a military intervention by the Americans in the Formosa conflict; assumed result of the peaceful competition of the two great powers; judgement on cultural life as well as the education system in selected countries; desired military and political cooperation with the USA; party preference. Split A: Attitudes to atomic energy, China´s admission into the UN, American Middle and Far East policy; sympathies in case of a war between China and America; judgement on the danger of war (scale); judgement on the USA in comparison to the Soviet Union regarding their military strength and scientific progress; preferred military leadership power; judgement on the conduct of American and other soldiers (only in the Federal Republic); importance of non-military tasks of NATO. Split B: Attitude to selected heads of government, the leadership role of the USA and American foreign policy; assessment of the seriousness of the disarmament efforts of the superpowers; preferred position of one´s own country in a military conflict between the USA and the USSR as well as possibility of neutrality; knowledge about the situation of the disputed islands in the Formosa conflict; trust in NATO; judgement on the USA in comparison to the Soviet Union regarding economic progress (only in the Federal Republic) and existing social class differences. Interviewer rating: social class (not in France) and willingness of respondent to cooperate (only in the Federal Republic); number of contact attempts (not in Great Britain and Italy); city size; date of interview. The following questions were posed in France: house ownership; possession of a car; possession of a radio; employment of household help. The following question was posed in Great Britain: union membership. Also encoded was: identification of interviewer. Vergleich des Images der USA mit dem der Sowjetunion sowie Einstellungen zu Fragen der internationalen Politik. Themen: Die Erhebung wurde mit einem gegabelten Fragebogen durchgeführt. Im gemeinsamen Teil sind folgende Fragen enthalten: Wichtigste innen- und außenpolitische Probleme des Landes; Einstellungen zu ausgewählten Ländern; gewünschte Ost-West-Orientierung des Landes; stereotype Vorstellungen von Amerikanern (Eigenschaftsliste); Beurteilung des Einflusses der amerikanischen Kultur auf das eigene Land; Beurteilung des amerikanischen Wirtschaftssystems und der amerikanischen Außenpolitik; Einstellung zur Stationierung amerikanischer Truppen im Land; Kontakte zu amerikanischen Soldaten; Einstellung zum Verhalten der Amerikaner gegenüber Schwarzen; Informationsquellen über Amerika; Einstellung zu einem militärischen Eingreifen der Amerikaner im Formosa-Konflikt; vermuteter Ausgang des friedlichen Wettbewerbs der beiden Großmächte; Beurteilung des kulturellen Lebens sowie des Bildungssystems in ausgewählten Ländern; gewünschte militärische und politische Zusammenarbeit mit den USA; Parteipräferenz. Split A: Einstellungen zur Atomenergie, zur Aufnahme Chinas in die UNO, zur amerikanischen Mittel- und Fernostpolitik; Sympathien im Falle eines Krieges zwischen China und Amerika; Beurteilung der Kriegsgefahr (Skalometer); Beurteilung der USA im Vergleich zur Sowjetunion bezüglich ihrer militärischen Stärke und des wissenschaftlichen Fortschritts; präferierte militärische Führungsmacht; Beurteilung des Verhaltens amerikanischer und anderer Soldaten (nur in der Bundesrepublik); Wichtigkeit von nicht-militärischen Aufgaben der Nato. Split B: Einstellung zu ausgewählten Regierungschefs, zur Führungsrolle der USA und zur amerikanischen Außenpolitik; Einschätzung der Ernsthaftigkeit der Abrüstungsbemühungen der Supermächte; präferierte Position des eigenen Landes in einer kriegerischen Auseinandersetzung zwischen USA und UdSSR sowie Möglichkeit der Neutralität; Kenntnis der Lage der strittigen Inseln im Formosa-Konflikt; Vertrauen in die Nato; Beurteilung der USA im Vergleich zur Sowjetunion bezüglich des wirtschaftlichen Fortschritts (nur in der Bundesrepublik) und der vorhandenen Klassenunterschiede. Interviewerrating: Schichtzugehörigkeit (nicht in Frankreich) und Kooperationsbereitschaft des Befragten (nur in der Bundesrepublik); Anzahl der Kontaktversuche (nicht in Großbritannien und Italien); Ortsgröße; Interviewdatum. In Frankreich wurde zusätzlich gefragt: Hausbesitz; Autobesitz; Radiobesitz; Beschäftigung einer Hausangestellten. In Großbritannien wurde zusätzlich gefragt: Gewerkschaftsmitgliedschaft. Zusätzlich verkodet wurde: Intervieweridentifikation.

How does political competition among domestic actors influence foreign policy choice? Studies examining these questions often focus on the role of economic or partisan interests, and how they influence the preferences decision-makers who are subject to the electoral institutions and pressures of their constituents. Less attention has been paid to how the preferences of other influential, unelected, actors influence state behavior. I examine the influence of one such group by looking at how American military leaders shape decisions on American military spending and force structure, while also examining how these decisions have been affected by changes to the institutions governing civil-military relations. Results indicate that military leaders occupying key positions can influence defense spending priorities in favor of their respective branches. Results also suggest the influence of military leaders has changed over time, and is conditional upon the institutions governing the relationships between civilian decision-makers and military leaders.

Graph and download economic data for Gross Domestic Product: Military in Maine (MEGOVFEDMILNGSP) from 1997 to 2024 about military, ME, GSP, federal, government, industry, GDP, and USA.

France Im: CIF: excl Military Equip: America: ow United States data was reported at 3,015.000 EUR mn in May 2018. This records a decrease from the previous number of 3,110.000 EUR mn for Apr 2018. France Im: CIF: excl Military Equip: America: ow United States data is updated monthly, averaging 2,372.000 EUR mn from Jan 2000 (Median) to May 2018, with 221 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 3,839.000 EUR mn in Mar 2016 and a record low of 1,324.000 EUR mn in Aug 2003. France Im: CIF: excl Military Equip: America: ow United States data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by French National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies. The data is categorized under Global Database’s France – Table FR.JA005: Trade Statistics: by Country: NAF rev 2.