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.
U.S. Government Workshttps://www.usa.gov/government-works
License information was derived automatically
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.
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.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
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.
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 Topological Faces / Military Installation Relationship File (FACESMIL.dbf) contains a record for each face / military installation relationship. Face refers to the areal (polygon) topological primitives that make up MTDB. A face is bounded by one or more edges; its boundary includes only the edges that separate it from other faces, not any interior edges contained within the area of the face. The face to which a record in the Topological Faces / Military Installation Relationship File (FACESMIL.dbf) applies can be determined by linking to the Topological Faces Shapefile (FACES.shp) on the permanent topological face identifier (TFID) attribute. The military installation to which a record in the Topological Faces / Military Installation Relationship File (FACESMIL.dbf) applies can be determined by linking to the Military Installation Shapefile (MIL.shp) on the military installation identifier (AREAID) attribute. A face may be part of multiple military installations. A military installation may consist of multiple faces.
https://koordinates.com/license/attribution-3-0/https://koordinates.com/license/attribution-3-0/
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 .
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
This simulated combat reports dataset combines fictional headings, reporting units, and attack times with real data from 551 records of terrorist attacks in Afghanistan (2009–2010) [1]. The dataset combines selected attributes from the DA Form 1594 [2] and U.S. Army Spot Report [3]. The dataset also includes additional attributes for tactical context.A common use for the DA Form 1594 is for personnel in U.S. Army small unit command posts to record reports of combat action. This dataset was used in a prototype of a modified and modernized DA Form 1594 created as a Relational Database Management System (RDBMS). The prototype was designed to demonstrate how to use data science techniques to analyze tactical data captured in small unit command posts. The RDBMS was created using Microsoft Access. The .xlsx dataset was exported from the final version of the prototype.References[1] National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, "Global Terrorism Database," University of Maryland, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/. [Accessed 23 November 2019].[2] Department of the Army, "Appendix E: Daily Staff Journal or Duty Officer's Log," in TC 3-22.6: Guard Duty, Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 2017 (w/Change 1, 2019), pp. E-1 - E-3.[3] Department of the Army, "U.S. Army Spot Report," in FM 6-99.2: U.S. Army Report and Message Formats, Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 2007, pp. 219 - 219.1.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
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 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.
CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedicationhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
License information was derived automatically
What can states expect to receive in return for the military aid they provide to other states? Can military aid buy recipient state compliance with donor objectives? In this study, we systematically investigate the effects of U.S. military assistance on recipient state behavior toward the United States. We build on existing literature by creating three explicit theoretical models, employing a new measure of cooperation generated from events data, and controlling for preference similarity so that our results capture the influence military aid has on recipient state behavior independent of any dyadic predisposition toward cooperation or conflict. We test seven hypotheses using a combination of simultaneous equation, cross-sectional time series, and Heckman selection models. We find that, with limited exceptions, increasing levels of U.S. military aid significantly reduce cooperative foreign policy behavior with the United States. U.S. reaction to recipient state behavior is also counter-intuitive; instead of using a carrot-and-stick approach to military aid allocations, our results show that recipient state cooperation is likely to lead to subsequent reductions in U.S. military assistance.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Military Expenditure in the United States increased to 876943.20 USD Million in 2022 from 806230.20 USD Million in 2021. United States Military Expenditure - values, historical data, forecasts and news - updated on March of 2025.
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.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Imports of Other Military Equipment in the United States decreased to 208.04 USD Million in February from 214.36 USD Million in January of 2024. This dataset includes a chart with historical data for the United States Imports of Other Military Equipment.
The Military Installations dataset was compiled on January 01, 2021 from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (OASD) and is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)/Bureau of Transportation Statistics’ (BTS') National Transportation Atlas Database (NTAD). This dataset contains the authoritative point locations and (where available) boundaries of Department of Defense sites, commonly referred to as installations, ranges, training areas, bases, forts, camps, armories, centers, etc. These installations are, in many cases, comprised of a number of subordinate sites. This list does not necessarily represent a comprehensive collection of all Department of Defense facilities, and only those reported in the Fiscal Year 2018 Base Structure Report (BSR) were considered for inclusion. Points are placed either at or near the center of each site and do not reflect any particular landmark. Boundaries encompass federally owned or otherwise managed lands, as defined in the BSR. The point and boundary location datasets are intended for planning purposes only, and do not necessarily represent the legal or surveyed land parcel boundaries. Please use the accompanying metadata to validate whether this dataset is suitable for your intended use.
Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
SELECTED SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS IN THE UNITED STATES VETERAN STATUS - DP02 Universe - Civilian population 18 Year and over Survey-Program - American Community Survey 5-year estimates Years - 2020, 2021, 2022 Veteran status is used to identify people with active duty military service and service in the military Reserves and the National Guard. Veterans are men and women who have served (even for a short time), but are not currently serving, on active duty in the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or the Coast Guard, or who served in the U.S. Merchant Marine during World War II. People who served in the National Guard or Reserves are classified as veterans only if they were ever called or ordered to active duty, not counting the 4-6 months for initial training or yearly summer camps.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Exports of Military Aircrafts in the United States decreased to 149.48 USD Million in February from 224.14 USD Million in January of 2024. This dataset includes a chart with historical data for the United States Exports of Military Aircrafts.
This information is designed to provide service members, their families, veterans, the general public, and other concerned citizens with the most comprehensive and accurate figures available regarding diagnosed cases of TBI within the U.S. military. Information is collected from electronic medical records and analyzed by the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center in cooperation with the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center. Numbers for the current year will be updated on a quarterly basis. Other data will be updated annually. At this time, the MHS is unable to provide information regarding cause of injury or location because that information is not available in most medical records. The numbers represent actual medical diagnoses of TBI within the U.S. Military. Other, larger numbers routinely reported in the media must be considered inaccurate because they do not reflect actual medical diagnoses. Many of these larger numbers are developed utilizing sources such as the Post Deployment Health Assessment (PDHA) or Post Deployment Health Reassessment (PDHRA). However, these documents are assessment tools with TBI screening questions and are not diagnostic tools.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Analysis of ‘US Military Spending by Year (1960 - 2020)’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://www.kaggle.com/brandonconrady/us-military-spending-by-year-1960-2020 on 28 January 2022.
--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---
Lists the military spending, GDP, and population estimate for the US each year from 1960 to 2020.
Banner image source: https://unsplash.com/photos/BQgAYwERXhs
--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domainhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain
This Public Schools feature dataset is composed of all Public elementary and secondary education facilities in the United States as defined by the Common Core of Data (CCD, https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/ ), National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, https://nces.ed.gov ), US Department of Education for the 2017-2018 school year. This includes all Kindergarten through 12th grade schools as tracked by the Common Core of Data. Included in this dataset are military schools in US territories and referenced in the city field with an APO or FPO address. DOD schools represented in the NCES data that are outside of the United States or US territories have been omitted. This feature class contains all MEDS/MEDS+ as approved by NGA. Complete field and attribute information is available in the ”Entities and Attributes” metadata section. Geographical coverage is depicted in the thumbnail above and detailed in the Place Keyword section of the metadata. This release includes the addition of 3065 new records, modifications to the spatial location and/or attribution of 99,287 records, and removal of 2996 records not present in the NCES CCD data.
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.