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.

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.

AquaV/US-Army-Survival-Sharegpt dataset hosted on Hugging Face and contributed by the HF Datasets community

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

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.

Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD) geospatial data sets containing information on US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Military Districts.

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 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.

USACE Military Division boundaries. Polygons were derived from National Atlas states and/or from data provided by the district.

Reservoirs of the U.S. Army Corps of EngineersThis 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."

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

Attitude of the population of the FRG to the military, defense policy and NATO. Topics: Attitude to rearmament of the FRG and a professional or volunteer army; military preparedness; military knowledge; attitude to military drill and obedience; position of the FRG in NATO; attitude and relationship of the Germans to American occupying forces; reasons and evaluation of presence of American soldiers in the FRG; attitude to military service; image of the soldiers of selected countries; social distance from Americans; evaluation of Russian recommendations about reunification; evaluation of the cultural achievements of various peoples; personal participation in the world wars; relative social prestige of selected occupations; membership in a club, trade union or party; honorary activities; party preference. Demography: age (classified); sex; religious denomination; school education; occupation; household income; head of household; state; refugee status. Interviewer rating: social class and willingness of respondent to cooperate; number of contact attempts; city size. Also encoded were: identification of interviewer; sex of interviewer and age of interviewer. Einstellung der Bevölkerung der BRD zum Militär, zur Verteidigungspolitik und zur NATO. Themen: Einstellung zur Wiederbewaffnung der BRD und zu einem Berufs- oder Freiwilligenheer; Wehrbereitschaft; militärische Kenntnisse; Einstellung zu militärischem Drill und Gehorsam; Stellung der BRD in der NATO; Einstellung und Verhältnis der Deutschen zu den amerikanischen Besatzungstruppen; Gründe und Bewertung der Anwesenheit amerikanischer Soldaten in der BRD; Einstellung zum Militärdienst; Image der Soldaten ausgewählter Länder; soziale Distanz zu Amerikanern; Bewertung der russischen Vorschläge über eine Wiedervereinigung; Bewertung der kulturellen Leistungen verschiedener Völker; eigene Teilnahme an den Weltkriegen; relatives Sozialprestige ausgewählter Berufe; Mitgliedschaft in einem Verein, einer Gewerkschaft oder einer Partei; ehrenamtliche Tätigkeiten; Parteipräferenz. Demographie: Alter (klassiert); Geschlecht; Konfession; Schulbildung; Beruf; Haushaltseinkommen; Haushaltungsvorstand; Bundesland; Flüchtlingsstatus. Interviewerrating: Kooperationsbereitschaft und Schichtzugehörigkeit des Befragten; Anzahl der Kontaktversuche; Ortsgröße. Zusätzlich wurden verkodet: Intervieweridentifikation; Interviewergeschlecht und Intervieweralter. Multi-stage random sample Mehrstufige Zufallsauswahl

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.

Decisions involve claims related to uniformed service members' pay, allowances, travel, transportation, retired pay, and survivor benefits

Military Districts of the U.S. Army Corp of EngineersThis U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) feature layer depicts USACE military districts. According to USACE, their mission is to "Deliver vital engineering solutions, in collaboration with our partners, to secure our Nation, energize our economy, and reduce disaster risk." USACE workforce is spread throughout the United States and in more than 91 foreign countries, providing reimbursable engineering expertise throughout the World.Mobile DistrictData currency: Federal service (USACE Military Districts)Data modification: NoneFor more information: 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."

description: 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.; abstract: 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.

Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD) geospatial data sets containing information on US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Military Divisions.

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.

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 Commercial Strategic Seaports dataset was compiled on October 04, 2021 from the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) and is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)/Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) National Transportation Atlas Database (NTAD). The National Port Readiness Network (NPRN) consists of Strategic Commercial Seaports able to support force deployment during contingencies and other defense emergencies. Nine federal agencies and organizations, USDOT/Maritime Administration (MARAD), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), Military Sea-lift Command (MSC), U.S. Army Forces Command (USFORSCOM), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), and U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) are responsible for providing guidance to the NPRN program and for supporting the secure movement of military forces through U.S. ports. This dataset includes all 18 commercial ports that currently belong to the NPRN.