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. A data dictionary, or other source of attribute information, is accessible at https://doi.org/10.21949/1529039

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 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.

This layer is sourced from maps.bts.dot.gov.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the Soldier population distribution across 18 age groups. It lists the population in each age group along with the percentage population relative of the total population for Soldier. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population distribution of Soldier by age. For example, using this dataset, we can identify the largest age group in Soldier.

Key observations

The largest age group in Soldier, IA was for the group of age 70 to 74 years years with a population of 19 (15.45%), according to the ACS 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates. At the same time, the smallest age group in Soldier, IA was the 5 to 9 years years with a population of 0 (0%). Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates

Age groups:

• Under 5 years
• 5 to 9 years
• 10 to 14 years
• 15 to 19 years
• 20 to 24 years
• 25 to 29 years
• 30 to 34 years
• 35 to 39 years
• 40 to 44 years
• 45 to 49 years
• 50 to 54 years
• 55 to 59 years
• 60 to 64 years
• 65 to 69 years
• 70 to 74 years
• 75 to 79 years
• 80 to 84 years
• 85 years and over

Variables / Data Columns

• Age Group: This column displays the age group in consideration
• Population: The population for the specific age group in the Soldier is shown in this column.
• % of Total Population: This column displays the population of each age group as a proportion of Soldier total population. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Soldier Population by Age. You can refer the same here

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

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the Soldiers Grove population by age cohorts (Children: Under 18 years; Working population: 18-64 years; Senior population: 65 years or more). It lists the population in each age cohort group along with its percentage relative to the total population of Soldiers Grove. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population distribution across children, working population and senior population for dependency ratio, housing requirements, ageing, migration patterns etc.

Key observations

The largest age group was 18 to 64 years with a poulation of 288 (48.65% of the total population). Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Age cohorts:

• Under 18 years
• 18 to 64 years
• 65 years and over

Variables / Data Columns

• Age Group: This column displays the age cohort for the Soldiers Grove population analysis. Total expected values are 3 groups ( Children, Working Population and Senior Population).
• Population: The population for the age cohort in Soldiers Grove is shown in the following column.
• Percent of Total Population: The population as a percent of total population of the Soldiers Grove is shown in the following column.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Soldiers Grove Population by Age. You can refer the same here

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 data collection involved three methods a) Archival research: defence policy, military doctrine, memoirs, academic commentary b) Interviews: 39 Male soldiers and 17 female soldiers were formally interviewed as part of this research project. c) Fieldwork observation: 40 days were spend observing training in France, Germany, UK, Canada and the US. During the course of this fieldwork, 46 informants were contacted whose comments were recorded in field notes and used in the research. Due to the confidentiality assured to interviewees and informants and the fact that some of the material discussed in the interviews/fieldwork was classified it has been impossible to share the fieldnotes/interviews. However, a record of the key points and data has been recorded in the EOA report for this grant and is disseminated through the publications associated with this grant.Can women be infantry soldiers? Combat is one of the most extreme forms of human activities and throughout human history it has been almost exclusively a masculine domain. This research addresses this important and potentially historic issue of the increasingly active participation of women in war. In the past, women's exclusion from the infantry has typically been justified by reference to female physiology and their presumed effects on cohesion among the male soldiers. Females were seen to threaten the combat performance of male troops. Physical barriers still remain for women but with the professionalisation of the armed forces and the recent pressures of operations in Afghanistan, female participation in the army and on operations has been increasingly accepted and even normalised. Canada and Denmark now allow women in the infantry and, while the UK and US still maintain their bans on females in the infantry, female British and American soldiers have increasingly served on the front line in combat situations. Through documentary, fieldwork and interview research with the armies of Canada, Denmark, Germany, France, the UK and the US, this research seeks to explore the possibilities and limits of women's participation in the infantry. a) Archival research: Documentary analysis of infantry doctrine, operational reports and memoirs by male and especially female soldiers proved very useful in situating and widening the research. b) Interviews: 17 females and 39 males were interviewed as part of this research, either as individuals or in some cases in groups. The data derived from these interviews was rich and compelling. Female soldiers were particularly forthcoming in describing some of their sometimes disturbing experiences. Precisely because of the sensitivity of much of this material, the data has not been able to be made available for general release. The most important material has and will appear in publications however. c) Fieldwork observation Observation of fieldwork in France, the US, UK and Canada took place during the ESRC project. This provided an essential understanding of the practice of infantry work and current operations, essential to analysing the possibility of female integration. It also provided many additional informants whose revealing comments were recorded in field notes.

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.

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) System (MTS). The MTS 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 contains a record for each face/military installation relationship. Face refers to the areal (polygon) topological primitives that make up the MTS. 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 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 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.

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 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.

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 Bases dataset is as of May 5, 2017, and is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)/Bureau of Transportation Statistics's (BTS's) National Transportation Atlas Database (NTAD). 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.

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)

Description This dataset contains both tabular and geospatial data of eight great powers' overseas military bases, including China, the United States, the United Kingdoms, Russia, Japan, India, the United Arab Emirates, and France up until November 2020. An interactive view of this dataset: Link Source All data were collected from multiple public sources and specified in each data point in the Excel file and Shapefile. For metadata, such as data description and available methods for geospatial data processing, please read the readme.pdf. Terms of use This dataset features in a collection of geospatial data "Geo-mapping databases for the Belt and Road Initiative". To cite this work, available citation styles can be found here: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.6076193

https://i.imgur.com/Vrs6apv.png" alt="">

Context

There is a well-documented phenomenon of increased suicide rates among United States military veterans. One recent analysis, published in 2016, found the suicide rate amongst veterans to be around 20 per day. The widespread nature of the problem has resulted in efforts by and pressure on the United States military services to combat and address mental health issues in and after service in the country's armed forces.

In 2013 News21 published a sequence of reports on the phenomenon, aggregating and using data provided by individual states to typify the nationwide pattern. This dataset is the underlying data used in that report, as collected by the News21 team.

Content

The data consists of six files, one for each year between 2005 and 2011. Each year's worth of data includes the general population of each US state, a count of suicides, a count of state veterans, and a count of veteran suicides.

Acknowledgements

This data was originally published by News21. It has been converted from an XLS to a CSV format for publication on Kaggle. The original data, visualizations, and stories can be found at the source.

Inspiration

What is the geospatial pattern of veterans in the United States? How much more vulnerable is the average veteran to suicide than the average citizen? Is the problem increasing or decreasing over time?

https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F954461%2F41f0017368e1043a2c643aea10cbb3e4%2FgoogleDataStudio.jpg?generation=1561570478866938&alt=media" alt="">

Context

This dataset will be used to help users get familiar with Google Data Studio. It's also a great way to mix history with data visualization skills.

Later I will develop a lesson that will help new users get up to speed with Google Data Studio. This dataset is small, but it will be a good dataset to start with. The same concepts learned with this project will be used with larger datasets.

Content

This data comes from wikipedia.

Acknowledgements

wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

Inspiration

Project based learning. Get it going! Teach kids using data.

Comprehensive dataset of 6,289 Military bases in United States as of July, 2025. Includes verified contact information (email, phone), geocoded addresses, customer ratings, reviews, business categories, and operational details. Perfect for market research, lead generation, competitive analysis, and business intelligence. Download a complimentary sample to evaluate data quality and completeness.