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.

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

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 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 .

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 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.

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 Census Bureau includes landmarks such as military installations in the MTDB for locating special features and to help enumerators during field operations. In 2012, the Census Bureau obtained the inventory and boundaries of most military installations from the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) for Air Force, Army, Marine, and Navy installations and from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for Coast Guard installations. The military installation boundaries in this release represent the updates the Census Bureau made in 2012 in collaboration with DoD.

The 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.

United States US: Armed Forces Personnel: Total data was reported at 1,348,400.000 Person in 2016. This records an increase from the previous number of 1,347,300.000 Person for 2015. United States US: Armed Forces Personnel: Total data is updated yearly, averaging 1,546,000.000 Person from Sep 1985 (Median) to 2016, with 29 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 2,240,000.000 Person in 1989 and a record low of 1,347,300.000 Person in 2015. United States US: Armed Forces Personnel: Total 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. Armed forces personnel are active duty military personnel, including paramilitary forces if the training, organization, equipment, and control suggest they may be used to support or replace regular military forces.; ; International Institute for Strategic Studies, The Military Balance.; Sum; Data for some countries are based on partial or uncertain data or rough estimates.

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.

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.

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.

Over the course of the Second World War approximately 127.2 million people were mobilized. The world's population in 1940 was roughly 2.3 billion, meaning that between five and six percent of the world was drafted into the military in some capacity. Approximately one in every 25 people mobilized were women, who generally served in an administrative or medical role, although hundreds of thousands of women did see active combat. Largest armies In absolute numbers, the Soviet Union mobilized the largest number of people at just under 34.5 million, and this included roughly 35 percent of the USSR's male population. By the war's end, more Soviets were mobilized than all European Axis powers combined. However, in relative terms, it was Germany who mobilized the largest share of its male population, with approximately 42 percent of men serving. The USSR was forced to find a balance between reinforcing its frontlines and maintaining agricultural and military production to supply its army (in addition to those in annexed territory after 1941), whereas a large share of soldiers taken from the German workforce were replaced by workers drafted or forcibly taken from other countries (including concentration camp prisoners and PoWs). Studying the figures The figures given in these statistics are a very simplified and rounded overview - in reality, there were many nuances in the number of people who were effectively mobilized for each country, their roles, and their status as auxiliary, collaborative, or resistance forces. The British Empire is the only power where distinctions are made between the metropole and its colonies or territories, whereas breakdowns of those who fought in other parts of Asia or Africa remains unclear. Additionally, when comparing this data with total fatalities, it is important to account for the civilian death toll, i.e. those who were not mobilized.

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.

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.

Military Facilities. The dataset contains locations and attributes of Military Facilities, created as part of the DC Geographic Information System (DC GIS) for the D.C. Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO) and participating D.C. government agencies. Information researched by the DC Office of the Chief Technology Officer identified Military Facilities and DC GIS staff geo-processed the data.

This data consists of three files:lists of all enlisted applicants, contracts, and accessions to the US military from October 2000 to September 2010, as well as a small Excel file that serves as a data dictionary. Individuals are identified only by 3 digit ZIP codes, and do not contain an individual identifier so they cannot be reliably tracked across stages of enlistment. The data was obtained through Freedom of Information Act request 11-F-0024, filed by Garret Christensen in 2010. The only documentation provided with the request is included here, in the Excel file.

The TIGER/Line Files are shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) that 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 File 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 2008, 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. In a few cases, the files supplied to the Census Bureau contained older, unverified information than that obtained from the DOD for Census 2000; in those cases the military installations in MTDB were reviewed, but not updated to match the files obtained in 2008.

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.