The Military Bases dataset was last updated on November 11, 2025 and are defined by Fiscal Year 2024 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

The Military Bases dataset is as of May 21, 2019, 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.

Acknowlegement

Original Data

Foto von israel palacio auf Unsplash

US Military

## Overview

US Military is a dataset for object detection tasks - it contains Objects annotations for 1,440 images.

## Getting Started

You can download this dataset for use within your own projects, or fork it into a workspace on Roboflow to create your own model.

  ## License

  This dataset is available under the [CC BY 4.0 license](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/CC BY 4.0).

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.

This dataset has records for the awarding of the United States Medal of Honor. The Medal of Honor is the United States of America’s highest military honor, awarded for personal acts of valor above and beyond the call of duty. The medal is awarded by the President of the United States in the name of the U.S. Congress to U.S. military personnel only. There are three versions of the medal, one for the Army, one for the Navy, and one for the Air Force.[5] Personnel of the Marine Corps and Coast Guard receive the Navy version. The dataset was collected from the official military site, and includes records about how the medal was awarded and characteristics of the recipient. Unfortunately, because of the nature of century-old record keeping, many of the records are incomplete. While a very interesting dataset, it does have some missing data.

Data Dictionary

Key	List of...	Comment	Example Value
death	Boolean	$MISSING_FIELD	True
name	String	$MISSING_FIELD	"Sagelhurst, John C."
awarded.General Order number	Integer	$MISSING_FIELD	-1
awarded.accredited to	String	$MISSING_FIELD	""
awarded.citation	String	$MISSING_FIELD	"Under a heavy fire from the enemy carried off the field a commissioned officer who was severely wounded and also led a charge on the enemy's rifle pits."
awarded.issued	String	$MISSING_FIELD	"01/03/1906"
birth.location name	String	$MISSING_FIELD	"Buffalo, N.Y."
metadata.link	String	$MISSING_FIELD	"http://www.cmohs.org/recipient-detail/1176/sagelhurst-john-c.php"
military record.company	String	$MISSING_FIELD	"Company B"
military record.division	String	$MISSING_FIELD	"1st New Jersey Cavalry"
military record.entered service at	String	$MISSING_FIELD	"Buffalo, N.Y."
military record.organization	String	$MISSING_FIELD	"U.S. Army"
military record.rank	String	$MISSING_FIELD	"Sergeant"
awarded.date.day	Integer	$MISSING_FIELD	6
awarded.date.full	String	$MISSING_FIELD	"1865-2-6"
awarded.date.month	Integer	$MISSING_FIELD	2
awarded.date.year	Integer	$MISSING_FIELD	1865
awarded.location.latitude	Integer	$MISSING_FIELD	38
awarded.location.longitude	Integer	$MISSING_FIELD	-77
awarded.location.name	String	$MISSING_FIELD	"Hatchers Run Court, Stafford, VA 22554, USA"
birth.date.day	Integer	$MISSING_FIELD	-1
birth.date.month	Integer	$MISSING_FIELD	-1
birth.date.year	Integer	$MISSING_FIELD	-1

Acknowledgement

Original Data

CORGIS Dataset Project

Foto von Samuel Branch auf Unsplash

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.

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.

Copy 2 Of US Military

## Overview

Copy 2 Of US Military is a dataset for object detection tasks - it contains Military 2 annotations for 2,269 images.

## Getting Started

You can download this dataset for use within your own projects, or fork it into a workspace on Roboflow to create your own model.

  ## License

  This dataset is available under the [CC BY 4.0 license](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/CC BY 4.0).

From the project website: "url"> https://sites.tufts.edu/css/mip-research/mip-dataset/

The Military Intervention Project (MIP) within the Center for Strategic Studies (CSS) seeks to solve the puzzle of US foreign military interventions. It is building a new, comprehensive dataset of all US military interventions from 1776 until 2017 to measure the costs, benefits, and unintended consequences of US military involvements abroad. In other words, this dataset will provide strong empirical evidence regarding the trade-offs of US military interventions – a current hot topic in Congress, the media, and in public opinion. MIP will measure the costs and benefits to US national interests, economic growth, international reputation as well as human rights, democratic, and economic outcomes within the target state, and much more.

This dataset investigates the Instagram engagement metrics (likes and comments) of the U.S. and British Armies to understand their strengths and weaknesses in their marketing. For the quantitative data collection, a random number generator was used to compile a 20% data sample (73 posts) from a total of 365 posts from each account. For instance, a number 1 in the random generator corresponded to the most recent post from the start date of data collection (May 23rd, 2024). By picking from 365 posts, the data collection was meant to represent roughly a year of Instagram content, assuming their Instagram accounts posted every day. This method ensured an unbiased representation of which content was included in the 20% data sample.However, the U.S Army posted almost once a day while the British Army posted only a few days a week. In the end, data was collected across 365 U.S. Army posts from May 23rd, 2024, to October 28th, 2023. For the British Army’s Instagram, the data collection span from May 23rd, 2024, to November 25th, 2021. By engaging with recent posts, the purpose was to understand how effectively these Armies responded to their recruitment crisis (which started in 2022).For the data collection, variables for each post included the following:Date of postNumber of likesPercentage of likes by follower populationNumber of commentsPercentage of comments by follower populationTo understand which Instagram posts were successful, the content with the highest number of likes and comments were defined as the most engaged. But, to accurately compare the British Army’s Instagram engagement to the U.S., the number of likes/comments was divided by the number of their followers. As of May 23, 2024, the U.S. Army had 2.9 million followers on Instagram whereas the British Army had 594,000 followers. While social media users outside of the Armies’ followers engaged with the posts, these ratios provided a basis to fairly compare their engagement metrics.

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.

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.

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 dataset is about countries per year in Central America. It has 512 rows. It features 3 columns: country, and armed forces personnel.

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.

This dataset is about countries per year in South America. It has 768 rows. It features 3 columns: country, and armed forces personnel.

The Military Bases dataset is as of May 21, 2019, 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 high prevalence of dual use of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco is a unique tobacco use behavior in the US military population. However, dual tobacco use has rarely been addressed in active duty populations. We aimed to identify factors contributing to dual tobacco use among active duty service members from Army and Air Force. We also compared age at initiation, duration of use, and amount of use between dual users and exclusive users. The study included 168 exclusive cigarette smokers, 171 exclusive smokeless tobacco users, and 110 dual users. In stepwise logistic regression, smokeless tobacco use among family members (OR = 4.78, 95% CI = 2.05–11.13 for father use vs. no use, OR = 3.39, 95% CI = 1.56–7.37 for other relatives use vs. no use), and deployment history (serving combat unit vs. combat support unit: OR = 4.12, 95% CI = 1.59–10.66; never deployed vs. combat support unit: OR = 3.32, 95% CI = 1.45–7.61) were factors identified to be associated with dual use relative to exclusive cigarette smoking. Cigarette smoking among family members (OR = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.07–3.60 for sibling smoking), high perception of harm using smokeless tobacco (OR = 2.34, 95% CI = 1.29–4.26), secondhand smoke exposure (OR = 4.83, 95% CI = 2.73–8.55), and lower education (associated degree or some college: OR = 2.76, 95% CI = 1.01–7.51; high school of lower: OR = 4.10, 95% CI = 1.45–11.61) were factors associated with dual use relative to exclusive smokeless tobacco use. Compared to exclusive cigarette smokers, dual users started smoking at younger age, smoked cigarettes for longer period, and smoked more cigarettes per day. Our study addressed dual tobacco use behavior in military population and has implications to tobacco control programs in the military.

2017 TIGER/Line® Shapefiles: Military Installations

A defense contractor is a business organization or individual that provides products or services to a military or intelligence department of a government. Products typically include military or civilian aircraft, ships, vehicles, weaponry, and electronic systems, while services can include logistics, technical support and training, communications support, and engineering support in cooperation with the government.

Security contractors do not generally provide direct support of military operations. Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, military contractors engaged in direct support of military operations may be legitimate targets of military interrogation.

In the United States, defense contracting has taken an increasingly larger role. In 2009, the Department of Defense spent nearly $316 billion on contracts. Contractors have assumed a much larger on-the-ground presence during American conflicts: during the 1991 Gulf War the ratio of uniformed military to contractors was about 50 to 1, while during the first four years of the Iraq War the U.S. hired over 190,000 contractors, surpassing the total American military presence even during the 2007 Iraq surge and 23 times greater than other allied military personnel numbers. In Afghanistan, the presence of almost 100,000 contractors has resulted in a near 1-to-1 ratio with military personnel.The surge in spending on defense services contractors that began in 2001 came to a halt in 2009, leading to the Better Buying Power initiative of 2010.