In 2023, there were around 1.11 million active duty U.S. Armed Forces personnel stationed within the United States. In that year, there were 156,418 U.S. Armed Forces personnel stationed in California, the most of any state.

As of May 2025, China had the largest armed forces in the world by active duty military personnel, with about two million active soldiers. India, the United States, North Korea, and Russia rounded out the top five largest armies. Difference between active and reserve personnel Active personnel, also known as active duty in the United States and active service in the United Kingdom, are those individuals whose full-time occupation is being part of a military force. Active duty contrasts with a military’s reserve force, which are individuals who have both a military role and a civilian career. The number of active duty forces in the U.S. is much larger than its reserve membership. What is the strongest army? The strength of a country’s armed forces is not only determined by how many personnel they maintain, but also the number and quality of their military equipment. For example, looking only at personnel does not factor in the overwhelmingly higher number of nuclear warheads owned by Russia and the United States compared to other countries. One way to answer this question is to look at the total amount of money each country spends on their military, as spending includes both personnel and technology. In terms of countries with the highest military spending, the United States leads the world with an annual budget almost three times larger than second-placed China.

In 2025, the United States had the largest number of active military personnel out of all North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries, with almost *** million troops. The country with the second-largest number of military personnel was Türkiye, at around ******* active personnel. Additionally, the U.S. has by far the most armored vehicles in NATO, as well as the largest Navy and Air Force. NATO in brief NATO, which was formed in 1949, is the most powerful military alliance in the world. At its formation, NATO began with 12 member countries, which by 2024 had increased to 32. NATO was originally formed to deter Soviet expansion into Europe, with member countries expected to come to each other’s defense in case of an attack. Member countries are also obliged to commit to spending two percent of their respective GDPs on defense, although many states have recently fallen far short of this target. NATO in the contemporary world Some questioned the purpose of NATO after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union a few years later. In 2019, French President Emmanuel Macron even called the organization 'brain-dead' amid dissatisfaction with the leadership of the U.S. President at the time, Donald Trump. NATO has, however, seen a revival after Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Following the invasion, Sweden and Finland both abandoned decades of military neutrality and applied to join the alliance, with Finland joining in 2023 and Sweden in 2024.

The American Civil War is the conflict with the largest number of American military fatalities in history. In fact, the Civil War's death toll is comparable to all other major wars combined, the deadliest of which were the World Wars, which have a combined death toll of more than 520,000 American fatalities. The ongoing series of conflicts and interventions in the Middle East and North Africa, collectively referred to as the War on Terror in the west, has a combined death toll of more than 7,000 for the U.S. military since 2001. Other records In terms of the number of deaths per day, the American Civil War is still at the top, with an average of 425 deaths per day, while the First and Second World Wars have averages of roughly 100 and 200 fatalities per day respectively. Technically, the costliest battle in U.S. military history was the Battle of Elsenborn Ridge, which was a part of the Battle of the Bulge in the Second World War, and saw upwards of 5,000 deaths over 10 days. However, the Battle of Gettysburg had more military fatalities of American soldiers, with almost 3,200 Union deaths and over 3,900 Confederate deaths, giving a combined total of more than 7,000. The Battle of Antietam is viewed as the bloodiest day in American military history, with over 3,600 combined fatalities and almost 23,000 total casualties on September 17, 1862. Revised Civil War figures For more than a century, the total death toll of the American Civil War was generally accepted to be around 620,000, a number which was first proposed by Union historians William F. Fox and Thomas L. Livermore in 1888. This number was calculated by using enlistment figures, battle reports, and census data, however many prominent historians since then have thought the number should be higher. In 2011, historian J. David Hacker conducted further investigations and claimed that the number was closer to 750,000 (and possibly as high as 850,000). While many Civil War historians agree that this is possible, and even likely, obtaining consistently accurate figures has proven to be impossible until now; both sides were poor at keeping detailed records throughout the war, and much of the Confederacy's records were lost by the war's end. Many Confederate widows also did not register their husbands death with the authorities, as they would have then been ineligible for benefits.

Although, in many countries, the military is the most trusted state institution, we know little about public trust in the military outside the United States. We argue that, for the military, trust is grounded in its legitimation as, and aspiration to be, non-partisan. From this insight, we develop hypotheses regarding the relationship between trust in the military and other institutions, the military’s centrality to political power, intrastate conflict, and recruitment format. Using cross-national data (2006–2021), we find support for these hypotheses. Falling trust in partisan state institutions benefits the armed forces. When the military exercises influence over politics, at odds with its legitimation, it is judged by the usual standards of government performance. Civil wars convert the military into a factional actor, and public trust falls. When militaries recruit via selective conscription, confidence suffers. These findings have important implications for civil-military relations, military effectiveness, and democratic stability.

The graph illustrates the number of personnel in each branch of the U.S. Military for the year 2025. The x-axis lists the military branches: Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Space Force, and Coast Guard. The y-axis represents the number of personnel, ranging from 41,477 to 449,265. Among the branches, the Army has the highest number of personnel with 449,265, followed by the Navy with 333,794 and the Air Force with 317,675. The Marine Corps and Coast Guard have 168,628 and 41,477 personnel, respectively. The data is displayed in a bar graph format, effectively highlighting the distribution of military personnel across the different branches.

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 U.S. Army remains the largest branch of the American military, with 449,344 active duty personnel in 2023. While the Army leads in numbers, the newly established Space Force had just 8,879 active duty members, highlighting the evolving nature of modern warfare and the increasing importance of space-based capabilities. Confidence in military remains high Despite fluctuations in force size, public trust in the U.S. military remains strong. In 2024, 61 percent of Americans expressed a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the armed forces, a slight increase from the previous year. While a slightly higher share of Republicans have shown more confidence in the military, trust in the institution remains high across party lines. Global commitments The United States continues to invest heavily in its military capabilities, with defense spending reaching 916.02 billion U.S. dollars in 2023. This substantial budget supports not only domestic defense needs but also enables the U.S. to respond to global crises, as evidenced by the over 40 billion euros in military aid provided to Ukraine following Russia's invasion. The high level of spending, which translates to about 2,220 U.S. dollars per capita.

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.

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

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.

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.

We analyze how the deployment of US troops affects host-state defense spending. We test this relationship, from 1951 to 2003, by examining how the deployment of US military forces impacts defense spending in different types of states, including US allies, NATO members, non-allies of the United States, and all states. We also utilize spatial measures of US troop deployments to analyze how regional and neighborhood concentrations of forces shape host-state policies. Using both traditional panel methodology, and incorporating a simultaneous equation model for the deployment of troops, we find that non-allied states tend to decrease their defense burden when the United States places troops within their borders. However, NATO allies consistently increase their defense burden in response to the presence of US troops within their borders. Additionally, most states tend to increase spending when the United States places troops near their borders.

Since 1996, the Center for Military History and Social Sciences of the Bundeswehr (ZMSBw) has conducted a representative survey of the German population on defense and security policy issues on behalf of the Federal Ministry of Defense. In 1996, this study was continued. For this purpose, N = 2568 persons were interviewed on various issues. The present survey focused in particular on Security and threat perception, attitudes toward security policy, foreign deployments of the Federal Armed Forces, tasks of the Federal Armed Forces, the role of conscription, and military cooperation in Europe. Perception of security and threats: personal feeling of security; personal significance of various aspects of security (e.g. job security, military security, social security, security of income, ecological security, etc.) Interest in politics in general, in foreign policy, in security and defence policy as well as interest in the Federal Armed Forces; security policy interest at the beginning of the 1980s; security policy strategy of ´deterrence´ as a guarantee for peace in Europe, necessary Realpolitik or a threat to humanity; advocacy or rejection of military force; change in personal attitude towards military force; Reasons for change of attitude; reasons for not changing attitudes; personal relationship to the peace movement in the early 1980s and today; opinion on pacifism; opinion on the extent of public debate on security policy issues and on the Federal Armed Forces; future development of the number of international conflicts after the end of the Cold War; likelihood of a military threat to Germany; feeling threatened by: environmental destruction, violence, hatred, crime, unemployment, world wars, right-wing extremism, financial problems, new technologies, diseases and population growth; threat to world peace from various countries and regions (Islamic states, Third World, Russia, Central/Eastern Europe, USA, Western Europe, Germany, Middle East, China); current that will prevail worldwide in the future (national or nationalist thinking vs. voluntary cooperation and interdependence); assessment of nationalist thinking; assessment of voluntary cooperation; suitability of various institutions and instruments to protect Germany against military risks (NATO membership, other/ new treaties with neighbouring countries, United Nations (UN), European Union (EU), Federal Armed Forces, European Army, general disarmament, Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)). 2. Security policy attitudes, foreign missions of the Federal Armed Forces: Germany´s role in the world: preference for a rather active vs. rather passive international policy of Germany; approved or rejected measures for Germany´s international action (e.g. aid with food and medicine, aid of a financial and economic nature, technical aid by civil organisations, peacekeeping mission of the Federal Armed Forces within the framework of a UN mission, etc.); opinion on the peace-keeping mission of the Federal Armed Forces in various countries and regions (Eastern Europe, Russia, the Middle East, South-East Asia, Africa, NATO states, Western Europe; opinion on the future role of a state´s military power; opinion on the future staffing level of the Federal Armed Forces; assessment of Germany´s defence expenditure; general attitude towards the Federal Armed Forces. 3. Evaluation of public institutions: Institutional trust (Federal Constitutional Court, other courts, police, Bundesrat, state government, Federal Armed Forces, Bundestag, television, press, churches, trade unions, federal government, education, political parties); reliance on the Federal Armed Forces. 4. Attitude towards compulsory military service: Military service or alternative civilian service more important for society; decision for or against various community services (care of the sick, care of the elderly, military service/defence, care of the disabled, environmental protection/remedy of environmental damage, care of children in need of help, service with the police, border guards or fire brigade); community service which the interviewee would be most likely to opt for social service most likely to be refused; general attitude towards military service; opinion on the right to conscientious objection; frequency of different reasons for conscientious objection (religious reasons, military service as time lost, political reasons, military service not compatible with conscience, civilian service as a more convenient way, economic reasons, civilian service with greater benefit to society); general compulsory military service retained vs. conversion into a voluntary army; future of the Federal Armed Forces (Federal Armed Forces should be abolished, citizen´s army based on the Swiss model, purely voluntary army, current mix of conscripts, professional and temporary soldiers should be retained, fewer professional and temporary soldiers more military exercises for former soldiers); preference for the future of the Federal Armed Forces. 5. Tasks of the Federal Armed Forces: Preferences with regard to the tasks of the Federal Armed Forces (tasks of international arms control, fight against international terrorism, fight against international drug trafficking, border security against illegal immigrants, tasks in the field of environmental protection, international disaster relief, humanitarian aid and rescue services, reconstruction and development aid, international military advice, Combat operations on behalf of and under the control of the UN or other international organisations, peacekeeping operations on behalf of and under the control of the UN or international organisations, protection of the constitutional order in Germany, participation in celebrations and ceremonies, education and character building, defence of Germany, defence of allies, aid for threatened friendly nations); evaluation of the deployment of German soldiers in various UN missions with regard to: care of the suffering population, promotion of the international community, integration of Germany, strengthening of German national interests, stabilisation of world peace, strengthening of the reputation of the Federal Armed Forces, enforcement of human rights, establishment of democracy in the country of deployment, protection of the population in the country of deployment; assessment of the armament and equipment of the Federal Armed Forces; assessment of leadership training in the Federal Armed Forces; assessment of ´soldiering´ as a profession; personal acquaintance with a Federal Armed Forces soldier; personal advice to a relative or friend when considering volunteering for the Federal Armed Forces; importance of co-determination in civilian enterprises; importance of co-determination for soldiers in peacetime; preferences for voluntary service by women in the Federal Armed Forces (women do not belong in the Federal Armed Forces, only in unarmed service, all uses should be open to women); opinion on the complete withdrawal of US troops from Germany; opinion on the complete withdrawal of the Federal Armed Forces from the region; agreement on various possibilities for a new German security policy (extension of NATO security guarantees to Eastern Europe, common European foreign and security policy, restructuring of the military, return to national German interests, strengthening of political cooperation); the importance for Germany of a permanent seat on the UN Security Council; attitudes towards citizens of various neighbouring countries (Belgians, Danes, French, Dutch, Austrians, Poles, Swiss, Czechs and Luxemburgers); the most positive attitudes and the most negative attitudes towards neighbours; a feeling of belonging as West Germans, East Germans, Germans, Europeans or world citizens. 6. Military cooperation in Europe: familiarity of various associations with soldiers from different nations (e.g. German-French Brigade, Eurocorps, German-American Corps, German-Dutch Corps); opinion on military cooperation with various countries (USA, France, Netherlands, England, Belgium, Denmark, Italy); opinion on the creation of a European army; opinion on the political unification of Europe; opinion on the introduction of a common European currency, the Euro; evaluation of the performance of the Federal Armed Forces with regard to reunification in comparison to other institutions (trade unions, churches, political parties, employers´ associations, sports associations and media); opinion on the future NATO deployment of Federal Armed Forces combat troops. Demography: Sex; age (year of birth); education; additional vocational training; occupation; occupational group; net household income; marital status; denomination; residential environment (degree of urbanisation); city size; federal state; household size; number of persons in household aged 16 and over; Left-Right Self-Placement. Additionally coded: Respondent ID; age (categorised); West/East; weight.

United States US: Military Expenditure as % of General Government Expenditure data was reported at 8.807 % in 2017. This records a decrease from the previous number of 9.042 % for 2016. United States US: Military Expenditure as % of General Government Expenditure data is updated yearly, averaging 11.141 % from Sep 2001 (Median) to 2017, with 17 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 11.769 % in 2011 and a record low of 8.807 % in 2017. United States US: Military Expenditure as % of General Government 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.; Weighted average; Data for some countries are based on partial or uncertain data or rough estimates.

Throughout the 19th century, the share of military personnel employed by the United States government was below 0.2 percent of the total population in most years. There were noticeable spikes in enlistments and conscriptions during the American Civil War (1861-65), the First World War (1917-18*), and Second World War (1941-45*), as well as smaller increases during the Mexican-American War (1946-48) and the Spanish-American War (1898), but figures were generally much lower than the post-WWII era.

Following the Second World War, the United States abandoned many of its isolationist positions as it sought to become the world's leading superpower. This involved stationing millions of troops in overseas bases during the Cold War, in strategically important locations such as West Germany, Japan, and Taiwan. Additionally, involvement in conflicts such as the Korean War (1950-1953) and Vietnam War (1964-1973*) kept military employment high, usually between 1-2 percent until the 1970s. Figures remained just below the one percent mark until the 1990s, when the end of the Cold War and the growing influence of technology in conventional warfare saw a decrease in demand for many traditional combat roles. Despite U.S. involvement in a number of overseas conflicts in the 21st century, military personnel represented less than 0.5 percent of the total population in most years between 2000 and 2016.

This dataset tracks annual two or more races student percentage from 2016 to 2023 for First State Military Academy vs. Delaware and First State Military Academy School District

Military units in United States occupation of Haiti. name, image, role, date dissolved, date founded, city Headquarters, administrative division Headquarters, country Headquarters, continent Headquarters, Country, continent, Part of

In the United States, National Guard soldiers have been called upon at unprecedented rates since 2001 to supplement active duty military forces. Frequent military deployments generate many occupational and environmental stressors for these citizen-soldiers, from serving in a dangerous zone to being away from family and home for long periods of time. Whereas there is a substantial amount of research focused on deployment-related health outcomes in relation to active duty (i.e., full-time) military populations, reserve forces are less understood. This study focuses on a United States Army National Guard combat unit deployed to Afghanistan. This prospective longitudinal study was conducted over the course an operational deployment cycle (i.e., before, during, and after) to document the evolution of salient mental health outcomes (i.e., post-traumatic stress, depression, general anxiety, and aggression). The findings show that both combat (e.g., killing others) and non-combat (e.g., boredom) stressors negatively affect mental health outcomes, and the severity of these outcomes increases over the course of a deployment cycle. Of special note, the study reveals key gender differences in the evolution of post-traumatic stress (PTS), depression, and anxiety across a deployment cycle: females report increased PTS, depression, and anxiety 6 months post-deployment, whereas the levels reported by males stabilize at their mid-deployment levels. The findings offer insights for medical providers and policymakers in developing more targeted health promotion campaigns and interventions, especially at the post-deployment phase.

Historical Dataset of First State Military Academy is provided by PublicSchoolReview and contain statistics on metrics:Total Students Trends Over Years (2016-2023),Total Classroom Teachers Trends Over Years (2016-2023),Distribution of Students By Grade Trends,Student-Teacher Ratio Comparison Over Years (2016-2023),Asian Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (2017-2023),Hispanic Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (2016-2023),Black Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (2016-2023),White Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (2016-2023),Two or More Races Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (2016-2023),Diversity Score Comparison Over Years (2016-2023),Free Lunch Eligibility Comparison Over Years (2016-2023),Reading and Language Arts Proficiency Comparison Over Years (2017-2022),Math Proficiency Comparison Over Years (2017-2022),Science Proficiency Comparison Over Years (2021-2022),Overall School Rank Trends Over Years (2017-2022),Graduation Rate Comparison Over Years (2019-2022)