Talk:Military of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: `<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->` `\|B-Class-1=yes/no` `<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->` `\|B-Class-2=yes/no` `<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->` `\|B-Class-3=yes/no` `<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->` `\|B-Class-4=yes/no` `<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->` `\|B-Class-5=yes/no`
Related task forces (nations and regions):
	United States military history task force

United States Portal

This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

[edit] Broken link

I tried to access the 8th source(the link for the pdf file Base Structure Report) but it seems to be broken. Could someone fix this problem, please?

[edit] Formatting

Is 'United States Armed Forces' a proper noun? The capitalization on the phrasing is irregular within the article. The term 'armed forces,' referring generically to a group of military branches, is certainly not. A quick survey of whitehouse.gov press releases (e.g. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html) indicates that the phrase probably should be capitalized when it refers specifically to the Armed Forces of the United States, and I have changed the lowercase usages accordingly. Tofof 15:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Why isn't there a Criticism section, certainly there should be one. Hempeater 20:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

i agree with you, actually i just came to this page searching for the criticism after i read the budget list, i mean, does anyone questions WHY do the USA spends SO MUCH on military? USA haven't been in a major war (a war supposed to actually be a danger to the country) since, let's say...WWII! setting aside the civil war and the american revolutian USA just go around fighting other people's war, then why do they keep spending ALL THIS MONEY on military? you guys have to make a criticism section, and dont forget to include conspiracy theories of world domination and israel's protector. and oh jeez i almost forgot, mentioning also the high budget but the difficults to fight poor iraqis and etc (the state has everything it could have to win any war anywhere in 24 hours but can't handle 3rd countries with old guns and techniques, fighting only with passion and/or hate)

US spends a lot because the US has a lot of money. The US spends less than 25 other countries in terms of GDP dollar and US spending is lower than it has been historically. If you want tips on how to insert your POV into the article, check out my user page. Daniel Quinlan 05:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The US spends a lot of money because the US military has their shit together and can lobby like no other group in the country. With the nebulous risk to the nation's security, and the heavy money in the weapons industry, they are a notorious powerhouse. Also, it helps with the economy in Keynsian terms as recruiting for the military or spending money on weapons projects picks up the slack of unemployment and spurs the economy forward. The UK does this to less effect with the NHS. 199.172.169.17 10:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The military of a nation is the one thing that keeps that nation in existence. The military allows us to enjoy all the other aspects of society. The US has the most powerful military on the entire planet. US citizens should be appreciative of that.

The great Martin Luther King said that a nation underwent “spiritual death” when it spent more on “defense” than on “social uplift.” We should always remember that much of what we call “defense” is in fact what Pentagon insiders like to call “forward global force projection” – well, empire, including more than 700 military bases located in nearly every nation on earth. It is also worth recalling that much of our military budget is a huge taxpayer transfer payment to gigantic high-tech corporations like Boeing, Lockheed-Martin and Raytheon. Those powerful corporations have made a profit killing on all the human killing that’s been going on in the name of “the war on terror.” That I hope should answer the 1st reply. As for the last argument about the military being the one thing that keeps a nation in existence is essentialy flawed in the case of the US; Have there been many attacks on US soil since Pearl Harbor? I think not. In essence, the US military is used to secure strategic interests not defend the country.

I say If you can find any notable critisisms about the Military then go ahead and post them... remember... your own critisisms do not count Drew1369 18:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I would agree completely with your article if your facts were correct. I'm not trying to be mean with this, or criticize anyone on this page, its just I do a lot of military reading, and am very very interested in the subject. And well I could argue with some posts on this page, I'm not going to. It's simply unnecessary. But here's what I will say. The last major war to actually "be a danger to our country", which is very open to opinion, but I think would be safe to say the Cold War. It was what caused the US's major military buildup, to compete with the USSR. Since that only ended in 1991, much of that buildup still continues. And that reason for that buildup; the same way as it was in the Cold War. If the US wants to hold on to their position as a World Superpower, they must keep up their Military. Especially since our current relation with other powerful countries is, to say the least, weak. If something happens in the future that turns one of our powerful allies against us, we need the military superiority. It reminds me of the saying, "Speak Quietly, but walk with a big stick". Our military is that big stick. There our a few countries that our attempting to copy our military strength, but in order to be political and amicable, I not going to name them. If we stop our huge spending, we will fall behind, and the results would be bad, to say the least. I do agree that more needs to be spent in places like healthcare, and education, but let’s not take that money from the Military. However, I think the war on Iraq is a complete waste of funds. Imagine if we spent those Billions on the people who need it most. That would be a country I'd be more proud of. I think we have had some bad leaders lately, who are unable to juggle the responsibilty of keeping a well fit Military while at the same time keeping every US citizen at the same level. Edwardlay 04:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous

Are you sure that 18 is actually the age of the U.S. military? That's kind of unclear. From what I remember, people of age 16 with GED and parental permission can join the U.S. Military. --Cyberman 02:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Its actually age 17. GEDs have a very small quota for enlistment though, so its more difficult to join the military with a GED than a high school diplomia. Age 17 does require a consent from a legal guardian though. -J

What about the Merchant marine? --rmhermen—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.152.152.123 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 19 June 2002.

Ok, it moved. I got very confused, especially with the fit / vs. reaching change thrown in there..... Dobbs 15:54 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

All right, here is the re-edit. While it is a bit long on history in the organization section, no one I have ever spoken to who does not follow these things has ever heard of Goldwater-Nichols. Everyone still thinks that the military is organized on WWII lines, so I thought it best to explain. In addition, my understanding is that many foreign armed forces are structured along the older WWII lines (no, not exactly - but bear with me), so to draw out the differences might be good. Dobbs 18:03 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

"Under the United States Constitution, the President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The President is responsible for ordering the armed forces through the Secretary of Defense to perform an objective. To coordinate military action with diplomatic action, the President has an advisory National Security Council."

You know, I thought of going top down as well, but this kinda confuses the issue IMHO. The Prez doesn't HAVE to order action via. the SECDEF, he could order the regional CINC, or the Joint Chiefs if he wanted to. Additionally, if the Prez (or vice-prez promoted to Prez) is incapacitated, the SECDEF can order action on his own. I thought that came across easier flowing up, rather than down. You think we might need a short ASCII chart or something?

           ----President---------------------------
          |        |            |                 |
          |                     |                 |
          |        |            |                 |
       SECDEF-----   -----------|                 |
          |        |            |                 |
          |                     |                 |
          |        |       Chairman JCOS         NSC
          |                     | 
          |        |            | 
          |                   JCOS
          |        |
 Functional or Regional CINC
              |
              |
              |
Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine 
Responsible commanding General

The reason why this is important, is that is a very real sense in the USA, the CINC reports to the SECDEF, not to the President. That is to say, if the SECDEF orders the CINC to do something, he doesn't say "OK, but I'm gonna check with the president first." In the same vein, during the last days of the Nixon administration, a quiet order went out that the SECDEF was to countersign all orders, especially those regarding nukes, issuing from the President. Again, the Prez COULD order CINC's, but he doesn't - and the SECDEF is subordinate to the Prez, but he can lawfully order action on his own. Dobbs 18:49 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

Why was this removed? I think it is extremely useful to discuss the organizational history of the U.S. Armed Forces!

"Organization During and immediately after World War II, the United States military was organized along lines of command that reported to their respective service chiefs (i.e. General of the Army, Admiral of the Navy). These chiefs in turn reported to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Joint Chiefs of Staff was a body formed by high-level representatives of each service, who elected a Chairman to communicate with the civilian government. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in turn reported to the Secretary of Defense, the civilian head of the military. Both the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense reported to the President of the United States, who simultaneously holds the military rank of commander-in-chief.

This system lead to serious counter productive inter-service rivalry. Peacetime activities (such as procurement and creation of doctrine, etc.) were tailored for each service in isolation. Just as seriously, wartime activities of each service were planned, executed, and evaluated independently. These practices resulted in division of effort, the inability to profit from economies of scale, and inhibited the development of modern warfare doctrine.

The inability to work with other service branches was made apparent with the formulation of AirLand battle doctrine in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. AirLand battle was an attempt to synthesize into a single doctrine all of the capabilities of the service arms of the military. This system envisioned ground, naval, air, and space based systems acting in concert to attack and defeat an opponent in depth. Realization of this ideal was impossible due to these structural factors.

To rectify these significant problems, the Goldwater-Nichols act of 1986 provided for the complete reorganization of the United States military command structure. It was the most far-reaching organizational change since the creation of the Air Force as a separate entity in 1947.

Goldwater-Nichols changed the way each service interacted with each other. Rather than reporting to a service chief, each service reported to a commander responsible for a specific function (Transportation, Space, Special Operations), or a geographic region of the globe (Europe, Middle East, etc.), known as the commander-in-chief (CINC). This combined arms commander would be responsible for fielding a force capable of employing AirLand battle doctrine (or its successors), with all assets available to the military. This allowed combination of effort, integrated planning, shared procurement, and a reduction or elimination in inter-service rivalry between commanders. This addressed a major conflict with Military Art, the rule of unity of command. Individual services changed from war fighting entities into organizational and training units, responsible for readiness. Thus CENTCOM (Central Command) for example, would be assigned air, ground, and naval assets in order to achieve its objective, not the inefficient method of individual services planning, supporting, and fighting the same war.

Shared procurement caused the most notable change in the peacetime military. This allowed technological advances to be quickly suffused throughout the military, and provided other ancillary benefits (such as the interoperability of radios between services, heretofore unknown in the military). Additionally, major technological advances, such as stealth and smart weapons were shared between services without duplication of effort, and joint implementation of new technology allowed for joint development of supporting doctrine.

United States military organization now flows from service arm generals (such as the commander of an Army division or corps), to the appropriate regional or functional CINC. The CINC reports to the Secretary of Defense. Both the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense report to the president, the national CINC. This profoundly changes the role of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It now acts as a military advisory body for the President, without operational control of any regional command. In practice, the CINC advises both the Chairman and the Secretary as to conditions in his area of responsibility. Of course, the Secretary can deputize the Chairman to supervise the CINC, as happened in the Gulf War when Richard Cheney ordered Colin Powell to command Norman Schwarzkopf."

I can understand reorganizing it, or moving it to history. But the overall discussion, including the understanding of command and control of the Armed forces is very useful to a more complete understanding of the subject.

I can site more sources if that is the problem. But COMPLETE REMOVAL? I'm confused! Dobbs 17:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have figures for the actual number of service members in the various branches? --rmhermen

The DoD's Statistical Information Analysis Division keeps track of that info as well as a lot of other interesting minutiae. (including the countries and regions where they're currently deployed, to answer Mulad's question below) 24.248.218.142 08:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking it might be interesting to have a list of places where U.S. military forces are currently deployed (then perhaps another page listing previous deployments). Maybe there is one somewhere already. —Mulad 05:26, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

I removed the following as POV: America and allies "spend 57 times more than the seven "rogue states" combined (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria). " This statement is an obvious attempt to whitewash and deny the very real threat that the regimes of these states, even with a low budget, constitute to their neighbors and to the world. Try telling the persecuted minorities in Sudan in danger of genocide by the government that Sudan is not really a "rogue state" because they have little money. Ditto for the inhabitants of Seoul who have lived in the sights of North Korean artillery for the last fifty years. If you want to make the point about the size of American military expenditures, the note about them accounting for whatever huge share of the world total, with appropriate notes about the reasons for that, should be quite sufficient.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.12.51.110 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 11 April 2004.

In the interests of full disclosure, the comment above was made by me, before I have registered on Wikipedia. Watcher 01:09, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I completly agree. Edwardlay 04:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure about this???

Of course, the Secretary can deputize the Chairman to supervise the CINC, as happened in the Gulf War when Richard Cheney ordered Colin Powell to command Norman Schwarzkopf.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roadrunner (talk • contribs) 02:55, 14 May 2004.

I changed the Recruitment:Enlisted section a bit. It referred to E-1, E-2, etc. as ranks. They are actually pay grades, not grades of rank. This is a fairly important distinction, for instance, some E-4s are NCOs by virtue of their rank, and some are not. I also removed the link brackets around the pay grades; they just went to disambiguation pages that had nothing to do with US military pay grades.

--68.41.122.213 00:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Budget Inconsistency

There is an inconsistency with the main article at Military budget of the United States, which states that "(w)hile the overall U.S. military budget has risen over time, as a percentage of its GDP, the United states spends 4% on military. This compares higher than France's 2.6%, and lower than Saudi Arabia's 10%." This article lists the United States' military budget as 3.7% of its GDP. Which figure is correct?

Abrichr 01:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I just checked on CIA factbook and it says its 4.06% of the GDP.

Actually the budget reflected in the article is probably accurate mostly because of the fiscal military budget released every year by the Executive Branch compared to the Treasury Department report of the GDP yearly. ViriiK 05:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I like to expand on this.

The budget released by the White House displays that the budget for 2006 is 413.6 billion dollars.

In the summary table found here [1], the GDP for 2005 is 12.227 trillion and for 2006 is 12.907 trillion. The White House gave 400.1 billion in 2005 (3.2723%) and 419.3 billion in 2006 (3.2486%). Now this is not counting the War on Terrorism and War in Iraq budget which the % seems to count that in too according to the citation used. ViriiK 05:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Among almost the 128 articles of Category:Militaries, the overwhelming convention is to use 'Military of country'. We should almost certainly move this page to 'Military of the United States' to fall in with this convention. •→Iñgólemo ←• 04:11, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)

I think it should be "U.S. military." Maurreen 17:23, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unless there are any objections, I'd like to move the Budget sections down the page a bit. I think most people reading this article would want information about capabilities and command structure first. -- Friedo 16:13, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion

I am going to revert edits by 137.186.225.118. This material at least needs attribution. Maurreen 17:23, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

United States armed forces → Military of the United States – The vast majority of the countries military pages are titled "Military of <country name>" — srs 03:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

add: * Support or * Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and a signature:"~~~~"

Support. Follows convention, and "military" is easier to categorize than "armed forces". --A D Monroe III 14:19, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Support, follows convention. Warofdreams 11:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---Add any additional comments on the "Requested move" below this line ---

Is there a legal diffrence between "United States armed forces" and "Military of the United States"?. See combatant (which takes its definition from Third Geneva Convention Article 4):

Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict
Members of militias not under the command of the armed forces

The US constitution includes the "and of the Militia of the several States" should the States Militia included in this if it is moved? Philip Baird Shearer 11:46, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

        "And the militia of the several states" means the national gaurd ````Drew

I think military is a superset of armed forces, so it would be correct to include everything from armed forces in military. The definition of armed forces seems to suggest that it relates specifically to a state, but the title "Military of the United States" should make it clear that we are referring to the military forces of the United States. Not being a lawyer, I'm not sure of any legal differences, however. srs 23:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

I've tried to implement some of the suggestions listed here I put the long discussion of the budget on its own page, and I added a list of where personel are deployed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.102.42.97 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 21 March 2005.

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 21:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganise

I think all of the pages - US armed forces, US Department of Defense, and all the services (US Army etc.) need to be reorganised, First so that there is not uneeded overlap, and Second so that Army, Navy etc. are all set out the same way (eg. similar headings and article structure, just with different content.)

and maybe Joint Chiefs of Staff etc.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.168.97.7 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 22 March 2005.

[edit] Expenses

I think it would be interresting to have more datas on the military expense of USA vs. other countries, like expenses per capita or relative to some indicator of the country wealthiness GNP or GDP for instance. Ericd 21:15, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've added this information under Budget comparison. Scott5834 17:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First strike policy

Can the person who added this:

However, it is the standing policy of the United States military to never strike an opponent first with nuclear weapons, but rather as retaliation to similar attacks.

provide a reference?

It was my understanding that the US/NATO did not have a no first use policy.. In fact, I thought it was the Soviet Union which had this policy (due to their large conventional forces superiority in Europe), and that it was NATO which had plans to use tactical nukes in case of a soviet invasion. srs 05:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you're correct, but so is the text. I've heard it expressed the way you describe it, and the way the text describes it. That NATO policy was in regards to a fight against the Soviet Union during the Cold War years. A war against a smaller country, such as Saddam's Iraq, would be a different matter. I don't have a reference, though, nor do I know whether that NATO policy still stands. -- Randy 18:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think its pretty safe to say that US wouldn't be the first to use nuclear weapons in a fight where it had a large conventional weapons superiority, but were it (or close European allies), to be on the losing side of a large scale conventional war, and their terrorities threatened, I think that nuclear weapons would be used. I don't think the US ever had a policy that expressly stated that it would only use WMDs in the case that it was attacked with similar weapons. In fact, its just the opposite, especially recently: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22374-2002Jun9.html srs 19:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the USA has a no-first use policy. Does anyone have any references?--KiwiDave 13:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

IMO the USA have switched from a doctrine of gradual response to a doctrine of preventive war (I don't know if I use the exact English expressions...). As of today military doctrines about the switch from conventional war to nuclear war are really unclear in the USA as well as in many (western of not) countries (unclear/nuclear... that's funny... or not... My dyslexic nature is more obvious to me in English than in French.) Ericd 03:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

About the Washington Post article : In fact the Bush admistration striked first against nations that had no weapons of mass destructions. Ericd 03:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] reaching military age

Why do people keep changing this number? If you want to change it, not list females, etc, PLEASE say why before you do. Or cite a source.protohiro 17:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 73 million?

Availability: males & females ages 15-49: 73,597,731 (2004 est.)

Is this correct?

I have no idea. What concerns me is listing 15-49. Under what horrifying circumstances would we be using 15 year olds in our service? func(talk) 00:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Historically, these are the ages used in combat and drafting in times of desparation. ChronoSphere 00:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The listing of people age 15-49 is on the page of every country's military. I think it is pretty silly, but it is standard - it comes from the CIA world factbook. The fact is the number of people in this age group is pretty meaningless. Why not a country's total population. The point is to get some estimate of manpower, yet any listing, whether of total population or of males within a certain age group (which will to a great extent be related to the total population) can hardly give a true estimate of a country's military potential. Such statistical breakdowns of population should probably be gotten rid of.

It derives from the census method of measuring population by age: 0-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, etc. Admittedly, it's annoying when trying to measure adult populations, but it helps for data gathering when age of majority doesn't factor in. --RealGrouchy 22:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

If there is any way to change the table just for this site, the CIA World Factbook uses 18-49 as the available ages for military service. Those numbers are:

"males age 18-49: 54,609,050

females age 18-49: 54,696,706 (2005 est.)"

these are the numbers actually usable by the US military, and are therefore, IMO, more relevant for this article.MikeNM 20:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, people don't even have to register for the draft until they turn 18. Even so, if a draft were to happen, our total troops numbers would jump up fast. Highly doubtfull unless WWIII sudenly starts out of no where though. Crashedata 18:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's no my intention to flame or anything, but WWIII cannot "start out of nowhere". If one does break, we all know that the one to blame will be the country going around bombing and invading others and dangling its aircraft carriers in the face of the world. I apologize for saying what you don't wanna hear. Lixy 12:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Age should be changed to 17, in my opinion. And even though we must register for the draft at 18, if I were to occur, 18+19 year olds most likely wouldn't be drafted at all. The order goes like this: 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 19, 18. I got somewhere on sss.gov. Edwardlay 04:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bases

There is a vote here to change "Military bases" categories to "Military facilities" categories. Maurreen 09:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Uniforms

Can we have a section on Uniforms. I know they differ between service, but I managed to add a section on Personell and Ranks - even though the services have different ranking systems, there are some similarities, for example, some form of ROTC, enlisted/officer distinction, MOS, enlisties going in at E-1 for Basic training, then going to E-2 etc, etc. I don't know enough about uniforms, but could someone compare and contrast the different types of uniforms eg. what are Utility uniforms, Service uniforms, battle dress, Mess dress etc. - Matthew238 04:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

We can have whatever we/you want (within established community criteria, of course). Be bold, create the uniforms article (if it doesn't already exist in whatever form) put in what you know, however little, create a link on the appropriate service pages' "See also" sections, or wherever else would be appropriate, and then stand by for merciless editing by other wikipedians... --Easter Monkey 05:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I would add a section, but I don't know anything about the subject. - Matthew238 05:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why is Military manpower Availability males & females?

I have noticed that the entry on Availability of the Military manpower table of the United States and Israel include males and females, while all other Armed forces only have "males".

You make it seem like Israel and the USA are the only countries in the world that allow women to serve in the Armed Forces.

This is false, because in most countries, the opportunities for males and females are exactly the same in the military. In fact, the United States is more sexist than, say, Germany, because unlike Germany they do not allow female Combat Troops. However, the German constitution makes it illegal to draft women into the Armed Forces under any circumstance.

In Norway, women can be drafted, yet the Availability entry for Norway also only mentions males.

unsigned comment by User:Mohmar Deathstrike 05:09, 13 November 2005

I'd assume it's a matter of availability of references, not a susposed lack of sexism.

If you have references on the numbers of women in other armies, then go ahead and add them. --A D Monroe III 00:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The availability is based on population within military age (18-60?), if I'm not mistaken. So that should be fairly simple.

Let's see if my edit's in other countries' military wikis get removed.

Male and Female are under the Availability section... What doesn't it mean ? Well, I don't know... As of today women and men can serve in the French army and I don't believe there's any legal discrimination. But I believe in the case of a general mobilization only male would be mobilized. Maybe the US law allow of a mobilization of Male and Female ? Ericd 04:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Women aren't supposed to fight on the front lines in a war. Dudtz 9:21 PM EST

[edit] POV

"The United States Armed Forces is the most powerful military in the world and their power projection capabilities are unrivaled by any other singular nation (e.g. People's Republic of China, Russia, India) or organization (e.g. the European Union)." This is pure POV if you ask me. How the hell have you come to this fact? Ammounts of victories? Ammounts of personell? The nukes? Just give me a strong motive, please.

Are you disagreeing with the validity of the statement, or just its tone?

As for the validity, I don't know of any reliable source that thinks some other military organization rivals that of the U.S., which spends as much on its military as the next ten militaries combined (as shown in this article). The U.S. is often referred to as "the world's only superpower", or even "hyperpower". If you have a source that says otherwise, it would be good to add it.

As for the tone, I suppose you could say that it sounds prideful. However, I know some U.S. citizens who do not share such pride in their country's overt might, even given the current wording. Even so, if you have some ideas on changing the tone for a non-U.S. POV, go ahead and edit it. --A D Monroe III 18:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The US Military is the most powerful military in the world, and its capability to project power is unrivaled. While it might seem POV, boastful, or prideful, it is the truth. Jrkarp 03:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with the original poster. It's true that the US Military is generally considered as the most powerful military in the world, it cannot, however, be proven that it is. With the invention of nuclear weapons the definition of military power changed dramatically, and it has to be noted that most military information is not known to the general public, therefore one-on-one army comparisons are difficult to make and stating that a certain military is the most powerful is impossible to prove. I changed the sentence from The United States Armed Forces is the... to The United States Armed Forces is generally considered the....

Why even compare the US armed forces to the EU in the first place ? Do I feel some anti-european sentiment ? Seriously, the POV in this article, as well as the americentrism, need to be toned down. We need references, credible numbers, and somebody who can write with an NPOV. –Aquarelle 12:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, there is no comparison :) - A

While I am immensly prideful when it comes to our armed forces, I agree that it is hard to prove that it is the most powerful. It is, however, not disputable that we have the greatest capability for projection of power, and thus, I believe that this part of the statement should remain.MikeNM 20:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's pure opinion and it's got to go. Stick with the facts; highest military expenditure, second largest in terms of personnel, one of 9 nations known to have nuclear weapons, one of approximately XXX with the ability to project force around the world.--KiwiDave 13:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It is pure opinion and unsubstantiated by the facts, the US military hasn't won a war since the Korean War and that was a truce. I should rephrase that, they haven't won a war against someone they hadn't already armed first... -- chebizarro—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.133.69.201 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 9 August 2006.(adding unsigned template as this is the real contributor. No proof that user chebizarro posted this.)--Nobunaga24 00:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That comment is pure POV as well. Shouldn't we just stick to the facts? I should rephrase that, shouldn't we just stick to what is commonly known to be true? Otherwise I am afraid Wikipedia is going to be a ditatorship of the town idiots... There are plenty of other places where you can voice your unfounded political views, regardless of what they might be. This is not the place to do so ;) MartinDK 10:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The US forces are the most technologically advanced and best equipped in the world. They also huge, superior, naval and airborne fleets. They have the best power projection capability, and a huge base of active troops. They have a budget no other nation can realistically compete with. Someone please explain to me why the power of the US forces are doubted? If they aren't the most powerful, who is? China? A huge, poorly equipped & poorly trained army that desperately needs a bigger budget. And their power projection capability really isn't on the same level. So yes, the evidence says that the statement should stay there - unless any rational argument exists that some other nation has somehow managed to compete with the budget, numerical advantage, and technology of the US forces. --Karafias 01:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This statement is true, no other country can even spend that much on their military.

It is a bit prideful, but it is true...

--NitemareDragon

Its not a point of view because there is no evidence that any country has a more powerful military. You could use pure numbers such as the budget that is completely unrivaled because it takes up 40% of the world military budget.--HAVOK14

[edit] Template:Military

Talk:Military of the United States
[[Military Manpower of {{{country}}}\|Military Manpower]]
Military age	18 years of age
Availability	Males age 15-49: 134,813,023^[2], including females (2005 est.)
Fit for military service	Males age 15-49:
Reaching military age annually	Males: 4,180,074, including females (2005 est.)
Active troops	1,427,000 (ranked 2nd)
[[Military Expenditures of {{{country}}}\|Military Expenditures]]
Amount	$400 billion (2005 est.)
Percent of GDP	3.7% (2005 est.)

[edit] Notes

^ This figure is from ages 18 to 49.

[edit] Overseas

Are these figures for oversea deployments accurate? I thought that the US pulled troops out of Germany. pstudier 19:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

They were accurate when they were first added. It just depends on how often various facts and statistics are updated. - Matthew238 01:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ?

If the U.S. has 2.26 million personnel (including reserves), wouldn't have the largest military force in the world? Because China has 2.25 million, but is this not counting their reserves?--Moosh88 21:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for this number ? I think that it is far too large. In fact, I am under the impression that the US has the 3rd largest military after China and India. Sorry, Americans. –Aquarelle 12:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

In terms total number of troops the United states would have less then many countrys. In terms of the number of Active Troops, the United States is second to China. The reference is in the article itself. The US has 2.9 million total, China has 14.5 million total.

Where do you get 14.5 million from? China has 3 million, the US has 2.9 and India has 2.48 million troops. The US has second largest active duty military in the world.

[edit] Age of Army

I recently about 5 months ago talked to an Army recruiter and the age of Army is 18. You can sign up at 17 however you are NOTenlisted until you complete all of your training which doesn't happen until age 18 at the soonest

THIS IS FALSE. I enlisted at 17 and didn't turn 18 until after I had finished infantry OSUT training, jump school and ranger indoctrination training, went on leave and was stationed at 2/75 Ranger battalion for months. The second you show up for active-duty initial entry and raise your right hand and swear the oath, you are ENLISTED. The US military accepts 17 year-olds with the permission of their parents. Since a HS diploma is USUALLY required, most 17 year-olds would be ineligible. I skipped first grade and so graduated at 17.199.173.226.235 19:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but just to be sure, we need to make sure we have a reference (it may be incredibly standard that kids don't enlist until they are 18, but perhaps there is some part of the law that alows them to do it at 17 or 16). As well, there have been some changes to the ages of military manpower availability without actually changing the numbers (just the ages). Logic says that the age restrictions can't change without the numbers changing, so we need to clarify that as well. I believe it's all listed on the CIA page, although I hate to oversite this particular source. –Aquarelle 05:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

They can enlist at 17 with their parent/guardian's permission. They cannot go to combat til they are 18 which would not occur because they will turn 18 before they complete all of their initial training and schooling--Looper5920 06:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Then this should be reworded to Enlistment Age b/c yes you can enlist at 17 w/parents consent but my sister who has been in Army for 18years(she's still in it) told me that your not considered a Soldjeir(excuse my spelling plz)until you complete all of basic training and get your millitary ID Card and even if you enlist at 17 if you do something that is against the requirments it voids your contract hence your not army.

One of the first things you get AFTER swearing the Oath of Enlistment is an ID Card. Indeed, you cannot proceed with any other processing until you get your ID Card. Training, and getting your initial uniform and equipment issue comes AFTER you get your ID Card. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 15:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It is inaccurate that someone cannot go into combat before the age of 18. A person may enlist with parental permission at the age of 17. One could enlist on one's 17th birthday, go to recruit training (7-13 weeks depending on branch), follow it on with weeks or months of advanced training, and be deployed - including going into combat - before their 18th birthday. I've seen it happen several times among friends who graduated from high school at 17 and wound up deployed or deployable by their 18th birthday. A 17 year old enlistee is treated no differently from an 18 year old...the 17 year old simply needed parental permission to enlist.

[edit] United States article on featured candidate nominations list

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States

Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.--Ryz05 _t 23:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World Factbook

To be consistent, should this, and then all Wikipedia "military of..." articles be updated to use numbers provided by the current CIA World Factbook? MikeNM 14:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics

Could demographics be incorporated into this article? --67.68.24.245 08:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military polices

Although it looks they are not part of the Military Police Corps, several units or agencies like Pentagon Force Protection Agency, Master-at-arms or Naval Criminal Investigative Service perform law enforcement or police tasks. Should these articles be in Category:Military Police Corps or Category:United States military police, or in a new category (wider than Category:Military Police Corps) like Category:US Military law enforcement? Apokrif 17:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The Pentagon Force Protection Agency is a civilian agency, while the NCIS and the US Army Criminal Investigative Division - and their sibling in the Air Force - are part of the Military Police Sphere. The Master-At-Arms is a time-honored position aboard ship, and they parallel the Navy's Shore Patrol, which is the Navy's answer to the Army's Military Police, and the Air Force's Air Police. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 15:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the article: " NIS mission was again clarified and became a mostly civilian agency", "During the 1970s, NIS civilian agents gained civil service status" Apokrif 13:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct about Civil Service Status, but under the General Schedule list of titles. Almost ALL of the Civilians in the NCIS (NIS was upgraded and renamed) are accepted from the Military, and most of those are from the Navy. The same is true for the Army's Criminal Investigation Division. Keeping the Detectives out of Uniform gives them a measure of independence from the Chain of Command that could otherwise color or influence an investigation, but they both are still IN the Chain of Command. It is just that their links attach at the level of their respective service Secretary.SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 16:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question: Damage Controlman

Master Chief Damage Controlman D. Westlye, Command Master Chief for Commander Naval Region Northeast, Detachment New York, leads a group of U.S. Navy Sailors into “Ground Zero”

Where at Wikipedia can I find information about Damage Controlmen? What are their duties? What ranks etc. do they have? Is this limited to the USN? Scriberius 13:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Navigational Box

It seems that most military articles have a navigational box to the right, such as the one on military of France or military of Mexico. This one doesn't, and as one of the most powerful militaries in the world, it should. I don't have the knowledge to make one myself, but it'd be great if someone else could. Thanks, Atb129 19:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requirements.

There should be a part of this page which explains the requirements for being in the military in more detail than simply "You don't have to be an American Citizen". I, for one, would love to go to the military, but unfortunately I have a bit of bad luck in that they don't allow persons who must take medicines to join the military. That they have standards that disallow certain people from joining should be noted, and if there exists any statistics on the number of people who want to join the military but can't I would also like to know.

Thanks! (Starblade)

[edit] US Military Sign Language?

I have noticed in...Video games...MIlitary recruiting commercials....a certain sign language for saying things like "The area is clear" or "Regroup" or "Hold your fire". Things like that.... I was wondering if there is an article on this? --Johnston49er 04:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How many foreign countries host U.S. Military bases?

The article says 132, which is wildly inaccurate. [3]. --Mathew5000 18:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I copied the following, down to my post of 1901 16 Novemeber, from the Humanities reference desk. DJ Clayworth

The trailer for Why We Fight (2005 film) has a clip of Chalmers Johnson stating there are “725 American military bases in 130 foreign countries”. Is that accurate? I find it difficult to believe that ⅔ of the world's countries host U.S. military bases. Category:Overseas military bases refers to bases in just a handful of countries. How many countries actually do host U.S. military bases and is there a list of those countries on Wikipedia? Thanks. --Mathew5000 10:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Matthew - our article Military of the United States claims 702 bases in 132 countries, which is sourced to the Base Structure Report located here (link loads a pdf file). I haven't counted the bases and countries, but there are 13 pages of Army, and another 10 of Air Force so there's a fair few to be sure. I also saw an 'Unknown' column, which is potentially somewhat unnerving... --Mnem e son 10:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There might be several bases being dismanteled but still on the lists and papers, and other bases who simply don't appear on the official papers, as in "secret bases". I remember that a base in Iceland had been dismanteled a couple of months ago (therefore after the movie). On the whole US military bases appear to be closing in some safe areas and new (perhaps fewer) bases appear in troubled zones. Flamarande 12:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Mnemeson. The pdf file is a 1999 report, so it's odd that the Wikipedia article states such a precise number without adding "as of 1999". But aside from that, I don't see where that report says there are bases in 132 countries. For example, "Puerto Rico" is not a country; "Crete" is not a country, "Indian Ocean" is not a country. --Mathew5000 17:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Following up, I went through that list in the 1999 base report, and it names only 29 distinct foreign countries in which the U.S. has military bases. How could anyone have believed that the true figure is 132? The 29 foreign countries named in the 1999 report are:

Antigua - Air Force; Australia - Navy, Air Force; Bahamas - Navy; Bahrain - Navy; Belgium - Army, Air Force; Colombia - Air Force; Cuba - Navy; Denmark - Air Force, Air Force [Greenland]; Egypt - Navy; France - Air Force; Germany - Army, Air Force; Greece - Navy [Crete], Air Force; Iceland - Navy; Italy - Army, Navy, Air Force; Japan - Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines; Korea - Army, Navy, Air Force; Marshall Islands - Army [Kwajalein Atoll]; Luxembourg - Army; Netherlands - Army, Air Force; Norway - Air Force; Oman - Air Force; Panama - Army, Air Force; Peru - Navy; Portugal - Air Force; Singapore - Navy, Air Force; Spain - Navy, Air Force; Turkey - Air Force; UK - Army, Navy, Air Force [St Helena], Air Force; Venezuela - Air Force;

--Mathew5000 18:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed Indonesia, a navy base totalling 3200sq.ft. But apart from that I entirely agree. I'll change the article. DJ Clayworth 18:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

However this page add Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Ethopia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq. this page adds Jordan, Quatar, UAE. this page adds some things called 'port of call' in places like Uraguay and Hong Kong. The definition of 'base' may be variable. DJ Clayworth 19:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You probably also missed Ecuador (Correa, the new president vowed not to extend the contract). I think the article lacks honesty about the US military presence abroad. For example, since a consensus on the the definition of base couldn't be reached, it would be fair to list the countries with military presence. Ironically, it might be a lot more faster to just list the ones that don't have military personel in them. Seriously though, a document from 1999 (conveniently right before W&co) has very little relevance and updated sources should be added to reflect the current reality. It doesn't necessarily have to be official documents from the DoD.Lixy 17:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, the numbers are correct; "In 2003 Pentagon owned (rented) 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and had another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories"; here is the Department of the Defense report from 2003. Lovelight 14:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that the numbers (702) are skewed and do need to be dated since, for example, it lists Rhein Mein as an active base yet it closed in 2005. This is likely to include several other installations since the last BRAC. Additionally a sizeable amount of the NON-CONUS locations are housing annexes. Simply put, this is an off-base location owned by the DOD and used for housing personnel and their families at these installations. Calling a housing annex a base is a misnomer. They are listed separately since they are not physically attached to the base, but are affiliated with it.137.244.215.19 21:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There are a range of relatively recent terms used to describe different types of multiservice permanent and contingency sites: Cooperative Security Location (CSL), Forward Operating Site (FOS), and Forward Operating Base (FOB). It would also help to create an article on the term Main Operating Base (MOB). --Petercorless 21:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It is just a myth that the United States has bases "in about 130 countries". You can find that myth all over the Internet but no reliable sources that I can see. The lengthy pdf that Lovelight linked to above does not contain the phrase he put in quotation marks. --Mathew5000 02:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Former CIA official and scholar Chalmers Johnson claims "737 bases on every continent in more than 130 countries" in an interview on DemocracyNow.org. No offense pal, but I think the wiki would take the word of such a renowned figure over yours anytime. Lixy 19:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That's just the point -- the figure originates, as far as I can tell, with a statement by Chalmers Johnson in the film Why We Fight. But on its face the number is absurdly high. --Mathew5000 00:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a bad idea for Wikipedia to have a List of countries hosting United States military bases. By my count there are 43 such countries mentioned above. I would be curious what the other 87 countries are that Chalmers Johnson is thinking about, or has he just made a mistake? On thinking about it a little more, I wonder if he is counting units of the Marines assigned guard duties at foreign embassies and consulates. --Mathew5000 01:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I had the exact same thoughts on the foreign embassies and consulates. --Petercorless 01:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Lai Massacre

I deleted this link from the see also section since it was totally irrelavent. 58.84.82.197 01:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "totally" is correct. Certainly as the article currently stands it's not identifiably relevant. But surely activities by the various armed forces that have been significantly controversial should at least be briefly commented upon, with relevant links to take interested readers on to more in-depth articles on the relevant topics. Abu Ghraib is another obvious topic for at least passing comment.

Also, if there's an article somewhere giving an overview or history of US foreign policy, then that should be linked to somewhere. Rather bizarrely, the article doesn't even mention the phrase "foreign policy"! Silverhelm 04:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

I Have to say that the American Army is one of the most powerful armies,and it isn't the most powerful.

^No it is definately the most powerful do some research on it not just other militaries.

[edit] Naming

Articles on other militaries get their full official titles (Iraqi Security Forces, Canadian Forces, Australian Defence Force, British Armed Forces, etc.), so why is this article at Military of the United States instead of United States Armed Forces? 65.99.214.90 03:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National Guard

The Army National Guard alone consists of roughly 325,000+ Soldiers, and the Air National Guard has at least 100,000 Airmen. The combined number of 53,000 for the two forces is obviously incorrect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by QbicCreation (talk • contribs) 00:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/l/Talk%7EMilitary_of_the_United_States_f501.html"

Categories: B-Class military history articles needing review | B-Class United States military history articles | United States military history task force articles | B-Class military history articles | B-Class United States articles | Unknown-importance United States articles | United States articles with comments