Talk:United States Military/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: 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)
replies: text: Merchent Marine is not part of the military The Drew 16:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous 

message: Among almost the 128 articles of :Category:Militaries, the overwhelming convention is to use 'Military of country</i>'.  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)
thread_title:  Title 

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

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Expenses 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  reaching military age 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why is Military manpower Availability males & females? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  ? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: See United States Code Title 10, section 505. I enlisted at 17 with parental consent at an advanced pay grade, then completed all 11B military occuational specialty training in about 6 months, including basic combat training. I arrived at my permanent assignment with a select infantry battalion and promptly went on QRF alert all before my 18th birthday. After 6 months, a person in the military is considered to be a veteran, eligible for benefits if separated from the service before the expiration of her or his term of service (ETS). Hotfeba 02:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Age of Army 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[United States]] article on featured candidate nominations list 

message: 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)
thread_title:  World Factbook 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Military polices 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Question: Damage Controlman 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Navigational Box 

message: 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)
thread_title:  US Military Sign Language? 

message: The article says 132, which is wildly inaccurate. . --Mathew5000 18:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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... --Mnemeson 10:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I had the exact same thoughts on the foreign embassies and consulates. --Petercorless 01:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many foreign countries host U.S. Military bases? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: 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)
thread_title:  National Guard 

message: The United States Armed Forces consists of the regular and reserve components of the several armed forces.  Properly, the United States Armed Forces consists of the United States Army (which is the Regular Army), the United States Army Reserve, the Army National Guard of the United States (which in turn consists of the National Guards of the several states which the Supreme Court has ruled in the past pre-date the existence of the ANGUS), the United States Navy (which is the Regular Navy), the United States Naval Reserve (or sometimes the Fleet Reserve), the United States Marine Corps, the United States Marine Corps Reserve (sometimes referred to as the Fleet Marine Reserve), the United States Air Force (which is the Regular Air Force), the United States Air Force Reserve, and the Air National Guard of the United States (composed of the Air National Guards of the several states).  In times of emergency, add the regular and reserve Coast Guard components and stir.  Failure to mention any of those components generally leads to inter-service meyham, especially in the presence of alcohol.  The sources for this are scattered throughout United States Code Title 10. Hotfeba 03:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase "Army of the United States" has been used to refer to all regular and reserve components of the Army together.  It may be out of date, but keeping that terminology in mind, it makes 10USC references to "the Army" consistently apply to all Army personnel, regular or reserve, while on active duty. Maybe this makes it easier to implement a draft. Hotfeba 03:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There has been the phrase "armed forces of the United States" which seems to include everything in the above list (see 10USC113 around (i)(1)(A)), and then the phrase "United States Armed Forces" seems to be used to refer only to the regular components; however, the thrust of the article is to focus on the entire military establishment, not just the regular forces. Hotfeba 03:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Neither the Constitution of the United States of America, the United States Codes, nor the opinions of the United States Supreme Court make any reference to the "Military of the United States". Hotfeba 03:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies in description of United States Armed Forces (unofficially Military of the United States) 

message: The order of precedence when displaying the colors is: Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard (as shown on the joint color guard) the same can be said when listing the service branches.  Who ever created the flags displayed at the bottom of the page did not take this into consideration when creating it. -Signaleer 07:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... Intesting, I was lead to believe, like all U.S. citizens, that there is no precedence when it comes to our country's armed forces. While I respect your knowledge stemming from being in the service, I was educated believing that all brances are equal, and while they serve different specialties they are one in the same; a family. The reason, I listed it the way before was to show the order in which each branch joined/created our country's armed service, not that I believe one branch is better than the other, even though I did grow up as a navy brat. :) Neovu79 03:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a military protocol and it is in military regulations to the display of the service branch colors.  The order of precedence begins and ends with the oldest to the youngest service branch of the armed forces.  For example the Joint Service Color Guard shown here clearly shows the American flag on the far right of the color guard (the right being the highest place of honor, followed by the oldest service branch, the Army, the Army also has the honor of carrying the American flag and the Joint Color Guard noncomissioned officer-in-charge is always an Army NCO who carries the American flag, then the Marines, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard). -Signaleer 10:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Template has been fixed to follow that order.  Robbskey 13:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for fixing this, much appreciated. -Signaleer 14:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, wouldn't want the Marines to be upset.  Robbskey 18:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but having been in the service and participated in hundreds of color guards with all the different branches displaying of the colors, the true order of the precedence is United States flag, Army flag, Navy flag, Marine Corp flag, Coast Guard flag, and Air Force flag. The Army is quick to tell you the order is due to the order of the oldest to the youngest service but unfortunately everyone tries to put their service at the front and so the true order is unfortunately wrong most the time when they do this and do not stick to the correct order.  Nihesa 23:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The order of precedence is Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard.  The exception to the order would be IF the Coast Guard were to be in the service of the Navy (last time that happened was World War II), then the order would be Army, Marines, Navy, Coast Guard, and Air Force.  This is covered in the several services regulations.  As a former Coast Guardsman, I have been in joint service color guards for years and this is the way it has always been done.  The Army is the service in charge of interservice ceremony and funeral protocol and I'm sure there is a Army Field Manual that states this order of precedence, I just can't come up with a reference. Cuprum17 (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The order of service branches of the article 

message: In the section "Expenditures", the last sentence says that current US military spending as a portion of the country's total economic production (Gross Domestic Product) is "historically fairly low for the United States." The cited data () only go back to 1940, while the United States and its Armed Forces have a much longer history. I changed the sentence to accommodate the restricted nature of the cited data.
Looking for broader data, I found a history of the Navy's budget from 1794 to 2004 at . I think the numbers are not adjusted for inflation. I compared the Navy budgets against historical (unadjusted) GDP figures (via ) and found that 2004's Navy budget-per-GDP was approx. 1.06%, roughly in line with the 1794-2004 average of approx. 1.13%. But, it's getting late, and I don't know how best to incorporate this data, so I'm throwing it out to y'all to do with as y'all see fit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.12.41.143 (talk) 08:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading Statistic 

message: I propose we call the article United States Armed Forces. It's the proper name for the armed services. I want to garner support for a move to this name. Mrld 00:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not support this move because I could not find any other credible encyclopedia that has an article titled United States Armed Forces, furthermore, I have seen it spelled United States armed forces lower-cased. -Signaleer 07:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two reasons to do it. First, United States Armed Forces is correct. Second, it's in common usage, while "Military of the United States" is not. "United States military" would also be a viable option, since it's also a commonly-used term. 71.203.209.0 03:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having searched through US Title 10 as per the talk page above, 'United States Armed Forces' is used on occasion in various amendments to refer to elements of the Department of Defence. US Title 10 is quite clear on the SecDef controlling the DOD, and nothing above the DOD being known as the 'United States Armed Forces'. US Armed Forces is used to describe elements of the DOD. Thus, the top-level page for the 'Military of the United States' etc should be the Department of Defence. Buckshot06 18:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So should it be at United States Armed Forces or the military of? I'm leaning toward Armed Forces. Unless anybody has any objections to moving... — SheeEttin {T/C} 21:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Im gona have to go with Armed forces on this one ForeverDEAD 02:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Possibly it should be moved to United States armed forces. Would anyone object to that? Buckshot06 02:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: United States armed forces. It avoids ambiguities. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 17:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, once we'd change the title of the "Military of the United States" we'll be obliged to change most of other titles (Spanish Armed Forces, Brazilian Armed Forces, etc). -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  18:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I've never liked the Military of ... option. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 19:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to the idea of changing the article's name to "United States Armed Forces," as another user pointed out it would disrupt the entire categorization of all countries "military" articles on Wikipedia.  I will also note that there's also a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense Wikipedia Department of Defense article -- I do not see a valid reason to move the article's name. -TabooTikiGod 14:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armed Forces 

message: "The United States military is notorious for killing and injuring its own troops, and those of it's allies."
Has this claim got any founding??? If it does happen, it probably doesn't happen with intention, and it certainly isn't notorious for it (not with me, at least). jheijmans 05:13, 18 April 2002 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfounded claim? 

message: This page needs to be merged with United States armed forces.  IMHO, United States armed forces is a much better title of the page as that's a term people in the United States might actually use, but I understand there's been some sort of standardization here.  DanKeshet  15:29, 17 September 2002 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge needed 

message: The article whose history is now here (not sure where it was originally) was merged into the article now at Military of the United States, which is why the history is here now - because it was merged into the current article, we have to keep it accessible. Noel (talk) 02:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History/merged 

message: "As of September 2007, U.S. troops were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 39 countries"  - this # might need checking since the US has bases in over 100 countries, and obviously has personel at all of them  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.89.68 (talk) 04:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: "Women are not allowed to serve in some combat assignments, but they are allowed to serve in most non-combat specialties."
Shouldn't homosexuals also be mentioned in the beginning? It's without a doubt very notable. Ran4 (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women 

message: Does the article really benefit from this section? Sure it has a source, but when I was reading it I saw it as a masked attempt to prove that females are equal to men regardless of their duties. Maybe I'm wrong, but by saying "due to the realities of war some of these non-combat positions see combat regularly" directly after the sentence that states females cannot serve in some combat positions seems to me like remarks made by a feminist or someone of that nature. I'm not saying females don't have the right to serve any and all combat positions, but does it need to be mentioned directly after? - as if to say "so there".    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deftdrummer (talk • contribs) 04:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone should also name the reasoning behind not allowing females to serve.  I know why but I don't have a source and was wondering if someone was willing the find one.  The reason is that commanders are afraid that if men and women fight side by side and the woman falls the men will stop fighting to try to save the women.  Althought this theory has been somewhat disproved by the Isreali military forces.Whodoesntlovemonkeys (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Exactly.  I know it is not often but hand-to-hand fights in combat do happen, and when you pit a 110-140 pound woman against a 160-200 pound man who looks at women like they're property, wants them removed from the Earth anyway since they are infadels, and would be utterly disgraced if he lost to one, it is kind of obvious who would win.  I have read stories of soldiers in Iraq who have gotten too close for comfort with insurgents.  One of them involved a US soldier having to choke one to death, he did not carry a knife, but the point still remains.  Unless that insurgent was a child, the US soldier would likely have died had it been a woman.Prussian725 (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the reasoning, it would make more sense to have an ability test, rather than a gender test.  There are certainly strong women who can handle not-so-strong men in hand-to-hand combat.  The problem with the gender test is that more-qualified women will be replaced by less-qualified men, which is why gender discrimination is unfair and unwise. -- Beland (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Take an average woman and and average man and place them in a hand-to-hand fight to the death and see who wins.Prussian725 (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to the realities of stereotyping, some of these Discussion pages see gender-based discrimination regularly. Whether or not the military allows women to do these jobs is not up to Wikipedia editors. 216.167.172.78 (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Due to realities of war 

message: Maybe this article should give some mention to the Reserves, The National Guards, and even the State Guards (more than a link at the bottom of the page). They are all "Armed Forces", and of the United States - even though they may not officially get mentioned as part of the 4/5 services. Official classifications don't matter much when compiling an encyclopedia, and the article is talking about the 'Military' in general. - Matthew238 (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Reserves and National Guards are components of their respective military branches and are not a seperate service. Both are listed in the main articles of each individual branch. Neovu79 (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "National Guards" and "State Guards." There's no difference, and no such terminology as "State Guards." There's the Army, the reserve component, and the National Guard component, which during peace-time as a branch of the state in question but can be federalized and placed under active Army. Jersey John (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guard and Reserves 

message: I removed the following which was added anonymously in an inappropriate place, making the article somewhat unreadable, and arguably unbalancing the coverage.  Could those involved in this article please evaluate it, and put it in the right place if it is deemed appropriate?
A U.S. Marine was arrested on Monday on suspicion of raping a 14-year-old girl in Okinawa Prefecture, drawing immediate outrage from the governor that is spreading across the prefecture.  Similar incidents have been happening frequently since U.S. occupied Japan in 1945. In 1995, three U.S. servicemen, U.S. Navy Seaman Marcus Gill and U.S. Marines Rodrico Harp and Kendrick Ledet, all from Camp Hansen on Okinawa, raped a 12-years-old schoolgirl by turns.
References: New York Times and CNN
Thanks.  --RobertG ♬ talk 09:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently added claim 

message: There is clear inter-service rivalry evident in this article. If all the service branches were listed alphabetically, the order would not be as it stands in the article currently.
Instead the listed order would be: Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marines and Navy.
Sean7phil (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inter-Service Rilvalry Evident in Article 

message: "Battlefield commission - enlisted personnel who have skills that separate them from their peers can become officers if an overseeing general/commander feels such a promotion is appropriate/necessary. This type of commission is rarely granted and is reserved only for the most exceptional enlisted personnel, and it is done on an ad hoc basis, typically only in wartime. No direct battlefield commissions have been awarded since the Vietnam War. The Air Force and Navy do not employ this commissioning path."
This is not true, 3 US Marines have received a battlefield commission in the Iraq War  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.76.164 (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal 

message: There is a precedence of order to displaying the service branches and service academies of the United States.  This general rule also applies when marching (i.e., the Presidential inauguration) or listing the service branches of the United States.  This order of precedence was established by the Department of Defense, not separately by each service branch.
The reason behind the order is based on the date in which the organizations came into being as far as the service branches and service academices respectively.  The Army being the oldest service branch and the Air Force being the youngest.  A Secretary of the Navy established the Marine Corps before the Navy during the 1800s even though the Navy's birthday is before the Marines.
* The Department of Defense regulation can be found on DoD Directive 1005.8, October 31, 1977 and also in law at Title 10, United States Code, Section 133.
* The U.S. Army regulation can be found at AR 840-10, 1 November 1998.
* The U.S. Marine Corps regulation can be found NAVMC 2691, Marine Corps Drill and Ceremonies Manual, Part II, Ceremonies, Chapter 12-1.
* The U.S. Navy regulation can be found at U.S. Navy Regulations, Chapter 12, Flags, Pennants, Honors, Ceremonies and Customs.
* The U.S. Air Force regulation can be found at AFMAN 36-2203, Drill and Ceremonies, 3 June 1996, Chapter 7, Section A.
2–5. Order of precedence of flags The following is the order of precedence of flags:
(1) Cadets, United States Military Academy
(2) Midshipmen, United States Naval Academy
(3) Cadets, United States Air Force Academy
(4) Cadets, United States Coast Guard Academy
(5) Midshipmen, United States Merchant Marine Academy
(6) United States Army
(7) United States Marine Corps
(8) United States Navy
(9) United States Air Force
(10) United States Coast Guard
(11) Army National Guard of the United States
(12) Army Reserve
(13) Marine Corps Reserve
(14) Naval Reserve
(15) Air National Guard of the United States
(16) Air Force Reserve
(17) Coast Guard Reserve
(18) Other training organizations of the Army, Marine Corps,
Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard, in that order, respectively. 
A great example of where you see this display of all service branches, including the Merchant Marines is during the Presidential Inauguration.
-Signaleer (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTE:  Signaleer provided the basic information above.  I made changes to his comment above based on further information from Signaleer which he provided below under #Why so short.  I am going to further provide a hidden comment on the article page so that hopefully we don't have to see any more discussion on order of precedence.  Thanks Signaleer!  Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precedence of U.S. Armed Forces 

message: Coast Guard is no longer part of the Uniformed Military Services (Department of Defense) it's now part of Homeland Security - should it be removed from this page or not?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.116.10.12 (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the second paragragh of the article: The Coast Guard falls under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security during peacetime, but during wartime, the Coast Guard is placed under the Department of Defense through the Department of the Navy.
Before Homeland Security was established, the USCG was part of the Transportation Department, and the Treasury Dept. before that, but t still came under the USN in time of war. There are actually seven United States Uniformed Services (2 are non-military), and they are in 4 Departments. Hope that helps to clarify things. - BillCJ (talk) 04:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coast Guard and Homeland Security