Talk:Military of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Military of the United States article.
Article policies
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
Archive
Archives
  1. Talk:Military of the United States/ Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Numbers

"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)

[edit] Women

"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)

Gay people can serve in combat as long as they don't tell anyone they're gay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.104.150 (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Due to realities of war

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)

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)

And of course it has nothing to do with the physical differences between men and women, right? Your average man will be able to carry an 80 pound pack quite a bit farther than your average women. I'm by no means being sexist, but sometimes people have to wake up and smell the roses.

[edit] Guard and Reserves

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)

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)

[edit] Recently added claim

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)

[edit] POV

"The United States military is often considered the most powerful and influential military in history." As was already discussed before it is quite difficult to count an army's power, because a lot of research and new technological achievements is kept secret. From the amount money that flows into the US military one cannot conclude that it is the most powerful striking force in the world. The referenced article does not give proof to the statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.47.226.141 (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree. I originally added the word "often", but I can see how this is still an opinion. --SLi (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone have a better example? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.161.58 (talk) 05:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inter-Service Rilvalry Evident in Article

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)

[edit] Personal

"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)

[edit] Precedence of U.S. Armed Forces

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.

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. This regulation can be found at AR 840-10, 1 November 1998 2–5. Order of precedence of flags The following is the order of precedence of flags:

e . Military organizational flags of the Services in order of precedence
(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.

-Signaleer (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)