Talk:United States Department of Defense/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Philip Brotherton

Who is "Phillip Brotherton" and since when did he become head of the DoD? Thanx 68.39.174.91 00:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Isn't Robert Gates secretary of the DOD? Gingermint (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Missing trillions

I have heard that The DoD "loses" 1.1 trillion a year, does any one have any sources for this? pestofarian 19:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you're talking about the Department of Defense, and before that the Department of War, litterally losing several trillion dollars in funds since the end of the Second World War. [1] It's not that the money has been wasted, it's just that nobody can seem to find it.

Also the budget for DoD is only around $400 billion, hard for it to loose more money than its entire budget... --Loqi T. 21:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll let someone else incorporate this into the article, but there is a problem with the DoD keeping track of exactly how it has spent its money. Some estimates put the amount that cannot be properly accounted for at $2.3 trillion. However, this is a figure that has accumulated over many years, not a yearly deficit. Here's part of a speech that Donald Rumsfeld gave on the issue on September 10, 2001:

"The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible."

Here is the full text of the speech [2]

Because the speech was given the day before 9/11, a Google search on this topic will generally return a ton of conspiracy theory drivel. However, there are a couple of notable media reports on this:

• CBS News [3]

• San Francisco Chronicle [4]

There may be others among the garbage, I can't be bothered to plough through any more, though. I also don't currently feel able to edit the article to include this information. Perhaps someone else can? -- Maccy69 05:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

More on Budget

The intro comments on budget are totally misleading - maybe, even false - The Department of Health and Human Services has the largest share of the US budget with the US DoD coming in second place. From a HHS document -- Budget Authority................................................................................ 848,626 900,586 885,789

Total Outlays....................................................................................... 854,174 909,072 891,597

This needs to be corrected. StephenWolfe1 (talk) 11:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Relationship to Coast Guard

The section that states, "In wartime, the Department of Defense also has authority over the Coast Guard" is not as black and white as it seems.

The Coast Guard shall enforce or assist in the enforcement of all applicable Federal laws on, under, and over the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; shall engage in maritime air surveillance or interdiction to enforce or assist in the enforcement of the laws of the United States; shall administer laws and promulgate and enforce regulations for the promotion of safety of life and property on and under the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States covering all matters not specifically delegated by law to some other executive department; shall develop, establish, maintain, and operate, with due regard to the requirements of national defense, aids to maritime navigation, ice-breaking facilities, and rescue facilities for the promotion of safety on, under, and over the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; shall, pursuant to international agreements, develop, establish, maintain, and operate icebreaking facilities on, under, and over waters other than the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; shall engage in oceanographic research of the high seas and in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; and shall maintain a state of readiness to function as a specialized service in the Navy in time of war, including the fulfillment of Maritime Defense Zone command responsibilities

Upon the declaration of war or when the President directs, the Coast Guard shall operate as a service in the Navy, and shall so continue until the President, by Executive order, transfers the Coast Guard back to the Department of Homeland Security. While operating as a service in the Navy, the Coast Guard shall be subject to the orders of the Secretary of the Navy who may order changes in Coast Guard operations to render them uniform, to the extent he deems advisable, with Navy operations.

This is where it gets a bit sticky...it's not necessarily automatic that when war is declared that the entire Coast Guard is automatically shifted to DOD. If that were true, all of the Coast Guard would currently be working under DOD in the Iraq war, which is not the case.

Whenever the Coast Guard operates as a service in the Navy: (a) applicable appropriations of the Navy Department shall be available for the expense of the Coast Guard; (b) applicable appropriations of the Coast Guard shall be available for transfer to the Navy Department; (c) precedence between commissioned officers of corresponding grades in the Coast Guard and the Navy shall be determined by the date of rank stated by their commissions in those grades; (d) personnel of the Coast Guard shall be eligible to receive gratuities, medals, and other insignia of honor on the same basis as personnel in the naval service or serving in any capacity with the Navy; and (e) the Secretary may place on furlough any officer of the Coast Guard and officers on furlough shall receive one half of the pay to which they would be entitled if on leave of absence, but officers of the Coast Guard Reserve shall not be so placed on furlough.

The issue is somewhat sticky, although for a slightly different reason. The regulations clearly make it the case that the Coast Guard is under DOD control following a declaration of war. However, here's the catch. The United States has not declared war since that second world war. This means, that while it is not true that the Coast Guard would be under the DOD in Iraq (since it's not a "declared war"), in the reality of the modern era, the only situation in which the coast guard is likely to be transferred to the DOD is "when the President directs"... Lordjeff06 04:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Linux

Something in the article should mention the use of Linux in the DoD. 165.230.129.135 17:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Or just link here: Use_of_Free_and_Open_Source_Software_(FOSS)_in_the_U.S._Department_of_Defense

If I may quote mayra smells like chicken butt

out what pencils they use? What pens? paper? computer monitors? desks? chairs? etc? It's pointless BQZip01 06:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

DOD Structure Diagram

I think there is a mistake in the dod diagram as in the diagram there are two dept. of the army one in charge of the army and one in charge of the airforce. And in the diagram there is no dept. of the air force. (Added by ???)

There is an error. Please fix 03:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Dod Cyber Crime Center

Shouldn't there be an article for the Cyber Crime Center [5] -it is a major part of the DoD. It monitors and helps track hackers, recover information, etc. Herenthere (Talk) 02:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Why the Unreferenced tag?

This article has a 'unreferenced tag' since August 2007. That is a quite long time. I looked it up in the history and the user who put it there (Guanxi) just said he 'added unreferenced tag' [6] without explaining why. He did not even put something about it on the discussion page which should be mandatory.

It is difficult to improve the article without knowing what to improve.

I agree that 13 references seem poor for an article on a major branch of the US government. But then, it's a rather short article. Could someone please include information about the reason this article is unreferenced?

Otherwise, I see no reason to leave the tag in place. --NauarchLysander (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

As there was no answer to my post, I deleted the tag.

--NauarchLysander (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not an {{unreferenced}} tag, it's a {{refimprove}} tag - there is a difference. The first three main sections are still unreferenced after almost a year and half. Generally, the reasons for adding these tags are quite obvious, and they are their own justification - no explanations are usually needed. I'm re-adding the Refimprove tag for now. Would you prefer unreferencedsection tags, or deleting the sections as uncited material per WP:RS? Btw, I only saw your post here today. - BillCJ (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Still Start class?

In my opinion, this article ought to be ranked much higher than start class. Would anyone object to the rating being raised to C class? --Andrew Kelly (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Since there has been no objection so far, I have raised the the rating to C class. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Servicemen

The article stated in its first section that all American servicemen and servicewomen are "soldiers".
This was foolish because these also include airmen, sailors, Marines, and coastguardsmen.
If you wish to only be partially correct, then state "soldiers, sailors, and airmen". Do not get confused by the Air Force ranks of Airman and Airman 1st Class. Also, Naval officers are sailors, too, Air Force officers are airmen, and Marine Corps officers are Marines.

Also, you Britons can write "MoD" all you want to, but such a thing is NEVER done in the United States. This Department is the D.O.D., with all capital letters and periods, just like the D.O.T., the N.A.C.A., and many more.

"DoD" is used all the time in the United States - at least it is inside the Beltway.

Perhaps you ought to stick to British subjects, and leave American ones to us. Definitely do not use the words and phrases "amongst" (which was in this article), "amidst", and "Pearl Harbour" (which I have seen in print by foreign newspapers and Web sites.98.67.167.60 (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the department itself uses both DoD and DOD. See, e.g., http://www.defense.gov/about/dod101.aspx Ocalafla (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

See also: link maintenance

On the basis that the 2010 US Gov Financial Report showed total revenues of $2.2 trillion, and the D.O.D. 2010 Report showed total budgetary resources of $1.2 trillion presumably a link to War economy is OK with everyone. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

OK have had a request to back up my posting of the "see also" link to War economy: in terms of Google, "US War Economy" returns 127,000,000 results which, because only a small percentage may be relevant, is a filtering problem. With time short I have pulled out the following, which are of a certain profile I agree:

Veterans Today: http://www.veteranstoday.com/tag/us-war-economy/ National Jobs for All: http://www.njfac.org/sr4.htm wareconomy.org: http://www.wareconomy.org/2010/09/22/bring-our-war-home-hows-the-war-economy-working-for-you/ Huffington Post (Bush): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/27/bush-war-boosts-the-us-ec_n_592444.html random book review: http://wallstreetwarzone.com/america’s-‘outrageous-war-economy’-yes-we-love-war-even-if-the-pentagon-can’t-find-2-3-trillion-keeps-wasting-trillions-more-on-national-defense/

Nevertheless, presumably the $1.2 trillion out of $2.2 trillion, evidenced by the US Gov and D.O.D. financial reports, remains the best justification for the link. Will dredge further if absolutely necessary to refute, er, WP:Synthesis. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

By my count, at least four editors have removed your "See also" link, and only you have restored it. You're already past 3RR, and so are already in danger of a block for edit warring. Also, the usual time to wait for comments is several days, not a few hours. Please stop adding the link. - BilCat (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm afraid this is an (ac)counting flaw (for which see also, notably, the article's expenditures section). User:CanadianLinuxUser in fact reinstated this 'see also' in his most recent edit. That does make it 2:3 I agree. However, at least one of those two has (1) gone to the effort of engaging in discussion before making his edits (2) given grounds for his edits (supra) - please respond to these points raised rather than simply threatening an edit block. Which presumably would be a shame, on the grounds I would appear to have made some substantive improvements to this article recently, would you not agree? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

He was on recent changes patrol [7]. That he ultimately saw your edit was not blatant vandalism like the other edits that he was reverting does not mean that he endorses what you are proposing.--Chaser (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I note User:BilCat has just removed evidence of the impending 3RR block he posted on my user page from this section, probably rightly as not exceptionally relevant, although he still has not thought fit to respond to the points that seemingly engendered the threat in the first place. (Sorry if I appear a bit touchy on this, but want to me making more useful contributions than edit warring) BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to do more research that produces mainstream sources indicating a consensus among scholars or the commentators that the U.S. is a war economy before adding this to the un-nuanced see also section. Simply finding sources "of a certain profile," as you put it, does not count. I can find sources "of a certain profile" to say anything. Counting google hits is also not research.--Chaser (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

User BrekekekexKoaxKoax seems insistent that this article, which describes the structure and functions of a U.S. cabinet department, is related to a concept poorly described in its own WP article. And his/her insistence is backed up by a Google search count of hits related to a vague search term. This is hardly worthwhile editing and borders on WP:OR. So what if the D.O.D.'s budget is the largest sector of the U.S. government's budget. In evaluating a war economy, we should be considering questions like: What is the portion of the DoD budget in relation to the nations' gross domestic product? How does this current budget & percentage of gdp relate to past budgets? What portion of the population is devoted to military service or D.O.D. activities? What are the casualty rates for this period of war compared to past wars? These factors help determine if a "war economy" exists in order to fight Total war. Consider these rough off-hand facts (not Google search counts): The U.S. had 12,000,000 people in uniform during WW II, with a population one-half of what we have today -- equivalent number = 24,000,000 people in uniform alone in today's numbers. (What is our total uniformed population now? one-tenth that number?) Of that 12,000,000 some 400,000 died or 0.32% of the total population. Compare this to the some 5,796 service members have died during the war on terror -- just over one percent of the figure during World War II and 0.0019% of today's population. For more perspective, consider that during the Civil War, during which some 625,000 soldiers died, out of a population of 38,000,000 (1870). That death toll represented 1.6% of the total population. Those two wars involved total war and they required a war economy. Today's wars are sideshows in comparison. Seeking to dramatize the article on the D.O.D. with the War economy SA is POV, pure and simple. --S. Rich (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, as ever, S. Rich for engaging with me in discussion. However I feel (?) for the point "war economy" the relevant numbers are in $$$ not casualties. I understand, as I raised above, that the 2010 US Gov Financial Report showed total revenues of $2.2 trillion, and the D.O.D. Report of 2010 showed total budgetary resources of $1.2 trillion. Is that more compelling evidence than Google? Or is this primary source material, which needs backing through secondary sources? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This is original research. Why is the standard 50% of the federal budget? Why not 70%? Or 30%? You need secondary sources either establishing a consensus among scholars that this is the benchmark and the US meets it, or that the US simply has or is a war economy. Partisan sources don't cut it.--Chaser (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Please provide secondary sources establishing a consensus that the Pace-Finletter MOU 1952 is more germane as a 'see also' to the US DoD than 'war economy'. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What I don't understand, is why, against the $$$ evidence and secondary sources cited, some users are "insistent" on the omission of this "see also". BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What I also don't understand, is why this issue has anything to do with POV at all. I understand from War economy that "War economy is the term used to describe the contingencies undertaken by the modern state to mobilise its economy for war production." That does not seem to have anything to do with POV or "drama". BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Brek, if you want to think and write about war economy in these terms, I suggest you look at Mobilization and Economics#Empirical_investigation. The mobilization article gives a very short mention of economic mobilization. More importantly, economists seek to look at subjects without preconceived notions. (Also see Freakonomics and SuperFreakonomics.) Economics is all about numbers and quantification, and dollars are a good way to quantify factors. But a more important question is "compared to what?" which is why I set forth populations, military strengths, casualties compared between WW II, the Civil War, and today. Also note that I did not give number in budget dollars seeking to compare Civil War, WW II, and GWOT budgets and their relation to the gross domestic outputs or total federal budgets of the different eras. But once you look at those numbers, I hope you will see that todays military budget is much smaller percentagewise than it was in 1954 or 1944. See, for example, [8]. When you cite a huge dollar figure, it tells only part of the story. And then, when that huge number is used to justify an inapplicable SA, your POV is interfering with good editing. Why improper -- adding War economy to the SAs implies that the current DoD budget and United States economy is on a war footing. It is not. --S. Rich (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I would also contend that more of our users might find discussion of what constitutes a "war economy" informative, relevant, and interesting than the see also "Pace-Finletter MOU 1952" which is currently approved. May I propose while we are about it the removal of that and any other parochial/tangential see also items? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead. I would agree.--Chaser (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

All this discussion and the need for "secondary sources establishing a consensus among scholars" for a see also seems somewhat surprising. I understand from the WP:See also policy that "Links included in the 'See also' section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question" and that "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous."

Since my own abilities in this case are being called into question by a number of users, please could someone else draft some appropriate annotation for the link, were its relevance deemed not immediately apparent. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Look at the example annotations. They are explanations in the see also section of what the links are about, so the reader can have some sense of them before clicking on them. This is distinct from a justification on the talk page to include a particular see also, which is what we are asking for.

As WP:SEEALSO says, this is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. I am demanding (?) secondary scholarly sources because the consensus of editorial judgment of Wikipedia editors is against including this. Without an internal editorial judgment, you would need to show an external one to justify including this link.--Chaser (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't have any right to demand anything here!98.67.167.60 (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Have renamed discussion as link maintenance. Is Accountability OK, with annotation pointing to expenditures section (qed). Have had suggestion this may be POV/overkill? Thanks, ::BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments on organizational structure as presented in article

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution designates the President as "Commander in Chief" of the Army, Navy and state militias. The President decides upon military policy based on the discussions in the National Security Council and other policy-making forums (e.g. the Council on Foreign Relations).

What the Presidents bases his decisions as Commander in Chief/Chief Executive upon is at his sole discretion, though it is very reasonable to assume that NSC input would be seriously taken into consideration when dealing with foreign affairs and national defense. The National Security Council is however not the DoD executive board, so its inclusion here is not really germane in this context, as it is merely an advisory board in the Executive Office of the President. The Council on Foreign Relations is not an official government body, has no official connection with the governance of DoD, and its role in this regard is speculative at best and should be removed.

The President then delegates responsibility for executing these policy directives to the Secretary of Defense, who is in charge of the Department of Defense.

The President does not need to expressly delegate authority to the heads of the executive departments if it is presumed in law (10 USC § 113 is very clear on this compared to statutes for other cabinet members) that the action is taken under the approbation of the President (see 3 USC §302), and it could be interpreted as either due to the alter ego doctrine or through an implied delegation. In short: the Secretary doesn’t have to ask for permission to do most of the things he does on a daily basis except for sensitive political and strategic issues which clearly needs to be resolved at the very top.

The Department of Defense is traditionally divided into four main branches: the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Military Departments, and the Unified Combatant Commands. The Office of the Secretary of Defense works with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Unified Combatant Commands to enforce the will of the executive branch through the Military Departments.

The Defense Agencies and the DoD Field Activities are considered as separate DoD Components in their own right and not as components within OSD, even though an OSD PAS official supervises their operations. The "enforce the will of the executive branch through the Military Departments" is confusing at best. Wouldn't it be far better to actually explain what the different components are defined as in statute and regulatory documents and what they do? RicJac (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Title of article

I note that the title of this article begins with the name of the nation. I also note that all other similar articles on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Defence follow the format, "Department of Defense (Name of Nation)". Examples include "Department of Defence (Australia)" and "Department of Defence (Ireland)". I propose that this article should be re-titled "Department of Defense (United States of America)". "Pij" (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I certainly won't object. The official name given in the U.S. Code is "Department of Defense", not "United States Department of Defense". RicJac (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Interpretation in the introduction

Removed text about the DoD picking on oil-rich countries. While not strictly false, a bit too much POV at least for the introductory blurb.

Beginning with the first sentence, there are multiple problems.

The Department of Defense (Defense Department, USDOD, DOD, DoD or the Pentagon[4]) is the executive department of the government of the United States charged with coordinating and supervising all agencies and functions of the government concerned directly with national security and the United States Armed Forces.

The Pentagon, is not synonymous with the Department of Defense. The Pentagon is a building, the headquarters of the Department of Defense. Further, the "citation," #4, is not a source, listed as, "Initially the National Military Establishment (NME)". If anything, this should be a note, which I will change this type of entry to a footnote.

I am going to do some editing with the understanding that someone may come along and correct the verbiage.Greg (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

DOD

What was wrong with my edit? US possesses a minimal military, high peace score graphical (pacifistic), and decrease expenditure, while Russia and China are maximum politicological powers, with low peace score (high war making and capability). The Small Arms survey estimates the US military possesses 3.5k firearms, compared to Russia's 60 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.228.237.44 (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This should be on the article talk page, not here. That said, your edit was an rambling personal commentary, and not a very well written one at that. It was not useful, encyclopaedic information supported by reliable sources. See the "welcome" message on your talk page to learn how to contribute more effectively. - wolf 07:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Moved from User talk:Thewolfchild § DOD

DOD cont'd

But the us has the smallest and weakest military on the planet earth, with barely 1,000 total firearms in its inventory, denuclearizing under Biden, 700,000 total soldiers (compared to other much larger militaries), only 100s of tanks and land vehicles, and 90 total ships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.228.237.44 (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate this with you. If you wish to make a change or addition to the article, I suggest you do it the same format as an edit request; either "please change X to Y" or "I would like to add Z". But in either scenario, be prepared to add, neutral and reliably sourced information that is also relevant and properly written encyclopaedic content.

And one final point; the discussion is now here, any further comments should be posted here, not on anyone's personal user talk page. Thank you. - wolf 08:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)