Military Almanac 2001-2002 CDI

20012002
CENTER FOR DEFENSE INFORMATION
MILITARY
ALMANAC
Research and writing for the 2001-2002 Military Almanac was

contributed by the following members of the CDI staff:
Nicholas Berry
Marcus Corbin
Christopher Hellman
Jeffrey Mason
Col. Daniel Smith, USA (Ret.)
Rachel Stohl
Tomas Valasek
*
The 2001-2002 Almanac was designed by Cutting Edge Graphics.
C E N T E R
F O R
D E F E N S E
I N F O R M A T I O N
20012002
MILITARY
ALMANAC
Table of Contents
ABOUT THE CENTER FOR DEFENSE INFORMATION ...................................................................................................... v
U.S. MILITARY FORCES .................................................................................................................................................................. 1
Composition of U.S. Military Forces ................................................................................................................................................ 3
Post-Cold War Defense Reviews ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
The 21st Century National Security Study ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Transformation ................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Military Strength Comparisons, 2000-2001 ................................................................................................................................... 11
Nuclear Weapons Facts .................................................................................................................................................................. 12
U.S. Conventional Weapons Facts ................................................................................................................................................. 13
Ballistic Missile Defense .................................................................................................................................................................. 15
PEOPLE ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
U.S. Military and Military-Related Personnel ................................................................................................................................. 21
Recruitment and Retention ............................................................................................................................................................ 24
Demographic Breakdown of the U.S. Military .............................................................................................................................. 25
Military Pay and Costs of U.S. Military Personnel ......................................................................................................................... 27
U.S. Military Ranks ........................................................................................................................................................................... 29
Top States for Military People and Money .................................................................................................................................... 30
MONEY ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 33
U.S. Military and Military-Related Spending ................................................................................................................................. 34
U.S. Military Spending 1946-2002 .................................................................................................................................................. 35
FY 2002 Military Budget Request ................................................................................................................................................... 36
Discretionary Spending .................................................................................................................................................................. 37
Funding Comparisons ..................................................................................................................................................................... 38
Global Military Spending Comparisons ........................................................................................................................................ 39
Military Contracts: Top 15 Corporations in Military Industry ....................................................................................................... 40
U.S. AND THE WORLD ................................................................................................................................................................. 41

The World At War Today ................................................................................................................................................................ 43
Costs of U.S. Wars and Interventions since 1900 .......................................................................................................................... 47
U.S. Military Deployments/Engagements, 1975-2001 .................................................................................................................. 50
International Peace Operations ..................................................................................................................................................... 54
U.S. Military Relations with Foreign Countries .............................................................................................................................. 58
De-alerting ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 59
European Security Structures at a Glance ..................................................................................................................................... 61
Asian Security Structures at a Glance ............................................................................................................................................ 63
U.S. Military Commands ................................................................................................................................................................. 65
Arms Control and Other Military-Related Agreements and Treaties ......................................................................................... 66
REFERENCES AND GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................................ 71

Recent Significant DoD and Defense-related Reports ................................................................................................................ 73
Sources and Recommended Readings ......................................................................................................................................... 74
Key Military Definitions ................................................................................................................................................................... 78
Selected Military Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................................ 81
CENTER FOR DEFENSE INFORMATION BOARD OF ADVISORS .................................................... inside back cover
ALMANAC ORDERING INFO ...................................................................................................................................... back cover
Center for Defense Information

The Center for Defense Information (CDI), founded in
1972, is an independent monitor of the military,
conducting research and analyzing military spending,
policies, and weapons systems. Its staff is comprised of
retired senior military officers and experienced civilian
analysts. Funded exclusively by public donations and
foundation grants, CDI does not seek or accept
Pentagon money or military industry funding. CDI
makes its military analyses available to Congress, the
media, and the public through a variety of services and
publications, and also provides assistance to the
federal government and armed services upon request.
Program tapes are widely used in schools and by

groups for their historic value, compelling
presentations, wealth of information, and diverse
opinions presented by military and political
experts.
List of programs, show participants, and transcripts can be viewed and tapes ordered at
www.cdi.org/adm. A printed show Catalog is
available.
Media services available on request.
CDI makes information available in several forms:
In order to ensure CDI can provide the international community with informed, in-depth military
analysis, the Center has established a program for
Distinguished Military Fellows. The fellowship
invites top retired U.S. Military officersthose
who command the deep respect of civilian as well
as uniformed defense specialiststo work with
staff for short periods of time on specific projects
and issue areas.
The fellowship program kicked off in 2001 with the
appointments of Marine Corps Gen. (Ret.) Charles
E. Wilhelm, former commander in chief of U.S.
Southern Command, and Marine Corps Gen.
(Ret.) Anthony C. Zinni, former commander in
chief of U.S. Central Command.
The Defense Monitor

Timely information on key military issues.
Published in hard-copy and electronically 8 to 10
times yearly.
Circulation of 28,000 includes members of Congress, the State Department, all military academies,
colleges and universities, national organizations,
major wire services, and key members of the press.
Quoted in the Congressional Record, Military War
College and Pentagon publications, and in news
sources across the nation.
CDI on the Internet at http://www.cdi.org
The most comprehensive Web sites for military
information with the following electronic publications
also available by email:
Weekly Defense Monitor: CDI Staff analyses of

current security issues;
National Missile Defense: Updates at NMD Web
site;
CDIs Russia Weekly and its archive: a review of
critical issues;
Peacekeeping Citation Lists: latest information
sources (bi-weekly).
Americas Defense Monitor TV Series
Provocative, award-winning, half-hour TV programs on hotly debated military-related issues
produced from October 1987 through 2000 and
broadcast on PBS and cable.
CDIs Distinguished Military Fellows
Speakers Bureau and Briefings to Visiting Groups

CDI staff members address student groups
including classes from the defense universities,
civilian universities and colleges, high schools, and
civic, business, religious, and professional groups.
CDI Military Almanac, Fact Sheets, and Monographs
Fact Sheets on subjects such as budgets and
weapon systems.
Monographs on key military related issues:
National Missile Defense, September 2000; Child
Soldiers and Sustainable Disarmament, April 2000;
The Armed Forces in Georgia, March 1999;
Soldiers of Fortune Ltd., November 1997.
vi
CDI ALMANAC 2001 2002
The CDI Library

Public and media welcome by appointment.
Extensive resources: magazines, journals, militaryrelated congressional hearings, and reports from
the General Accounting Office, the CIA, and the
Congressional Budget Office as well as information from the White House and the Department of
Defense.
U.S. MILITARY FORCES
Composition of U.S. Armed Forces

ARMY
Army Divisions
Active
Reserve
Army Separate Brigades
Active
Reserve
1990
1995
Est. 2001
18
10
12
8
10
8
8
19
3
24
3
18
1990
1995
Est. 2001
3
1
3
1
3
1
344 (26)
102 (8)
320 (23)
48 (4)
280 (21)
48 (4)
1990
1995
Est. 2001
15
35
43
59
100
97
66
168
11/1
16
31
51
25/10
83
39/2
146
12
18
27
55
28/8
54
38/2
139
694 (63)
109 (12)
528 (44)
38 (3)
432 (36)
36 (3)
1990
1995
Est. 2001
21
16
13
8
12.6
7.6
1,719 (76)
873 (42)
936 (53)
576 (38)
906 (45)
549 (38)
366
824
195
690
208
610*
1,719
1,461
1,351*
MARINE CORPS
Marine Corps Divisions
Active
Reserve
Fighter/Attack Aircraft (squadrons)
Active
Reserve
NAVAL FORCES (ACTIVE/RESERVE)

Aircraft Carriers
Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarines
Cruisers
Destroyers
Frigates
Attack Submarines
Amphibious Ships
Sealift Ships
Active
Reserve
AIR FORCE
Fighter/Attack wings
Active
Reserve
Active
Reserve
Other aircraft (active inventory)
Bombers
Transport/Cargo
US Air National Guard Aircraft
(Inventory of all type)
*
As of 30 September 1998
SOURCES: FY 2001 Dept. of the Navy Budget, Annual Report, SECDEF, 1990, 1995, 2001, Air Force Magazine Almanac, DOD Defense Almanac 19901997. Table prepared by Center for Defense Information.
Post Cold War Defense Reviews

Currently the military goes through a major review of
strategy every four years. The latest Quadrennial
Defense Review (QDR) was released in September
2001. It outlined some new directions for the military
but did not make any major changes in forces or
weapons.
A tradition of conducting major defense reviews
has taken hold since the end of the Cold War. The
major reviews have been:
The Base Force Review of 1992, under the first
Bush Administration. It resulted in a cautious
trimming of forces without major realignment.
The Bottom-Up Review of 1993, under the Clinton
Administration. It reduced the overall force size but
did not restructure the force for the change in
threats.
The Commission on Roles and Missions of the
Armed Forces of 1995, a congressionally mandated re-examination of each services responsibilities and contributions to the nations overall
military strategy.
The Quadrennial Defense Review of 1997, the
first QDR, mandated in congressional legislation
in response to concerns that the Clinton Administration was not retooling the military to deal with a
changed world.
The National Defense Panel (NDP) review of 1997,

the congressionally mandated independent review
of defense strategy. The NDP was also charged
with critiquing the official QDR. (A NDP was not
part of the QDR01 process as the Senate provision reconstituting the NDP was dropped in the
House-Senate Conference on the Fiscal Year 2001
Defense Authorization Bill.)
The Commission on National Security/21st
Century, congressionally created with a broader
mandate (in content and time horizon) and
membership than the strictly defense expert
makeup of the NDP. Its three reports were issued
in 1999, 2000, and 2001.
The National Security Strategy developed by the
President and Administration national security
officials. This sets directions and theoretically
integrates all the tools of security political,
economic, social as well as military components.
Congressional legislation calls for a National
Security Strategy to be delivered to Congress no
later than June 2001.
The National Military Strategy which focuses
primarily on the military aspects of and contributions to national security strategy.
U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century

The 1998 Department of Defense (DoD) Authorization
Bill established an independent 21st Century National
Security Study Group. Its tasks were to project and
analyze emerging world trends in the 21st century,
develop an appropriate U.S. national security strategy
[not just a national military strategy] that responds to
this trends, and propose changes in the processes and
structures of organizations concerned with national
security to improve implementation of the strategy.
The Commissions first report, New World Coming:
American Security in the 21st Century, was issued in
September 1999. It evaluated both the threats to and
opportunities for national security over the first 25 years
of this century. The second report, Seeking a National
Strategy: A Concert for Preserving Security and
Promoting Freedom, appeared in April 2000. It
proposed, in broad terms, U.S. security objectives and
a number of elements that commissioners believed
were necessarily a part of any comprehensive strategy
to achieve those objectives. Again, the elements cited
went far beyond the narrow, now almost traditional
focus on military resources. The final report, Roadmap
for National Security: Imperative for Change, issued at
the end of January 2001, recommends sweeping
alterations in national security institutions and processes that cut across the upper echelons of government. Since this report is the culmination of the
Commissions work, its findings constitute an action
plan for the new Administration and the Congress.
In its Phase III report the Commission makes 49
specific recommendations grouped under five broad
headings:
Securing the National Homeland (7)
Recapitalizing Americas Strengths in Science and
Education (6)
Institutional Redesign (25)
The Human Requirements for National Security (7)
The Role of Congress (4)
Fully aware of the usual fate of reports issued by
government commissions, this Commission added a
separate, 50th recommendation that the president
create an implementing mechanism to oversee and
advocate enactment of the first 49 proposals.

Enactment will not be an easy task since responsibility is divided; in some instances implementation
requires congressional action (26) while other
recommendations can be mandated by Executive
Order (13) or by an Executive agency head or the
congressional leadership (11).
SECURING THE NATIONAL HOMELAND
The key finding driving the recommendations under
this heading is that weapons proliferation and the
persistence of international terrorism make it
inevitable that the U.S. will experience a direct,
catastrophic attack against which there exists no
coherent defense.
The Commission calls for creation of a layered
defense of prevention, protection, and response
to be coordinated under a new, cabinet-level
National Homeland Security Agency (NHSA). The
NHSA would combine the resources (but retain
separate identities) of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Coast Guard, Customs
Agency, and Border Patrol.
Support from the Department of Defense would
be the responsibility mainly of the National Guard
which would be reorganized, trained, and
equipped for homeland defense. Organizationally,
the Commission calls for a new Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Homeland Security, for Joint Forces
Command to coordinate military planning for and
the command and control of military support to
civil authority in all disasters, and for Congress to
create a select committee on homeland security.
RECAPITALIZING AMERICAS STRENGTHS
IN SCIENCE AND EDUCATION
Without more investment in basic research and
technology, starting with education in the sciences,
mathematics, and engineering, Americas economic,
military, and social strengths will atrophy, its preeminence in being on the cutting edge of science and
technology will fade, and the nation will be unable to
retain its present-day position as the world leader.
On education, the Commission calls on Congress

to pass a National Security Science and Technology Education Act (NSSTEA) that guarantees lowinterest loans to enable students to pursue
degrees in mathematics, sciences, and engineering; loan cancellation for those entering government service, a National Security Teaching
Program to encourage math and science instruction in K-12 grades, and increased funds for
professional development of math teachers.
More money (by 2010, as much as $160 billion in
FY2000 dollars) for and rationalizing of the nations
basic and applied research and development
(R&D) effort is the other main recommendation of
the Commission. It also suggests strengthening
the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy, assigning the Science Advisor the duty of
preparing the budget for non-military R&D
programs, and reorganizing the national laboratories to minimize duplications.
In addressing Institutional Redesign, the Commission subdivided the topic into three sections
National Security Council (NSC), State Department,
and Defense Department (DoD).
The Commissions key finding with respect to the
NSC is that it has abandoned its primary role as a
neutral policy coordinator and become more of a dayto-day policy formulating organization. As such it
neither gives priority to strategic planning and
budgets nor integrates economics into national
security policymaking.
The Commission suggests the President must take
a more central role by formulating a top-down
strategic planning process, coordinated by the
National Security Advisor, and an overall national
security budget...in addition to the budgets of the
individual national security departments and
agencies to support the critical goals identified
by the strategic planning process. Both the
National Security Advisor and NSC Staff should
revert to their roles as low-profile advisors to the
President and get away from operational roles.
To more closely integrate economic with traditional security policy, the Commission recommends that the Secretary of Treasury become a
statutory member of the NSC. It also suggests

abolishing the National Economic Council, with
responsibility for international economic policy
affairs going to the NSC and domestic policy
responsibilities to the Domestic Policy Council.
The State Department is a crippled institution
that is starved of resources because of its inadequacies which, in a vicious circle, grow as fewer and
fewer resources are provided. This is the key finding
of the Commission regrading the State Department.
Only a thorough reorganization of the Department
will correct its deficiencies and in a separate
chart the Commission develops the main outline of
such a reorganization. In addition to consolidating
the Agency for International Development within
the Department, the Commission proposes a more
regional orientation (with Under Secretaries
overseeing Africa, Asia, Europe, Americas, Near
East/South Asia, and Global Affairs) in lieu of the
current predominantly functional one (Economics/
Business, Political, Arms Control and International
Security, Public Diplomacy/Affairs) that would
encourage strategic planning.
A consolidated Foreign Affairs budget would not
only link funds to strategic goals but also enable
Congress to see relationships and make comparisons between programs. In a similar vein, ambassadors should develop a comprehensive, integrated mission plan for their missions and
recommend to the Cabinet secretaries an
integrated country budget for all the agencies
with representatives in an embassy.
The Commission also recommends major
changes in the organization and management of
DoD to make it more agile and to free up the billions
of dollars needed for modernization. Policy, structural, and a series of process reforms are highlighted.
As with the NSC and State Department, DoDs
complex and unwieldy policymaking structure
confuses regional and functional responsibilities.
Moreover, the structure discourages forwardlooking strategic planning in lieu of current special
operations action. The remedy offered is
twofold: create an Assistant Secretary of Defense
responsible for strategic and contingency planning

who will link plans to the weapons acquisition
process, and abolish the separate Office of Special
Operations/Low Intensity Conflict as this is now a
mature military mission that is fully integrated into
strategy and force structure plans
Structurally, the Commission calls for DoD to cut all
Pentagon staffs and those of the five regional
commanders-in-chief by 10-15% and reduce, over
the next ten years, infrastructure costs by 20-25%
by consolidating, restructuring, outsourcing, and
privatizing...support agencies and activities. (The
Commission, however, did not specifically call for
additional Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
rounds but for a new Executive-Legislative
mechanism similar to BRAC to address this
reduction.)
Noting that the DoD budget process is not linked
to strategic goals, the Commission suggests that
the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) be
delayed into the second year of a presidential term
so that the Administrations policy priorities can
influence the QDR outcome. More controversial is
the recommendation that the Services and defense
agencies compete for the allocation of some
resources within the overall defense budget.
With regard to acquisition reform, the Commission
reiterates earlier recommendations for a two-track
system (separating major acquisitions from high
impact, breakthrough ones), increased prototyping
and testing, two-year congressional budgeting for
research and development modernization, and more
multi-year procurement. It also suggests updating
oversight requirements to eliminate waste created by
the accumulation of laws and regulations and
cutting the division equivalent of inspectors and
auditors by at least 50%.
The Commission also adds its voice to the growing
chorus of panels and independent observers
calling for re-evaluation of force planning based on
the criteria of two concurrent Major Theater Wars
(MTW). It recommends using as force sizing tools a
combination of trends in recent actual operations,
intelligence estimates, and national security
objectives, and then use revised major force
program categories to develop the required

capabilities mix. Current major force programs
include research and development; strategic,
general purpose, and special operations forces;
airlift/sealift; intelligence/communications; and
Guard and reserve forces. The Commission
recommends a restructuring that corresponds to
the five military capabilities it identified in its Phase
II report: strategic nuclear, homeland defense,
conventional, expeditionary, and humanitarian
relief and constabulary).
The Human Requirements is also subdivided but
into only two sections Civilian Personnel and
Military Personnel. Yet the reasons for the decline in
attractiveness of government and military service are
essentially the same: inadequate recruitment programs, downsizing, and alternative employment
opportunities in the non-government world.
For senior-level government appointees, the
Commission recommends sweeping changes in
the confirmation process, to include revision of
conflict-of-interest and ethics restrictions, reduction in paperwork, and limiting those positions
requiring full security background checks. They
also recommend cutting the number of presidential appointees by 25%.
By contrast, the Commission recommends
increasing State Department staffing by 10-15%,
revising hiring and entrance processes, improving
Department-sponsored professional education, and
renaming the Foreign Service to the U.S. Diplomatic
Service.
Recommendations for the Civil Service mirror
those above: enhance recruitment programs,
especially incentives for critical skills such as
information technology specialists; reduce
processing time for security clearances; and also
do more outsourcing. The reports earlier call for
an expanded National Security Science and
Technology Education Act with scholarship and
loan forgiveness provisions is reiterated. Finally,
the Commission suggests creation of a National
Security Service Corps whose career path would
allow professional development across the
different departments and agencies with national

security functions.
Scholarships and debt relief also top the list of
enhancements for military recruiting. To improve
retention, the Commission recommends revamping the one-size-fits-all promotion up-or-out) and
career management system that either mandates
or strongly encourages retirement between ages
38-45. Commissioners believe that applying the
provisions of the National Security Education Act
and the proposed National Security Science and
Technology Education Act to the military, together
with expanded Montgomery GI Bill and Veterans
benefits, are urgently needed steps in reforming
the military personnel system.
Finally, the Commission says, quite bluntly, that
Congress must put its own house in order. It makes
three points.
Congress must counteract the lack of interest in
and expertise about national security matters
through member education programs; consulting
(other than in formal hearings) with outside experts
and leaders in economics, intelligence, science,
and defense; and member participation in crisis
simulations and wargames.
The budget and policy processes need to be

streamlined. The Commission calls for the reorganization of the committee structures of both
chambers specifically, merging appropriations
and authorization subcommittees and committees
and having the chairman and ranking member of
each new committee serve on the budget committee of each chamber.
The congressional leadership needs to mirror

efforts by the Executive branch to improve
Legislative-Executive consultations as well as
improve public support for national security policy.
EVALUATION
There are clear continuities between the recommendations of the Commission on National Security/21st
Century and other recent reports such as that of the
National Defense University QDR Working Group, the
Commission to Assess United States National Security
Space Management and Organization, and the 2001

Annual Report of Secretary of Defense to the President
and the Congress. All conclude that the U.S. homeland
will experience a significant terrorist incident in the next
25 years, that government and the civil sector (industry,
law enforcement, health system) are ill-prepared and
mis-organized, that intelligence capabilities (especially
human intelligence) need to expand and improve, the
defense industry has to regain its fiscal footing (although
DoDs 2001 Annual Industrial Capabilities Report to
Congress says that defense industries are no longer in a
financial crisis), and that renewed emphasis on education and training in general and as an inducement for
government service in particular is required. But while
the 21st Century Commission parallels many recent nongovernment reports calling for revision of the 2 MTW
concept as the basis for force structuring, the Commission does not provide any suggestions about what
specific criteria should be used to develop the force.
The 21st Century Commissions 50 recommendations are by far the most far-reaching (as befits its
charter see below). But because they concentrate
on reforming processes and institutions in an effort to
revitalize the national security structure, the probability that the majority of the changes will be implemented particularly those pertaining to the
organization and functioning of Congress is slim.
The Charter of the U.S. Commission on National
Security/21st Century outlines five distinct tasks:
Conduct a comprehensive review of early 21st
century global security environment, including
likely trends and potential wild cards;
Develop a comprehensive overview of American
strategic interests and objectives for this security
environment;
Delineate a national security strategy appropriate
to this environment and the nations character;
dentify a range of alternatives to implement the
national security strategy by defining U.S. security
goals and describing the internal and external
policy instruments through which to apply U.S.
resources; and
Develop a detailed plan to implement the alternatives, to include recommending changes in the
national security apparatus as necessary.
PostCold War Military Transformation

A variety of transformation initiatives are underway in
the military services to adapt forces to a world that is quite
different than during the Cold War. The major elements of
the transformation efforts are outlined below.
Key stimulus: War against Serbia in 1999 completed

without combat participation by the Army. The Army
had difficulty deploying even a small force of 24
Apache attack helicopters quickly.
Army Experiment page: http://

www.armyexperiment.net/.
Army Transformation page: http://www.army.mil/usa/
Cover%20Sheet.htm.
Armor Center, Ft. Knox, BCT page: http://
www.knox.army.mil/center/mwfi/index.stm.
Infantry Center, Ft. Benning, BCT Task Force: http://
www-benning.army.mil/BCTTF/.
2nd Infantry Division, Ft. Lewis, 3rd BCT, http://
www.lewis.army.mil/transformation/.
Previous Plans: Force XXI, to be implemented by

2010, Army After Next by 2025.
NAVY THE FUTURE . . . FROM THE SEA, AND

NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE
Key figure: Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki,

who took command in June 1999.
Previous Plans: . . . From the Sea, which turned the

Navys focus towards littoral combat and away from
open-ocean combat against the Soviet Union. A 1994
update, Forward . . . From the Sea, put more emphasis
on forward presence. A new version is being developed.
ARMY THE OBJECTIVE FORCE
Main thrust: Move to conflicts faster by creating

medium-weight forces.
Objectives: Be able to deploy a medium brigade
around the globe in 96 hours, a division in 120 hours,
and five divisions in 30 days.
Operational concepts: Conversion of light and
heavy brigades into medium weight Brigade Combat
Teams first Initial BCTs, then Interim BCTs. The
Interim Force will have up to 8 Brigade Combat
Teams. The Objective Force is the target force of
medium brigades equipped with the Future Combat
System new armored vehicles (to be fielded by 2010).
QDR 01 Sales Pitch: Wars must still be won on the
ground, with land forces.
Criticisms: Too much emphasis on hardware change
(tanks to wheeled armored vehicles). Equipment
changes precede doctrinal and organizational
change. Cold War weapons like Crusader heavy
artillery, Comanche scout/attack helicopter still heavily
funded. Costly. Medium forces more vulnerable than
heavy forces. Shortage of Air Force airlift aircraft.
Key sources:
General Shinsekis speech to the Association of the
U.S. Army, October 12, 1999. http://www.army.mil/
csa/991012.htm.
Army Vision: http://www.army.mil/armyvision/.
Main thrust: Keep forces close to conflict areas, able

to intervene quickly and to show the flag.
Operational concepts: Network Centric Warfare shifts
from a platform-centric (ships, aircraft, etc.) focus to
a focus on sensors and weapons on different ships
and elsewhere linked together. The network fights as
a unit over a wide area through Cooperative Engagement Capability.
QDR 01 Sales Pitch: Navy/Marine forces are needed
to ensure access for Army and Air Force.
Criticisms: Ability of the Air Force to bomb anywhere
from the United States and of the Army to intervene
quickly with airborne troops raise questions about
need and cost of on-station presence.
Key Sources:
Navy Program Guide: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/
navpalib/policy/vision/vis00/top-v00.html.
Posture Statement: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/
navpalib/policy/fromsea/pos00/pos-top.html.
MARINE CORPS OPERATIONAL MANEUVER
FROM THE SEA AND THE THREE BLOCK WAR
Key figure: Gen. Charles Krulak, Commandant of the
Marine Corps, 1995-99.
10
Main thrust: Marine forces are a key element in the

Navy doctrine of attack or intervention on land by
sea-based forces.
Operational concepts: The three block war focuses on
conducting a range of missions such as humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping, and intense combat
in an urban environment and being able to switch
rapidly between them. Formerly, U.S. doctrine
attempted to avoid urban operations as much as
possible, given its very high casualties. However, the
increasing urbanization of the world, numerous
humanitarian missions, and the suitability of urban
terrain for asymmetric attacks on U.S. forces led the
Marine Corps to address the issues head on. Urban
Warrior was a series of experiments on operations in
urban areas, including tests in U.S. cities. Experiments
continue through the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab.
QDR 01 Sales Pitch: The Marine Corps is the
militarys premier expeditionary force, able to
intervene quickly and to perform a multitude of
missions across the spectrum of conflict.
Criticisms: U.S. military advantages (mobility,
reconnaissance, etc.) are reduced and vulnerabilities
(reluctance to take heavy casualties, destroy cities)
are increased in urban conflict, so U.S. forces should
avoid cities as much as possible.
Key Sources:
http://www.doctrine.quantico.usmc.mil/.
Marine Corps Strategy 21: http://
www.doctrine.quantico.usmc.mil/Strategy.pdf.
The Strategic Corporal: Leadership in the Three
Block War at http://www.usmc.mil/
cmcarticles.nsf/homepage+articles?openView.
Warfighting, Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication 1:
http://www.doctrine.quantico.usmc.mil/mcdp/
mcdp1.htm.
AIR FORCE GLOBAL STRIKE
Previous Plans: Global Engagement 1996; Global
Reach Global Power 1990.
Main thrust: Using air power strategically to win wars,
whether through new air and space technology
allowing the Air Force to strike around the globe
from bases in the United States, or operating forward
as an expeditionary force.
Operational concepts: Traditionally, Air Force wing

units would have just one type of aircraft. First in Air
Expeditionary Wings and now in Aerospace Expeditionary Wings and Forces the Air Force mixes
different aircraft to provide a broad and flexible
capability, including air combat, ground attack,
reconnaissance, and command capabilities in one
package.
QDR 01 Pitch: Air power plays the primary role in
winning wars, land forces the secondary.
Criticisms: Same argument made since the 1920s that
bombing can win wars ground forces are always
needed to occupy territory, especially now for
peacekeeping missions.
Key sources:
http://www.doctrine.af.mil.
Vision 2020: http://www.af.mil/vision/vision.pdf.
JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF JOINT VISION 2020
Previous plans: Joint Vision 2020 is based closely on
the 1996 Joint Vision 2010 but adds an increased
emphasis on information operations.
Main thrust: Improving ability to coordinate multiservice, multi-agency, and multi-nation military
operations, with a focus on technology, especially
information and command systems.
Operational concepts: Dominant maneuver, precision
engagement (ability to hit targets precisely with new
weapon technology), focused logistics (applying new
information systems to logistics), and full dimensional
protection (defending against asymmetrical attacks,
including terrorist, nuclear, biological, chemical, and
information attacks).
Criticisms: Joint command still does not reach far
down the command structure in operations
individual Services command their own forces.
Key Sources:
Doctrine homepage: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/
index.html.
Joint Vision 2020 http://www.dtic.mil/jv2020/
jvpub2.htm.
Joint Vision 2010: http://www.dtic.mil/jv2020/history/
jv2010.pdf.
11
Military Strengths of U.S., Allied, and

Selected Other Armed Forces
Any simple bean count such as this understates the full military strength of the U.S. and its allies. These data
portray neither the generally higher capabilities of U.S. and allied weaponry, nor the unrivaled U.S. capabilities
in communications, intelligence gathering, logistics, training, maintenance, and global mobility.
U.S. & ALLIES
Active
Troops
Reserve
Troops
Heavy
Tanks
Armored
Infantry
Vehicles
1,384,400
1,211,500
8,303
France
Germany
Greece
Turkey
U.K.
Other NATO1
294,430
321,000
159,170
609,700
212,450
979,880
419,000
364,300
291,000
378,700
302,850
1,734,780
Australia
Japan
South Korea
50,600
236,700
683,000
4,930,330
U.S.
Totals
Amphibious,
Major Mine, &
Support Ships
Airplanes
Helicopters
Warships
24,075
9,030
6,779
200
200
834
2,815
1,735
4,205
616
6,138
6,041
5,802
2,657
4,293
3,278
17,098
1,160
790
645
994
1,146
3001
642
734
196
362
435
1630
46
28
24
36
50
135
60
80
38
59
51
249
20,200
49,200
4,500,000
71
1,070
2,390
574
940
2,583
294
825
765
123
623
473
12
71
58
21
59
41
9,271,530
30,839
64,679
18,650
11,997
660
858
58,000
513,000
429,000
76,000
1,082,000
104,500
316,000
39,000
350,000
650,000
40,000
4,700,000
396,000
900
1,135
2,200
2,210
3,500
170
4,850
750
1,145
4,400
2,620
3,060
488
4,785
208
269
350
594
1,167
46
640
90
718
500
202
320
28
221
4
29
7
46
7
19
40
12
2,262,500
6,175,000
14,965
17,248
3,274
2,079
42
131
7,060
3,414
3,900
2,285
22,300
1,055
739
1,315
1,035
5,500
1,697
5,900
1,000
29,665
4,710
2,080
2,100
930
3,632
1,498
945
665
6,397
574
733
259
255
497
431
295
187
2,788
206
297
75
99
125
42
2
18
102
8
37
8
9
257
52
12
533
14
50
46
20
POTENTIAL ENEMIES2
Cuba
Iran
Iraq
Libya
North Korea
Sudan
Syria
Totals
OTHER COUNTRIES OF SIGNIFICANCE

China
India
Israel
Pakistan
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Taiwan
Vietnam
Yugoslavia
2,470,000
1,303,000
172,500
612,000
1,004,100
126,500
370,000
484,000
97,700
600,000
535,000
425,000
513,000
2,400,000
75,000
1,657,500
3,000,000
400,000
NOTES:
1
Other NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) includes Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Spain.
2
As historically defined by DoD. Iran was removed from this list in March, 1999.
Includes equipment in store. Figures are estimates.
SOURCES: International Institute for Strategic Studies, U.S. Department of Defense. Chart prepared by the Center for Defense Information
12
Global Nuclear Weapons Facts

STRATEGIC DELIVERY SYSTEMS AND WARHEADS
Delivery
System
Number of
Warheads
550
432
92
2,325
3,616
1,578
185
20
20
China
ICBMs
20/20
48
China
SLBMs
1600
0
United Kingdom
48/185
384
United
Kingdom
SLBMs
64/384
64
France
3200
France
3,800
2,272
788
1,174/p 6,860
756
348
69
Russia
ICBMs
SLBMs
Bombers
4800
1,074/p7,519
Russia
6400
United
States
ICBMs
SLBMs
Bombers
Total (Systems/Warheads)
United States
Warheads
Systems
ESTIMATED TACTICAL (BATTLEFIELD) WEAPONS AND HEDGE

United States
Russia
France
United Kingdom
China
Israel
India*
Pakistan*
North Korea*
~3,300
~4,000
~80
0
~390
~200
60?
30?
2?
HEDGE: U.S. Nuclear Policy, established in 1990, created a stockpile

of additional nuclear forces to be reconstituted in the event of a reversal of
currently positive trends.** Russia also maintains a strategic hedge.
WAR RESERVE: A policy to maintain a strategic reserve force.**
RETIREMENT: Routine storage of warheads awaiting dismantlement.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS FUTURE***

START II: Russia and the United States would reduce deployed strategic warheads to between 3,0003,500 warheads each.
START III: Preliminary discussions between President Clinton and President Yeltsin proposed a reduction to between 2,000-2,500
warheads each. Unilaterally, Russia has also suggested reductions down to 1,0001,500 warheads
DEFINITIONS:
ICBM: intercontinental (long range) ballistic missile land-based
SLBM: submarine launched ballistic missile sea-based
*
India, Pakistan, and North Korea are believed to have enough fissile material to make the number of weapons indicated although their success with
their weaponization programs is unclear. All are working on missiles that theoretically could carry nuclear warheads.
** Nuclear Posture Review, OSD, approved by the President 18 September 1994.
*** The U.K., France, and China are not parties to the START process.
SOURCES: DoD; Natural Resources Defense Council; The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; Arms Control Association (U.S. and Russian strategic
warhead count).
U.S. Conventional Weapons Facts

AIRCRAFT
AH-64 Apache
AV-8B Harrier
B-1B Lancer
B-2 Spirit1
C-17A Globemaster
E-8A/B JSTARS
F-14A Tomcat
F-14D Tomcat
F-15 Eagle
F-16 Falcon
F/A-18C/D Hornet
F/A-18E/F Hornet
F-22
Joint Strike Fighter2
F-117 Stealth1
OH-58D Kiowa
RAH-66 Comanche2
UH-60 Blackhawk
V-22 Osprey
Army Attack Helicopter

Marine Corps Fighter-Bomber
Air Force Heavy Bomber
Air Force Heavy Bomber
Air Force Transport Plane
Air Force Reconnaissance Plane
Navy Fighter
Navy Fighter
Air Force Fighter-Bomber
Navy Fighter-Bomber
Navy Fighter-Bomber
Air Force Fighter
Air Force/Navy Fighter-Bomber
Army Reconnaissance Helicopter
Army Reconnaissance Helicopter
Army Transport Helicopter
Marine Tilt-Rotor Transport Aircraft
Total Cost
Bil. 2001 $
Unit Cost
Mil. 2001 $
Number
Planned
13.7
9.9
32.5
44.4
44.9
8.4
21.4
7.2
35.6
41.8
42.7
47.0
62.7
223.0
2.6
3.5
44.1
17.2
36.2
17
35
325
2,114
335
560
36
131
33
19
40
86
187
78
43
9
34
8
79
811
285
100
21
134
15
595
55
1,074
2,201
1,026
548
339
2,852
59
382
1,292
2,127
458
Total Cost
Bil. 2001 $
Unit Cost
Mil. 2001 $
Number
Planned
10.4
6.6
6.9
4.3
2.5
2.0
2.6
7.3
8.7
7.8
3.6
3.5
1.6
13.9
27.4
1.1
12
0.35
1.2
0.19
0.8
0.03
0.31
10.2
217
1.4
0.22
0.05
2.5
61
10,917
460
19,607
3,705
12,905
2,461
88,116
23,924
850
36
2,528
15,636
29,108
5,628
453
MISSILES
AMRAAM
Advanced Cruise Missile

HARM
Harpoon
Hellfire, Longbow
JASSM
JDAM
JSOW
Apache Longbow
Patriot PAC-3
Phoenix
Sparrow
Stinger
Tomahawk
Trident II D-5
Air-to-Air Anti-Aircraft Missile

Surface-to-Surface Cruise Missile
Air-to-Surface Anti-Radar Missile
Surface-to-Surface Anti-Ship Missile
Air-to-Surface Anti-Tank Missile
Air-to-Surface Attack Missile
Anti-Tank Missile Guidance System
Surface-to-Air Missile Launcher Group
Surface-to-Air Infrared-Guided Missile
Surface-to-Surface Cruise Missile
Submarine-Launched Nuclear Missile
13
14
VEHICLES
M-1 Abrams
M-2/3 Bradley
MLRS
Heavy Tank
Armored Infantry Vehicle
Surface-to-Surface Rocket Launcher
Total Cost
Bil. 2001 $
Unit Cost
Mil. 2001 $
Number
Planned
24.1
11.6
7.3
3.1
1.7
9.6
7,822
6,778
764
Total Cost
Bil. 2001 $
Unit Cost
Mil. 2001 $
Number
Planned
5.2
26.5
54.0
13.4
65.2
31.2
15.1
5,210
982
947
4,467
2,173
503
1,514
1
27
57
3
30
62
10
WARSHIPS
CVN-77
CG-47 Ticonderoga
DDG-51 Arleigh Burke
SSN-21 Seawolf
SSN-774 Virginia
SSN-688 Los Angeles
SSBN Ohio
Nuclear Aircraft Carrier

Guided Missile Cruiser
Guided Missile Destroyer
Nuclear Attack Submarine
Nuclear Missile Submarine
NOTES:
Total Program Cost and Cost Per Unit include research and development costs. Weapons in bold are active programs involving new purchases or
modifications that are listed on the most current Selected Acquisition Report. Costs for other programs were taken from the last SAR in which they were
reported. Dollar figures from that Fiscal Year have been adjusted from that year into FY01 dollars.
1.
2.
Conversions into 2001 dollars not available. Nominal (then-year) dollar are provided for these weapons.
Although an active SAR exists, it covers only the costs of Research and Development. Alternative funding estimates have been used.
SOURCES: DOD, press reports, Congressional Budget Office, General Accounting Office, CDI. Table prepared by Center for Defense Information.
15
Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD)

WHAT IS BMD?
The Pentagon has long been involved in developing a
Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system to intercept
and divert or destroy incoming ballistic missiles. BMD
systems are not designed to defend against weapons
delivered by aircraft, via cruise missiles, or in the form
of truck bombs. While most BMD systems under
development utilize missiles as interceptors, lasers are
also being considered for this purpose.
BMD=NMD+TMD
Ballistic Missile Defense has two elements: National
Missile Defense (NMD) and Theater Missile Defense
(TMD). NMD is designed to defend the entire nation
from a limited number of long-range ballistic missiles,
whereas TMD is designed to defend forces in a given
theater or battlefield (generally meaning where U.S.
troops are deployed abroad) from short to mediumrange ballistic missiles.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF BMD
BMD, or more precisely the NMD part, goes back to
1967 when the United States announced it would
deploy the Sentinel ABM system. After its own review
of the program in 1969, the Nixon Administration
confirmed the original deployment decision and
Congress agreed. Later renamed Safeguard and
oriented toward protecting intercontinental ballistic
missile (ICBM) silos rather than cities, the system
consisted of 100 nuclear-tipped anti-missile missiles at
Grand Forks, ND. But Safeguard, ostensibly built to
thwart a potential attack by the Peoples Republic of
China, had two fatal flaws: if ever used, its nuclear
warheads would have exploded over Canada, and it
was ineffective and costly. Safeguard was deactivated
four months after it became operational.
In 1983, President Reagan launched the Strategic
Defense Initiative (SDI) which quickly acquired the
nickname Star Wars. Reagan envisioned a global
impenetrable shield protecting the United States
and its allies from thousands of incoming ballistic
missiles. The SDI program was scaled back under
President Bush to Global Protection Against Limited

Strikes (GPALS). GPALS was to protect the United
States and its allies from hundreds of incoming
ballistic missiles.
In light of the changed relationship with a postSoviet Russia and in the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf
War with Iraq, President Clinton refocused the
program against the more likely threat of short- to
medium-range ballistic missiles. (This element of BMD
became TMD.) Efforts to develop defenses against
long-range ICBMs were scaled back. The objective for
NMD became protecting the United States from
accidental launch or from attack by a rogue state
armed with a handful of intercontinental-range
missiles.
NMD: 3+3
In 1997 the Clinton Administration announced its
NMD program which was commonly referred to as
3+3. The original program called for the development stage to last until June 2000, at which point a
decision was to be made about proceeding with
deployment. The latter was to be accomplished in
three more years if the threat warranted it, the
technology was sound, and the system was compliant
with the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. Critics,
particularly in Congress, said the program was too
slow and made two attempts in 1998 to bring to a
vote a bill mandating deployment of a National
Missile Defense system.
On January 20, 1999, Secretary Cohen said that
three of the four fundamental conditions that would
warrant deployment of an NMD system had been
met: there was a valid and growing near- term threat
as illustrated by the August 31, 1998 North Korean
test of a Taepo Dong I missile; the Pentagon would
be able to project deployment costs, which it set at
$6.6 billion; and issues surrounding the ABM Treaty
had been resolved within the Administration. The
White House decided to undertake negotiations with
the Russians to further modify the ABM Treaty but, if
agreement could not be reached, the United States
would withdraw from the Treaty.
16
The only condition that had not been met was

technological maturity. Mr. Cohen, echoing a warning
by an independent commission that the U.S. missile
programs were rushing to failure, said that
deployment in 2003 would be a high risk decision
and that projected deployment for NMD would slip
to 2005. In the meantime, Congress passed the
National Missile Defense Act of 1999 which mandated NMD deployment as soon as technologically
feasible.
In October 1999 the first flight test that attempted
to intercept a missile was partially successful. But
when the next two intercept flight tests proved
unsuccessful, President Clinton declared on September 1, 2000 that he would not authorize deployment
activities to commence. Although the new President,
George W. Bush, and his Secretary of Defense both
expressed strong support for NMD, the Administration opted to undertake a complete review of the
program status and options before initiating deployment actions.
UPPER AND LOWER TIER TMD
TMD is generally divided into two categories: Upper
and Lower Tier. Upper Tier systems would intercept
missiles at the outer limits of the atmosphere and
would defend a larger territory. The two Upper Tier
systems being developed by the United States are
the Armys Theater High Altitude Area Defense
System (THAAD) and Navy Theater-Wide Defense
(NTWD). Because of problems with these systems
(e.g., THAAD failed in six of eight intercept tries), the
Pentagon wanted to meld the Upper Tier systems
beginning in 2002 by allocating the bulk of funds for
Upper Tier to whichever program was more successful. Congress refused to go along.
Lower Tier Systems include Navy Area Defense
(NAD), the Armys Patriot Advanced Capability-3
(PAC-3), and the Medium Extended Area Defense
System (MEADS). The two Navy systems will be
based on Aegis guided-missile cruisers and destroyers. PAC-3 is a further refinement of the Patriot
system first used in the 1991 Gulf War. The MEADS
program, an international effort with Italy and
Germany to develop and field a more mobile TMD
system than PAC-3, has been refocused on key
technologies and its funding reduced. There had

been fears that in the FY2001 budget it would not be
funded at all.
In addition, the Air Force is developing an
Airborne Laser (ABL) designed to intercept ballistic
and cruise missiles while in the boost phase.
THE ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE (ABM) TREATY
The 1972 ABM Treaty and the subsequent 1974 ABM
Protocol limit the United States and Russia to no more
than 100 ABM interceptors at one location to defend
against long-range ballistic missiles. The Soviet Union
chose a location near Moscow to defend the capital
and the United States picked Grand Forks, North
Dakota to protect U.S. ICBM fields from a first strike.
One of the modifications the United States is seeking
would allow for more than one site so that all 50 states
could be protected from a limited attack. The ABM
Treaty also forbids sea-based and space-based
interceptors, both of which have support in Congress
and in the new Bush Administration.
The ABM treaty has been called the cornerstone
of all the subsequent bilateral arms control agreements. It removed incentives to keep building more
offensive missiles to ensure that any missile defense
system could be overwhelmed. Many people believe
that the deployment of an NMD system, by violating
the ABM Treaty, would undermine adherence to
existing treaties, prevent future agreements, and
induce Russia and even China to try to develop
expanded offensive forces to counter a U.S. NMD.
DEMARCATION TALKS
The ABM Treaty does not preclude the development
and deployment of defenses against theater missiles
that might be used on the battlefield. However, the
original treaty did not clearly define what constitutes
a theater missile as opposed to a strategic
missile. This omission was corrected in September
1997 by two treaty amendments that set limitations
on the speed and range of theater missile systems
and on the speed and range of target missiles used
to test theater systems. (These limits on target
missiles are significant because a theater missile
system could not be converted into an anti-ICBM
missile without tests against a faster target missile.)
WHAT DEFENSES AGAINST

BALLISTIC MISSILES DO WE HAVE?
The only operational systems are basic missile
defenses that do not have an effective capability to
intercept incoming ballistic missiles. The most well
known of these is the PAC-2 Patriot which saw action
in the Gulf War. Others include the Marines Hawk
missile, which is to be replaced by MEADS, and the
Navys Standard Missile system, which is the basis for
the Navy Area Defense and the Navy Theater-Wide
Defense systems.
17
Development of TMD systems has proceeded slower

than expected due to a variety of technological
difficulties. For example, the interceptor being developed for THAAD failed its first six intercept tests before
succeeding in the next two in 2000. PAC-3 is behind
schedule and is suffering cost overruns with each missile
costing $5 million; the FY2001 Pentagon budget calls for
approximately 1,000 to be purchased over 13 years. The
Navys Lower Tier program has suffered such cost
growth that original projections for the number of
missiles has been cut almost in half to 750. The Navys
Upper Tier system has yet to attempt an intercept.
COST OF BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

Program/Proposal
Cost
BMD Program Costs

FY1983-FY2001
$95 Billion. The Congressional Research Service, in an August 1995 report,

noted that the appropriation for BMD exceeds by about 121 percent the
amount generally attributed to BMD funding for FY 1984 through FY 1994.
BMD Authorized
Spending for FY2001
$4.5 Billion
Administration BMD
Request FY2002
$8.3 Billion
1998 GAO Cost Estimate

for NMD land-based
Deployment Options
Location:
Grand Forks ND
Deployment Date:
2003
2006
Projected Life Cycle Costs: $18.4B $28.3B
SOURCES: CDI; DoD, CRS, GAO. Table prepared by Center for Defense Information.
Alaska
2003 2006
$21.5B $28.3B
PEOPLE
PEOPLE
U.S. Military and Military-Related Personnel

NUMBER OF ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY PERSONNEL 1789-2000
Year
Total DoD
Army
Navy
Marine Corps
Air Force
1789
700
700
N/A
N/A
N/A1
1812
12,700
6,700
5,500
500
N/A1
1865
1,062,800
1,000,700
58,300
3,900
N/A1
76,700
57,000
16,300
3,300
N/A1
2,897,200
2,395,700
448,600
52,800
N/A1
343,300
204,300
121,800
17,200
N/A1
12,055,900
8,266,400
3,319,600
469,900
N/A1
19474
1,582,100
685,500
497,800
93,000
305,800
1952
3,635,900
1,596,400
824,300
232,000
983,300
1962
2,805,600
1,066,400
664,200
191,000
884,000
1968
3,546,100
1,570,300
763,600
307,300
904,900
1987
2,174,200
780,800
586,800
199,500
607,000
1,807,200
610,500
541,900
184,500
470,300
19966
1,456,216
485,180
413,065
173,595
384,426
1,381,034
474,217
371,762
171,265
363,790
20008
1,370,918
479,026
367,371
173,195
351,326
18662
1918
19203
1945
1992
1998
NOTES:
1. The Air Force used to be a part of the U.S. Army.
2. Post Civil War93% reduction.
3. Post WW I88% reduction.
4. Post WW II87% reduction.
5. Soviet Union dissolved 31 December 1991.
6. Post Cold War19% reduction.
7, Post Cold War23% reduction (data as of 31 December 1998).
8. Post Cold War24% reduction (data as of 30 September 2000).
Totals may not add due to rounding. Numbers include full-time military personnel comprising regular, reserves on active duty, and officer candidates.
TOTAL MILITARY STRENGTH = ACTIVE + RESERVES*

Active
Duty
Total in
Reserves
Total
Manpower
Army
479,026
726,472
1,205,498
Navy
367,371
191,293
558,664
Marine Corps
173,195
100,750
273,945
Air Force
351,326
245,438
596,764
1,370,918
1,263,953
2,634,871
34,804
12,890
47,694
Total DOD
Coast Guard
NOTES:
* Data as of 30 September 2000.
21
22
TOTAL RESERVES = SELECTED + INDIVIDUAL READY/INACTIVE GUARD + STANDBY

Selected
Reserve
Individual
Reserve &
Inactive Guard
Ready
Reserve
Total
Standby
Reserve
Total
Reservists
Army
559,937
165,834
725,771
701
726,472
Navy
86,933
97,147
184,080
7,213
191,293
Marine Corps
39,667
60,188
99,855
895
100,750
178,705
50,304
229,009
16,429
245,438
865,242
373,473
1,238,715
25,238
1,263,953
7,965
4,772
12,737
153
12,890
Air Force
Total DOD
Coast Guard
TERMS
SELECTED RESERVE: Reserve units that are the most ready. They are the first to be called to active duty.
INDIVIDUAL READY RESERVE AND INACTIVE GUARD: Individual reserve and Guard personnel who are not
part of any given unit. These individuals usually do not participate in organized training.
READY RESERVE: Selected Reserve + Individual Ready Reserve/Inactive Guard.
STANDBY RESERVE: Key civilian employees or personnel who have a temporary hardship or disability but who
still wish to maintain their military affiliation (e.g., members of Congress).
NOTES: Totals may not add due to rounding. Data as of 30 September 2000.
NUMBER OF CIVILIAN PERSONNEL (as of September 2000)
Direct Hire*
Indirect Hire**
Total
Army
Navy/Marines
Air Force
Other
Total
204,717
183,213
154,254
106,485
648,669
18,168
10,829
6,508
2,890
38,395
222,885
194,042
160,762
109,375
687,064
NOTES:
* Hired by the military services, the defense agencies, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
** Foreign nationals who are technically employees of the host government and are assigned to work with U.S. forces abroad under contracts or
agreements between the United States and the host nation.
Totals may not add due to rounding.
PEOPLE
23
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
2000
1995
1990
1985
1980
0%
1975
55,900
65,700
61,000
63,000
72,100
80,100
84,100
96,100
107,300
112,900
121,100
128,200
135,050
138,761
141,800
1970
1,000
25,700
3,200
8,500
6,600
8,000
6,600
4,700
5,000
5,600
7,000
5,800
4,597
4,367
4,350
1965
300
11,000
800
3,600
2,700
3,200
2,400
1,700
2,000
2,400
3,700
2,900
2,337
2,190
2,240
1960
1940
1945
1947
1952
1962
1968
1970
1976
1980
1983
1987
1992
1996
1998
2000
1955
Total
Workforce
1950
Military
Related
1945
Military
Industry
1940
Year
Military Share of Total Workforce
MILITARY AND MILITARY-RELATED EMPLOYMENT (in thousands)
NOTES:
* Military related employment includes defense industry, DOD civilian work force, and active duty military.
NUMBER OF MILITARY RETIREES (as of 30 September 2000)

Army
Navy
Marine
Corps
Air
Force
For Longevity (Active Duty)
416,593
356,585
73,339
521,847
For Longevity (Reserves)
118,644
51,425
5,763
62,001
237,833
40,839
25,907
10,477
25,212
102,435
576,076
433,917
89,579
609,060
1,708,632
For Disability
Total
Total
1,368,364
NOTES: Totals may not add due to rounding.

SOURCES:
U.S. Department of Defense, Office of Public Affairs; Reserve Forces and Uniformed Services Almanac 2001; Directorate for Information, Operations and
Reports; DoD Statistical Report on the Military Retirement System, Fiscal Year 2000; National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2001, U.S. Department
of Defense Comptroller. Tables prepared by Center for Defense Information.
24
Active Component Recruitment and Retention

RECRUITMENT BY FISCAL YEAR*
Army
Goal
Actual
Navy
Actual
Marine Corps
Goal
Goal
Goal
1990
87,000 89,620
103
72,402 72,846
101
33,521 36,000
101
36,249 36,249
100
1991
78,241 78,241
100
68,311 68,311
100
30,015 30,059
100
30,006 30,006
100
1992
75,000 77,583
103
58,208 58,208
100
31,851 38,852
100
35,109 35,109
100
1993
76,900 77,563
101
63,073 63,073
100
34,802 34,776
100
31,515 31,515
100
1994
68,000 68,039
100
53,964 53,982
100
32,056 32,056
100
30,000 30,019
100
1995
62,929 62,929
100
48,637 48,637
100
32,346 33,217
103
30,894 31,000
100
1996
73,400 73,418
100
48,206 48,206
100
33,173 33,496
101
30,867 30,867
100
1997
83,000 83,088
100
50,135 50,135
100
34,512 34,548
100
30,310 30,310
100
1998
72,550 71,733
99
55,321 48,429
88
34,234 34,285
100
30,194 31,685
105
1999
74,500 68,209
92
52,524 52,595
100
33,668 33,703
100
34,400 32,673
95
2000
80,000 80,013
100
55,000 55,147
100
32,147 32,435
100
34,600 35,212
102
2001
78,950 38,676*
56,348 24,803*
Actual
Air Force
32,903 14,605*
Actual
34,000 19,044*
NOTES:
* FY2001 actual is through April 2001.
RETENTION RATES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 (Percent of those eligible who actually re-enlisted)
Army
Navy
Marine
Corps
Air
Force
First Term
52.3
29.6
26.2
52.0
Second Term
75.1
46.5
48.0
68.8
Career
67.0
57.0
80.5
91.6
FIRST TERM: re-enlistment during/at end of initial enlistment period.

SECOND TERM: re-enlistment during/at end of second or subsequent enlistment period for personnel with
less than 10 years time in service.
CAREER: re-enlistment during/at end of second or subsequent enlistment period for personnel with more
than 10 years time in service.
SOURCE: DoD.
PEOPLE
25
Demographic Breakdown of the U.S. Military

DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF THE U.S. MILITARY (as of 30 September 2000)
Black 18,686 (8.6%)
Hispanic 8,588 (4%)
Other 13,554 (6.2%)
DEPARTMENT
OF DEFENSE
Officers
Black
Army (23.5%)
Navy (18.4%)
Marine Corps (16.2%)
Air Force (14.6%)
*
9,268
3,658
1,338
4,422
(12.1%)
(6.9%)
(7.5%)
(6.4%)
Hispanic
3,262
2,837
941
1,548
(4.2%)
(5.3%)
(5.2%)
(2.2%)
Other*
5,520
3,301
628
4,105
(7.2%)
(6.2%)
(3.5%)
(6.0%)
Total
18,050
9,796
2,907
10,075
Includes Native American, Alaskan natives, and Pacific Islanders.
SOURCES: Uniformed Services Almanac, 2001, page 250.
Enlisted Personnel
Black 258,886 (22.4%)
Hispanic 104,302 (9%)
Other 77,117 (6.7%)
Black
DEPARTMENT
OF DEFENSE
Hispanic
Army (45.1%)
116,925 (29.1%) 36,646 (9.1%)
Navy (39.9%)
64,813 (20.6%) 31,188 (9.9%)
Marine Corps (34.4%) 25,160 (16.2%) 20,940 (13.5%)
Air Force (28.5%)
51,988 (18.4%) 15,528 (5.5%)
Other*
27,674
29,218
7,390
12,835
Total
(6.9%) 181,245
(9.3%) 125,219
(4.8%) 53,490
(4.5%) 80,351
Includes Native American, Alaskan natives, and Pacific Islanders.
SOURCES:Uniformed Services Almanac, 2001, page 250.
WOMEN IN THE MILITARY (as of September 2000)

Officers
Army
Navy
Marine Corps
Air Force
TOTAL DOD
10,791
7,816
932
11,819
(14.0%)
(14.7%)
(5.2%)
(17.1%)
31,358 (14.4%)
Enlisted
62,491
42,750
9,525
54,344
(15.5%)
(13.6%)
(6.1%)
(19.3%)
169,110 (14.7%)
SOURCES: Officers and enlisted totals as listed in Uniformed Services Almanac 2001, p. 248. Percentages derived by using total active duty force
numbers listed in Uniformed Services Almanac 2001 p. 247.
26
MINORITIES IN THE MILITARY AND IN SOCIETY AT LARGE

60
60
50
50
50
40
40
40
30
30
30
60
Women
51.1%
20
10
20
12.8%
11.6%
4.9%
Other
22.4%
20
14.4%
8.6%
10
6.2%
4%
Hispanic
14.7%
6.7%
10
9.0%
U.S. Society
Black
Military Officers
Military Enlisted
SOURCES: Uniformed Services Almanac 2001, p. 248, 250. The World Almanac and Book of Facts: 2001 (estimates for 1998 given on pages 368, 372).
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND (as of September 2000)

33,241 (2.8%)
3,937 (.3%)
13,007 (1.1%)
9,545 (4.2%)
15,048 (6.7%)
Below Baccalaureate
1,129,851*
(95.8%)
87,899
(39%)
113,068
(50.1%)
Officers
Baccalaureate Only
Advanced Degree
Unknown
Enlisted
NOTES:
Totals include Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Coast Guard.
* 0.7% of all enlisted personnel (8,220) have neither a high school diploma nor a GED.
SOURCE: Uniformed Services Almanac 2001, p. 250.
AGE OLD FACTS (as of 30 September 1999)

45.8% of all enlisted personnel are 24 years old or younger.
(45.5% Army, 43.4% Navy, 67.5% Marine Corps, and 36.7% Air Force)
73.4% of all officers are 39 years old or younger.
(73.9% Army, 72.6% Navy, 80.2% Marine Corps, and 72.1% Air Force)
SOURCE: Population Representation in the Military Services, Fiscal Year 1999, The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management
Policy), p. 3-4 and B-44. Tables prepared by Center for Defense Information.
PEOPLE
27
Military Pay and Costs of U.S. Military Personnel

MILITARY PAYCHECKS Basic Pay + Quarters Allowance + Subsistence Allowance
Effective January 1, 2001, Congress approved a 3.7% raise in basic pay, and allowance for subsistence for
service members for 2001. The basic allowance for housing (see Quarters below) increases by an average of
11 percent in 2001. These changes are reflected in the examples that follow.
GEN
O-10
Number of Years
Basic Pay*
LTCOL
O-5
2LT
O-1
MSGT
E-8
SGT
E-5
PFC
E-3
24
20
<2
18
$11,335
$5,790
$1,998
$3,041
$1,856
$1,385
Quarters*
no dependents
partial
full
with dependents
Subsistence**
$51
$33
$13
$15
$9
$8
$937
$827
$411
$522
$372
$317
$1,153
$1,001
$557
$691
$533
$431
$160
$160
$160
* US$ per month rounded to next whole dollar.

** Enlisted soldiers on leave or authorized to mess separately receive a basic allowance of $7.66/day. Enlisted soldiers on duty when rations in-kind are
not available receive $8.63/day for subsistence. Enlisted soldiers assigned to duty under emergency conditions where no U.S. mess facilities are
available receive a basic subsistence allowance of $11.43/day.
NOTE: Figures do not include special skill or hazardous duty/combat zone pay.
COSTS OF U.S. MILITARY PERSONNEL (FY01 Request)

Requested amount that the Pentagon will spend in 2001 on military personnel:
Estimated 2002:
Requested amount that the Pentagon will spend in 2001 on family housing:
Estimated 2002:
TOTAL:
(27 percent of total DoD request)
$75.4 Billion
$80.3 Billion
$3.5 Billion
$4.1 Billion
$79.0 Billion
28
ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY RETIREES

Increase in number of nondisability retirees and families receiving survivor benefits:
122% (from 764,898 in 1970 to 1,701,218 in 2000)
Retirement pay of a four-star Admiral or General (O-10) after 30 years of service:
$8,356 per month.
Retirement pay of a Lieutenant Colonel (O-5) after 20 years of service:

After 15 years of service:
$2,895 per month.

$1,836 per month.
Retirement pay of an Army Master Sergeant (E-8) after 20 years of service:

After 15 years of service:
$1,569 per month.

$1,016 per month.
Amount paid by the federal government in 1999 to military retirees:

Estimated 2000:
Estimated 2001:
$31.89 Billion
$32.9 Billion
$33.9 Billion
Amount paid by the Federal Government in 1999 for veterans benefits:

Estimated 2000:
Estimated 2001:
$17.96 Billion
$20.8 Billion
$18.2 Billion
RESERVE PAY
Average Annual Pay for Reservists who perform 12 weekend drills (4 drills per weekend) and the standard 2
weeks of annual training (1 drill per day).
The following chart shows 2001 pay, which reflects a 3.7% increase over 2000.
Grade
LTCOL 0-5
CPT 0-3
2LT 0-1
MSGT E-8
SGT E-5
PFC E-3
Number of years
18
10
18
<2
Average Annual Pay
$11,650
$8,252
$5,193
$6,285
$3,674
$2,510
NOTES: 4 drills = 1 weekend, there are 12 weekend drills including a 2 week active duty requirement during which each day is counted as 1 drill
(4 x 12 + 14 = 62 drills a year).
U.S.$ totals rounded to next whole dollar.
SOURCES: Defense Finance and Accounting Service. Tables prepared by Center for Defense Information.
PEOPLE
29
U.S. Military Ranks

OFFICERS
Grade
U.S. Army
U.S. Marine Corps
U.S. Air Force
Traditional Army
or Marine Unit
Command
Traditional
USAFUnit
Command
U.S. NAVY
Traditional
Navy Vessel
Command:
O-10
General
Army
Theater AF
Admiral
Fleets
O-9
Corps
Numbered AF
Vice Admiral
Numbered Fleet
115
O-8
Lieutenant
General
Major General
Division
Numbered AF
Rear Admiral
290
O-7
Brigadier General
Brigade
Air Wing
Rear Admiral
O-6
Colonel
Air Wing
Captain
O-5
Squadron
Commander
O-4
Lieutenant
Colonel
Major
Brigade/
Regiment
Battalion/
Squadron
Aircraft Carrier
Task Force
Flotilla/Carrier
Task Force
Capital Ship
Aircraft
O-3
Captain
Lieutenant
Commander
Lieutenant
O-2
First Lieutenant
O-1
Second
Lieutenant
Company/
Troop
Platoon
Aircraft
Aircraft
Platoon
Aircraft
Lieutenant
Junior Grade
Ensign
Total
DoD
34
440
11,333
Submarine/
Frigate
Auxiliary Ships/
Mine Sweepers
Yard Craft/
Tugboats
27,508
24,448
26,342
43,130
68,286
ENLISTED
U.S. Army
U.S. Marine Corps
U.S. Air Force
U.S. Navy
E-9
Sergeant Major
First Sergeant
Master Chief Petty Officer
10,184
E-8
E-7
Master Sergeant
Army Sergeant First Class
Marine Gunnery Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
Sergeant
Corporal
Army Private First Class
Marine Lance Corporal
First Sergeant
First Sergeant
Senior Chief Petty Officer

Chief Petty Officer
25,719
97,106
Technical Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
Sergeant
Airman First Class
Petty Officer First Class

Petty Officer Second Class
Petty Officer Third Class
Seaman
164,691
230,131
252,264
195,428
Airman
Seaman Apprentice
97,593
Recruit
Seaman Recruit
79,295
E-6
E-5
E-4
E-3
E-2
E-1
Army Private
Marine Private First Class
Recruit
SOURCES: Uniformed Services Almanac 2001, p. 247; CRS-31, Military Unit Terms. Table prepared by Center for Defense Information.
Total
DoD
30
Top States for Military People and Money:

The Defense Presence by State
TOTAL MILITARY AND CIVILIAN PERSONNEL (as of 30 September 1999)
Total for U.S. is 1,636,693.
1. California
2. Virginia
3. Texas
4. North Carolina
5. Georgia
6. Florida
7. Maryland
8. Washington
9. Hawaii
10. Illinois
173,783
159,105
148,828
102,905
93,392
77,053
61,960
54,720
48,664
48,662
(10.6% of total)
(9.7%)
(9.1%)
(6.3%)
(5.7%)
(4.7%)
(3.8%)
(3.3%)
(3.0%)
(3.0%)
<50,000
50,000 99,999
100,000 149,999
150,000 199,999
WHERE MILITARY DOLLARS ARE SPENT: PERSONNEL COMPENSATION (Fiscal Year 1999 estimated)
Total compensation includes civilian, military active duty, reserve and National Guard, and retired military pay.
Total for U.S. is $101,811,216,000
1. California
$11,394,822,000
2. Virginia
$11,169,951,000
3. Texas
$8,811,306,000
4. Florida
$6,722,007,000
5. Georgia
$4,800,915,000
6. North Carolina
$4,519,786,000
7. Washington
$3,951,370,000
8. Maryland
$3,587,843,000
9. Illinois
$2,440,230,000
10. South Carolina
$2,426,677,000
(11.2% of total)
(11.0%)
(8.7%)
(6.6%)
(4.7%)
(4.4%)
(3.9%)
(3.5%)
(2.4%)
(2.4%)
<$1 billion
$1 billion $4.9 billion
$5 billion $9.9 billion
>$10 billion
PEOPLE
WHERE MILITARY DOLLARS ARE SPENT: PRIME MILITARY CONTRACT AWARDS

(Fiscal Year 1999 estimated)
Total for U.S. is $114,875,139,000.
1. California
$17,371,558,000
2. Virginia
$12,240,573,000
3. Texas
$8,666,461,000
4. Florida
$6,806,055,000
5. Maryland
$5,466,503,000
6. Massachusetts
$4,714,942,000
7. Missouri
$4,602,627,000
8. Arizona
$4,171,941,000
9. Georgia
$4,112,571,000
10. Pennsylvania
$3,864,543,000
(15.1% of total)
(10.7%)
(7.5%)
(5.9%)
(4.8%)
(4.1%)
(4.0%)
(3.6%)
(3.6%)
(3.4%)
NOTES: Prime Contract Awards included civil functions contracts and military
functions contracts (both of which are a part of the military dollars spent).
<3%
3% 5.9%
6% 8.9%
9% 11.9%
>12%
WHERE MILITARY RETIREES LIVE (as of 30 September 2000)

Total for U.S. is 1,879,985.
1. California
2. Florida
3. Texas
4. Virginia
5. Georgia
6. North Carolina
7. Washington
8. South Carolina
9. Alabama
10. Arizona
195,456
179,513
173,604
122,777
77,157
71,472
67,314
49,621
48,970
48,799
(10.4% of total)
(9.5%)
(9.2%)
(6.5%)
(4.1%)
(3.8%)
(3.6%)
(2.6%)
(2.6%)
(2.6%)
SOURCES: DoD FY1999 Atlas/Data Abstract for the U.S. and Selected Areas,
Directorate for Information, Operations and Reports; Office of the Actuary,
Department of Defense. Retired Military Almanac, 2001, Uniformed Services
Almanacs, Inc. Tables prepared by Center for Defense Information.
<40,000
40,000 79,000
80,000 119,000
120,000 159,000
>160,000
31
MONEY
34
Total Military and Military-Related Spending

Official figures on National Defense spending exclude important military-related expenditures. The figures
below estimate the full cost of preparing for future wars and paying for past ones. They show estimates of
actual outlays, not budgets. Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
MILITARY
Fiscal Year 2001
Estimated Outlays
Billions
Fiscal Year 2002

Proposed Outlays
Billions
Department of Defense
Pay
Operating and Maintenance Costs
Weapon Purchases
Weapon Research
Construction
Other
Department of Defense Subtotal
Department of Energy (Military)
Other
National Defense
$72.1
$110.2
$52.7
$38.0
$8.9
$3.1
$284.9
$13.4
$81.2
$121.4
$56.7
$44.0
$8.4
$1.3
$313.0
$14.3
$0.8
$1.4
$299.1
$328.7
Fiscal Year 2001

Estimated Outlays
Billions
Fiscal Year 2002

Proposed Outlays
Billions
MILITARY-RELATED
Foreign Military Aid

International Peacekeeping
Space (Military)
Military Retirement Pay
Veterans Benefits
Subtotal
Interest Attributable to Past Military Spending
Military and Military-Related Grand Total
$7.1
$1.1
$2.6
$34.2
$45.4
$90.4
$94.8
$7.1
$0.9
$2.7
$35.3
$51.6
$97.6
$92.6
$484.3
$518.9
NOTES: Does not include funding for intelligence activities. While the federal government briefly disclosed the overall figure for the intelligence budget
(without specifics), this is not currently done. For those years where the information was made available, however, intelligence activities received roughly
$28 billion annually, the majority of which was funded through the Defense Department.
SOURCES: CDI, OMB, DoDs National Defense Budget Estimates for Fiscal Year 2002. Chart prepared by the Center for Defense Information.
MONEY
U.S. Military Spending 1946 2002

Billions of $2002
1940s
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950s
556.9
52.4
103.9
144.2
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
141.2
224.3
402.1
442.3
420.9
376.9
356.2
360.9
352.9
352.5
1960s
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
344.3
344.0
363.4
368.0
364.4
333.1
356.2
412.0
449.3
438.1
1970s
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
406.3
370.6
343.8
313.3
299.7
293.3
283.8
286.2
286.5
295.6
1980s
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
303.4
317.4
339.4
366.7
381.7
405.4
426.6
427.9
426.4
427.7
1990s
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
409.7
358.1
379.5
358.6
338.6
321.6
307.4
305.3
296.7
298.4
2000s
2000 311.7
2001 307.8
2002 328.7
U.S. MILITARY SPENDING 19462002 (Billions of $2002)

$600
$500
Cold War Average

$344.1 Billion
$400
$300
$200
Cost of the Cold War 1946-91

(in FY2000 Dollars)
$15,829,900,000,000
$100
$0
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
NOTE: 1991 Figure includes estimate for off-budget Iraq War costs.
SOURCE: National Defense Budget Estimates for Fiscal Year 2002; CDI. Table prepared by the Center for Defense Information.
2000
35
36
FY 2002 Military Budget Request

The Bush Administration has requested the following funding for the fiscal year 2002 military programs:
FISCAL YEAR 2002 BUDGET AUTHORITY
(Dollars in Billions)
Military Personnel
Operations and Maintenance
Procurement
Research and Development
Military Construction
Family Housing
Other
Total
$82.3
$125.7
$61.6
$47.4
$5.9
$4.1
$1.9
328.9*
NOTE:
* This total reflects only funding for the Defense Department (the 051 Account) and does not include funding for the Department of Energys nuclear
weapons programs.
The Administration request includes the following funding proposals for specific weapons:
FISCAL YEAR 2002 FUNDING REQUEST FOR SELECTED WEAPONS
(Dollars in Millions)
FY02
Request
Quantity
F/A-18E/F Fighter
F-22 Fighter
Joint Strike Fighter
C-17 Transport Aircraft
E-8C Joint STARS Reconnaissance Aircraft
B-2 Bomber Upgrade
V-22 Osprey Aircraft
RAH-66 Comanche Helicopter
DDG-51 Destroyer
SSN-774 Virginia Attack Submarine
LPD-17 Landing Ship
Trident II D-5 Missile
M1A2 Tank Upgrade
Bradley Fighting Vehicle Upgrade
Crusader Artillery System
3,156.4
3,879.0
1,535.8
3,495.0
584.4
218.1
1,760.1
787.9
2,996.0
2,293.2
421.3
567.2
834.8
414.9
48
13
15
1
12
3
1
12
447.9
Programs
Per Unit Cost
NOTE:
* Indicates the per unit cost of the base system without including costs associated with the current upgrade program.
SOURCE: DoD. Tables prepared by the Center for Defense Information.
86
187
78
335
560
2,200*
79
34
947
2,173
892
61
3.1 *
1.7 *
N/A
MONEY
37
Discretionary Spending
In all, the federal government will spend approximately $1.9 trillion in Fiscal Year 2002. Of this, discretionary
spending those funds that the administration must request and Congress must act on each year accounts
for roughly one-third. The other category of federal spending is mandatory spending, which the federal
government spends automatically unless the President and Congress change the laws that govern it. Mandatory spending includes entitlements; those benefits like Social Security, Medicare, food stamps and federal
pensions. It also includes interest payments on the national debt. With the new funds, Pentagon spending now
accounts for over half (50.5 percent) of all discretionary spending.
FY2002 DISCRETIONARY BUDGET (Dollars in Billions)
Military
$343
Education
$45
Health
$41
Justice
$30
Housing Assistance
$30
Natural Resources & Environment
$26
International Affairs
$24
Veterans Benefits
$24
Science & Space
$22
Training, Employment & Social Services
$20
Transportation
$16
General Government
$15
Other Income Security
$13
Economic Development
$10
Social Security & Medicare
$7
Agriculture
$5
Energy
$3
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
38
Funding Comparisons
Fiscal 2002
Total FBI Annual Budget
Fiscal
2002 Budget
Budget/Cost
Military Program
Request/Cost
$3.5 billion
$3.5 billion
FBI Counter-terrorism budget
$491 million
$448 million
Request for the C-17 Transport Aircraft

Request for the Crusader Artillery System
Smithsonian Institute Operating

Budget
$494 million
$567 million
Request for the Trident II D-5 missile
U.S. Postal Service Federal

Support
$2.6 billion
$3 billion
Mass Transit Federal Support
$6.9 billion
$6.6 billion
Proposed Increase for Ballistic Missile

Defense
Cost of 3 Virginia New Attack
Submarines (SSN-744)
National Park Service Annual Budget
$2.0 billion
$3.1 billion
Request for F/A-18E/F aircraft program
Veterans Montgomery G.I. Education

Assistance
$2.1 billion
$2.1 billion
Cost of 1 B-2 Bomber
Public Broadcasting Federal Support
$413 million
$421 million
$3.5 billion
$8.3 billion
Request for Ballistic Missile

Defense Program
Proposed 10% Increase for Military

Housing
$400 million
$2.1 billion
Request for C-17 Cargo Aircraft
Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program
$644 million
$748 million
Cost of 4 F-22 Fighter Aircraft
Energy Conservation
$795 million
$947 million
Cost of 1 Arleigh Burke Destroyer

(DDG-51)
$1.3 billion
$1.7 billion
Immigration and Naturalization

Service Budget
Superfund Clean-up program
Request for the LPD-17 Landing

Ship Program
Request for V-22 Osprey Tiltrotor

Aircraft Program
SOURCE: Office of Management and Budget, DoD. Table prepared by the Center for Defense Information.
MONEY
39
Global Military Spending Comparisons

Although military spending is not identical to military strength, order of magnitude comparisons of different
military budgets can be revealing. The following figures show military budgets of various countries.
MILITARY BUDGET (Dollars in Billions)
U.S.
$343.2
2002
North Atlantic Treaty Organization

U.K.
France
Germany
Other NATO*
$34.5
$27.0
$23.3
$62.3
2000
2000
2000
2000
Total U.S. & Allies
Total
250
200
$45.6
$12.8
$7.1
2000
2000
2000
150
100
$555.8
$56.0
$39.5
50
Potential Enemies**
Iran
Syria
Iraq
North Korea
Libya
Cuba
Sudan
300
$212.6
Asia/Pacific Allies
Japan
South Korea
Australia
$343.2
350
$14.4
$7.5
$1.8
$1.4
$1.3
$1.2
$0.8
$0.4
2000
2000
1999
2000
2000
1999
2000
0
U.S.
*
**
Allies*
Russia
China
Rogues**
Allies include the NATO countries, Australia, Japan,

and South Korea.
The Rogue states are Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea,
Sudan, and Syria.
$14.4
Other Countries with Significant Militaries

Russia
China
India
Taiwan
Pakistan
$56.0
$39.5
$15.9
$12.8
$3.3
1999
1999
2000
2000
2000
NOTE:
* Other NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) includes Belgium, Canada, The Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy,
Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Turkey.
** As defined by the U.S. Department of Defense. Iran was removed from the list in March, 1999.
SOURCE: International Institute for Strategic Studies, U.S. Department of Defense. Table prepared by the Center for Defense Information.
40
Top 15 Corporations in Military Industry

Company,
Headquarters
DoD Contract Value for

FY 2000 in millions
(% of DoD total contracts)
Major
Weapons
Locations of
Weapons plants
1. Lockheed Martin Corp.1,2

Bethesda, MD
$15,126
(11.3%)
F-16, AH-64 Apache

Trident, Hellfire missiles
Fort Worth, TX
Marietta, GA
2. Boeing Company, Inc.3

St. Louis, MO
$12,041
(9.0%)
F-18, F-15, V-22 Osprey

RAH-66 Comanche, C-17
St. Louis, MO
Long Beach, CA
3. Raytheon Company Inc.

Lexington, MA
$6,331
(4.7%)
Patriot, AMRAAM,
Hawk Missiles
Andover, MA
4. General Dynamics8
Falls Church, VA
$4,196
(3.1%)
nuclear submarines
DDG-51 Destroyer
Groton, CT
Sterling Hgts., MI
5. Northrop Grumman4,9
Los Angeles, CA
$3,080
(2.3%)
B-2 Bomber,
F-15, F/A-18
Pico Rivera, CA
Bathpage, NY
6. Litton Industries, Inc.4

Beverly Hills, CA
$2,737
(2.0%)
DDG-51 Destroyers
Pascagoula, MS
Orlando, FL
7. United Technologies
Hartford, CT
$2,072
(1.5%)
aircraft and helicopters

engines, UH-60, C-17
Stratford, CT
West Palm Beach, FL
8. TRW Inc.
Cleveland, OH
$2,005
(1.5%)
Electronic systems
and support
Redondo Beach, CA
9. General Electric5
Fairfield, CT
$1,609
(1.2%)
aircraft and helicopters

engines
Cincinnati, OH
Lynn, MA
10. Science Applications Intl

San Diego, CA
$1,522
(1.1%)
Programmic, logistical
and technical support
McLean, VA
11. The Carlyle Group

Washington, DC
$1,194
(0.8%)
Bradley Fighting Vehicle,

Crusader Artillery system
Minneapolis, MN
12. Computer Sciences Corp.

El Segundo, CA
$1,165
(0.8%)
programs and systems

management
Moorstown, NJ
Falls Church, VA
13. Textron, Inc.

Providence, RI
$1,164
(0.8%)
V-22 Osprey, tank

engines, helicopters
Fort Worth, TX
14. Marconi PLC6

London
$997
(0.7%)
Communications, radar
and navigation systems
Wayne, NJ
15. Honeywell Intl, Inc.5,7

Morristown, NJ
$951
(0.7%)
aircraft and missile avionics,

satellite components
Minneapolis, MN
Clearwater, FL
Total for the Top 15:

Total DoD contracts:
$56.2 billion
$133.2 billion (contracts valued at over $25,000)
The Top 15 Contractors account for 42% of all DoD Contracts

NOTES:
1. Lockheed Martin acquired COMSAT Corp., August, 2000.
2. Lockheed Martin sold its aerospace electronics division to British Aerospace, November, 2000.
3. Boeing Corporation acquired Hughes Space and Communications Co., October, 2000.
4. Northrop Grumman acquired Litton Industries in April, 2001.
5. Honeywell and General Electric announced plans to merge in October, 2000.
6. Marconi sells its electrical systems division to British Aerospace, November, 1999.
7. Honeywell merged with Allied Signal, 1999.
8. General Dynamics announced plans to purchase Newport News Shipbuilding on April 25, 2001. Plans were dropped in October, 2001, when the
Justice Department announced its intention to file an anti-trust suit.
9. Northrop Grumman announced May 8, 2001 its intent to match General Dynamics bid for the purchase of Newport News. Newport News announced
its acceptance of the bid following the Justice Departments decision in October, 2001, to file an anti-trust suit against General Dynamics.
U.S. AND THE WORLD
U.S. AND THE WORLD
43
World At War Today

WORLD AT WAR ONGOING SIGNIFICANT CONFLICTS AS OF JANUARY 1, 2001
MIDDLE EAST
Main Warring Parties
Year
Began
Cause(s)
Other Foreign Involvement/Conditions
Iran vs. Kurds
1961
Independence
None
Iraq vs. Desert Storm

Coalition (U.S. & U.K.)
1991
Stop WMD development
Economic sanctions; regime under

heavy pressure
Iraq government (Sunni) vs.

Shia (Supreme Council for
Islamic Revolution in Iraq)
1991
Religious & Power
Iran; U.S. & U.K. (No-fly zone); Kuwait,

Saudi Arabia, Bahrain (bases)
Iraq vs. Kurds
1961
Independence
U.S., U.K. (No-fly zone); Turkey (bases)
Israel vs. Hamas and Hezbollah
1975
Religious & Territory
U.N., U.S., financial donors for West

Bank and Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Iran
Israel vs. Palestinian Authority

(Al-Aqsa Intifada)
194894
(2000)
Independent state
U.S., UN, Jordan, Egypt
Year
Began
Cause(s)
Afghanistan: Taliban vs.

Tajikistan, Other Factions
1978
Ethnic & Religious
Former Soviet Union 1978-89,

Pakistan, Iran, Uzbekistan, U.N.
India vs. Jammu & Kashmir

Liberation Front*
1989
Ethnic & Religious
U.N.
India vs. Assam insurgents

(ULFA & NDFB)
1982
1986
Independence
U.N.
ASIA
India vs. Pakistan
1948
Ethnic & Religious
U.N., U.S.
Indonesia & West Timor

paramilitaries vs. UNTAET
1999
Stability opns &

Nation Building
U.N.
Indonesia vs. Aceh separatists
1969
Autonomy & Religious
None
Indonesia vs. Irian Jaya

separatists
1963
Ethnic & Economic
Appeal to U.N.
Indonesia vs. Christians &

Muslims in Maluccan Islands
1977
Religious & Territory
None
Kyrgyzstan vs. Islamic militants

& drug gangs
1999
Religious & drugs
Russia, Commonwealth of
Independent States (CIS)
Peoples Republic of China

vs. Tibet
1949
Autonomy and Religious
None
44
ASIA (continued)
Year
Began
Cause(s)
Peoples Republic of China

vs. Uighur
1996
Independence
None
Philippines vs. Moro Islamic

Liberation Front
1984
Religious
None
Philippines vs. New

Peoples Army
1969
Ideological
None
Philippines vs. Abu Sayyaf
1999
Religious
Malaysia
Sri Lanka vs. Tamil Eelam
1978
Ethnic & Religious
India
Tajikistan vs. Islamic militants

& drug gangs
1997
Religious & drugs
Russia & CIS, U.N.
Uzbekistan vs. Islamic

Movement of Uzbekistan
& drug gangs
1997
Religious & drugs
Russia and CIS
Year
Began
Cause(s)
Algeria vs. Armed Islamic

Group (GIA)
1991
Religious vs. Secular rule
U.N.
Angola vs. UNITA
1975
Economic & Ethnic
U.N., U.S., South Africa
AFRICA
Burundi: Tutsi vs. Hutu
1988
Ethnic
U.N.
Democratic Republic of Congo

& allies vs. Rwanda, Uganda
& indigenous rebels
1997
Ethnic
U.N., Namibia, Angola, Chad,

Zimbabwe, France, Organization of
African Unity
Ethiopia vs. Eritrea
1998
Territory
Organization of African Unity,

U.N., U.S.
Guinea vs. rebels based in

Sierra Leone & Liberia
2000
Power
U.N., Economic Community of West

African States Monitoring Group
(ECOMOG)
Rwanda: Tutsi vs. Hutu
1990
Ethnic
U.N., U.S.
Sierra Leone and UNAMSIL

vs. Revolutionary United Front
and Liberia
1989
Ethnic
Guinea, Liberia, Burkino Faso, Gambia,

Britain, Nigeria/ECOMOG, U.N.
Sudan vs. Sudanese Peoples

Liberation Army
1983
Ethnic & Religious
Iran, Uganda
Uganda vs. Lords Army
1986
Power
Sudan
U.S. AND THE WORLD
EUROPE
Year
Began
Cause(s)
Russia vs. Chechnya
1994;
1996
Independence
Organization for Security and

Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)
Kosovo: Albanians vs. Serbs &

other minorities
1998
Autonomy & Ethnic
KFOR (NATO & others), OSCE, U.N.
Year
Began
Cause(s)
Colombia vs. National

Liberation Army (ELN)
1978
Drug Trade & Ideology
U.S.
Colombia vs. Revolutionary

Armed Forces of Colombia
(FARC)
1978
Drug Trade & Ideology
U.S.
Colombia vs. Autodefensas

Unidas de Colombia (AUC)
1990
Ideology
Right wing militia
Peru vs. Sendero Luminoso
1981
Ideology & Drug Trade
None
LATIN AMERICA
Principal groups are Hizbul Mujaheddin, al-Badr, Lashkar-i-Taiba, and Hargat ul-Ansar, backed by the Jamiat-e-Islami movement.
POLITICAL VIOLENCE OR CONFLICTS IN SUSPENSION THAT MAY RESTART

MIDDLE EAST
Parties to Conflict
Duration
Turkey vs. Kurds

Lebanon: factions
Cause(s)
Foreign Mediation/Involvement
196100
Independence
None
1978
Power, Territory
Syria, Iran
Cause(s)
Ethnic
None
Economic, Ethnic
Vietnam
ASIA
Parties to Conflict
Duration
Fiji vs. insurgents
2000
Laos: internal
1999
Myanmar (Burma) vs. factions;

1942
National League for Democracy 1988
Ethnic & Drugs; Democracy U.S., U.N., Association of South East

Asian Nations
Tajikistan vs. United Tajik

Opposition
Religious
U.N., OSCE, CIS (Russian &

Uzbekistan peacekeepers)
Ethnic & Economic
Australia and New Zealand- led

International Peace Monitoring Team
199297
Solomon Islands: Malaita Eagle 199800

Force and Isatabu Freedom
Movement
45
46
AFRICA
Parties to Conflict
Duration
Cameroon vs. Nigeria
1994-96
Central African Republic

Chad vs. Muslim separatists
Cause(s)
Bakassi Islands
None
2000
Economic
U.N., France
1965
Religious
None
1998-00
Power
Economic Community of West African

States Monitoring Group (ECOMOG),
U.N.
Mozambique vs. RENAMO
2000
Power
None
Nigeria: internal
1970
Religious, Ethnic, Economic None
Guinea Bissau vs. former

army rebels
Republic of Congo
1998
Power
Angola
Somalia: factions
1978
Ethnic
U.N. (humanitarian aid )
Zimbabwe
2000
Racial & Economic
None
EUROPE
Parties to Conflict
Duration
Cause(s)
Serbs, Croats & Bosnian

Muslims
199096
Final status of
Bosnia-Herzegovina
NATO Stabilization Force under

U.N. mandate, Russia & others
Armenia vs. Azerbaijan
199094
Control of NagornoKarabakh
OSCE
Republic of Georgia vs.

Abkhazia & South Ossetia
199293
Independence
U.N., Russia, OSCE
Moldova vs. Trans-Dniester

Region
1991
Ethnic & Economic
OSCE
United Kingdom vs. IRA and

other factions
196997
Ethnic & Religious
U.S.
Parties to Conflict
Duration
Cause(s)
Haiti: factions vs. factions
199194;
2000
Economic & Power
U.N., U.S.
1983
1993
Ethnic & Religious
None
AMERICAS
Mexico vs. Zapatista & Popular

Revolutionary Army
U.S. AND THE WORLD
Cost of U.S. Wars/Interventions Since 1900
CASUALTIES
WORLD WAR ONE (Central Powers-chiefly Germany & Austria-Hungary), 191718
KIA
WIA
MIA
US
116,708
204,002
4,452
Opponent
3,385,500
8,388,400
N/A
Total
320,710
N/A
Troop
Strength
Monetary
Cost (2001$)
Declared
by Congress
4,743,826*
$555.6 Billion
H 37319
S 6721
Total number of personnel who served in the operation.
CASUALTIES
WORLD WAR TWO (The Axis-chiefly Germany, Japan, Austria), 194145

US
407,316
671,846
78,751
Opponent
5,408,494
8,176,555
N/A
Total 1,079,162
N/A
KIA
WIA
MIA
Troop
Strength
Monetary
Cost (2001$)
Declared
by Congress
14,903,213*
$4.53 Trillion
H 37350
S 826
CASUALTIES
KOREAN WAR (North Korea and China), 195053
KIA
WIA
MIA
US
36,570
103,284
8,177
Opponent
500,000
1,000,000
N/A
Total
139,854
N/A
Troop
Strength
Monetary
Cost (2001$)
Declared
by Congress
5,764,143*
$385.6 Billion
Undeclared
CASUALTIES
VIETNAM WAR (North Vietnam and Vietcong), 196175
KIA
WIA
MIA
US
58,198
153,363
1,973
Opponent
1,339,048
N/A
N/A
Total
211,561
N/A
Troop
Strength
Monetary
Cost (2001$)
Declared
by Congress
8,752, 000*
$826.8 Billion
Undeclared
Nonbinding Tonkin Gulf Resolution, H 4160, S 882

*
CASUALTIES
LEBANON, 198284
KIA
WIA
Total
US
263
169
432
Opponent
N/A
N/A
N/A
Troop
Strength
Monetary
Cost (2001$)
Declared
by Congress
1,900*
$73.6 Million
Undeclared
47
48
CASUALTIES
GRENADA (Grenadans and Cubans), 198385

US
19
119
KIA
WIA
Total
138
Opponent
70
417
487
Troop
Strength
Monetary
Cost (2001$)
Declared
by Congress
8,800*
$88.6 Million
Undeclared
CASUALTIES
PANAMA, 198990
US
23
324
KIA
WIA
Total
Opponent
345
N/A
347
N/A
US
Troop
Strength
Monetary
Cost (2001$)
Declared
by Congress
22,500*
$191.3 Million
Undeclared
CASUALTIES
IRAQ WAR, 1991
KIA
WIA
MIA
383
467
2
Opponent
40,000
100,000
N/A
Total
850
140,000
CASUALTIES
SOUTHWEST ASIA, 19912001*
KIA***
WIA
US
26
N/A
Opponent
N/A
N/A
Total
N/A
N/A
***
KIA figure is April 1994 Black Hawk

helicopter accident only.
Troop
Strength
665,476*
Monetary
Cost (2001$)
$8.5 Billion
Declared
by Congress
Undeclared
Nonbinding Gulf War Resolution, H 250183, S 5247

*
Troop
Strength
Monetary
Cost (2001$)
Declared
by Congress
29,000**
$9.9 Billion+
Undeclared
Operation Provide Comfort, Northern Watch, Southern Watch, Vigilant Warrior,

Desert Strike, Desert Fox, U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) and U.N. Iraq-Kuwait
Observation Mission (UNIKOM).
** Number of personnel in theater for Operation Vigilant Warrior.
CASUALTIES
SOMALIA, 199295*
KIA
WIA
Total
US
43
175
218
Opponent
N/A
N/A
N/A
Troop
Strength
Monetary
Cost (2001$)
Declared
by Congress
42,600**
$2.4 Billion
Undeclared
* Operation Restore Hope, UNISOM II, and Operation United Shield.

** Total number of personnel who served in the operation.
U.S. AND THE WORLD
49
CASUALTIES
HAITI, 199295
KIA
WIA
US
4
3
Total
Opponent
N/A
N/A
N/A
KIA
WIA
US
0
0
Opponent
N/A
N/A
Total
N/A
Troop
Strength
Monetary
Cost (2001$)
Declared
by Congress
21,000+*
$1.8 Billion
Undeclared
CASUALTIES
RWANDA, 199295
CASUALTIES
KOSOVO WAR (Serbia), 1999
KIA*
US Opponent
2 1,0005,000
WIA
N/A
Total
N/A
KIA figure is 5 May 1999 Apache

helicopter crash only.
Troop
Strength
Monetary
Cost (2001$)
Declared
by Congress
2,300*
$628.0 Million
Undeclared
Troop
Strength
Monetary
Cost (2001$)
Declared
by Congress
31,600*
$2.3 Billion**
Undeclared
Nonbinding resolution authorizing air/missile strikes,

H 213213 (failed), S 58-41.
* Total number of personnel who served in the operation.
** This figure does not include the $7.1 Billion incremental operational costs of the U.S.
peacekeeping operation in Kosovo for fiscal years 1999 through 2001, which is included
in the Former Yugoslavia figure below.
CASUALTIES
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA, 19922001

US
9
Opponent
WIA
N/A
N/A
Total
N/A
KIA
Troop
Strength
Monetary
Cost (2001$)
Declared
by Congress
20,000*
$20.1 Billion**
Undeclared
* Total number of personnel who served in the operation.

** Cost includes U.S. participation in NATO peacekeeping mission but not United Nations
Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo.
NOTES:
1. All data includes Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force figures. Coast Guard figures are also included in KIA and Number Serving fields.
2. KIA = Killed in Action (includes nonbattle deaths resulting from injuries, suicides, homocides and disease).
WIA = Wounded in Action.
MIA = Missing in Action.
Total = Total (KIA + WIA (MIA not included).
N/A = not available.
SOURCES:
U.S. Department of Defense; General Accounting Office; Congressional Research Service; DoD; CDI; Congress Joint Economic Committee; World War I:
An Outline History by Hanson W. Baldwin; A Short History of World War II by James Stokesbury; DoD POW/MIA Factbook; Korean War Almanac by Harry
G. Summers, Jr.; The World Almanac of the Vietnam War by John Bowman; Warfare and Armed Conflicts, Volumes I and II by Michael Clodfelter. Tables
prepared by Center for Defense Information.
50
Selected U.S. Military Deployments/Engagements 1975-2001

Mission
Dates
Strength
1. Evacuation of Saigon
Apr 1975
865 Marines, 70 helos
2. Mayaguez Rescue
May 1215, 1975
3. Evacuation of 250 U.S. and other

westerners from Lebanon
Jul 2223, 1976
US Navy helos
4. Koreatree cutting incident
1976
Unspecified Reinforcements
5. Sinai Multinational Force
1979
200 civilians 1,000 military
and Observers(MFO)
6. Zaire
MayJun 1978
Aircraft to move Belgian & French

troops to rescue westerners
7. Iran-Desert One
Apr 1980
6 US transports, 8 helos
8. Libya-Gulf of Sidra
Aug 1981
2 aircraft from USS Nimitz
9. El Salvador
198190
55 advisers to government forces
10. Lebanon
AugSep 1982
80 Marines for PLO departure
11. Lebanon
Sep 198284
1,900 Marines & Army as part

of international force
12. Nicaragua
198389
Helos and pilots for Honduran

force deployment
13. Egypt-Sudan
1983
AWACS plane to Egypt after Libya

bombed Khartum,Sudan
14. Chad
1983
2 AWACS & 8 F-15s to assist Chad

against Libya
8,800 troops
15. GrenadaUrgent Fury
198385
16. Lebanon Hostages
1984
17. Egyptian Air InterceptAchille

Lauro terrorists
Oct 1985
4 F-14s
18. LibyaGulf of Sidra
1986
Missiles from naval task force
19. Libya-Tripoli raid
Apr 1986
100 aircraft
20. Operation Blast Furnace
1986
Army helos & personnel to

assist Bolivia
21. Persian GulfReflagging

Operation Earnest Will
1987 88
Various USN ships

USS Stark
22. Panama
1988
1,000 additional troops
23. Libya
1989
2 F-14s down 2 Libyan planes
24. Panama
May 1989
1,900 additional troops
25. Bolivia, Peru, Colombia
Sep 1989
Approx. 100 troops for transport &

anti-narcotics training
26. Philippines
Dec 89
Aircraft from Clarke and 100 Marines

to US Embassy in Manila
27. PanamaJust Cause
198990
14,000 troops in addition to troops

in situ 27,351 total
41
50
263 169
19 119
39
31
23 324
U.S. AND THE WORLD
Mission
Dates
Strength
28. LiberiaOperation Sharp Edge
Jun 1990
4 ships & 2,000 Marines assist in

evacuation
29. Desert Shield/Desert Storm
199091
665,476 troops
30. Operation Eastern ExitNEO from

Somalia
Jan 1991
2 Marine Amphibious Ready Groups
31. BangladeshOperation Sea Angel
May 1991
Humanitarian relief
32. ZaireOperation Quick Lift
Sep 1991
Aircraft to move Belgian & French

troops to rescue westerners
33. Kurdish relief Provide Comfort

and Safe Haven
19911996
13,000 troops in Provide Comfort;

5,000 in Safe Haven
34. Operation Southern Watch (Iraq)

Major contingency action
1992
Oct 1994
Aircraft no-fly zone & Maritime

intercept 21,668 deployed to area
35. Operation Desert Falcon

(Saudi Arabia)
1991
Ballistic missile defense: 800
36. Haitian refugees

Operation GITMO
199194
U.S. Coast Guard and Navy
37. Operation Provide Hope
Feb 1992
Emergency airlift of excess medical

supplies to former Soviet states
38. Sierra Leone-
May 1992
Noncombatant evacuation (NEO)
39. SomaliaOperation Restore Hope
199293
25,800 troops
40. Former Yugoslavia

Operation Provide Promise
Opns Maritime Monitor/Guard
Operation Sharp Guard
Operation Deny Flight
199295
Airlift famine relief
41. AngolaOperation
Provide Transition
Aug 1992
Airlift of demobilized Angolan soldiers
42. Somalia, Kenya

OperationProvide Relief
1992
Airlift of humanitarian aid for

refugees
43. Operation Able Sentry
1993
345 in Macedonia
44. Haiti: Operations

Support Democracy
Restore Democracy
Uphold Democracy
199395
Naval Blockade
45. Korea (nuclear power plants)
1994
Deployment of Patriot Batteries

and aircraft with support
46. Operation Sea Signal

Cuban refugees
199496
Navy, Coast Guard; U.S. Marines

at Guantanamo
47. RwandaJoint Task Force

Support Hope
199495
2,300
48. Operation Vigilant Warrior

Persian Gulf
1994
29,000 in theater
49. SomaliaUN withdrawl

Operation United Shield
1995
7,000 Marines, Navy
50. Operation Deliberate Force

(Bosnia air strikes)
1995
U.S. and NATO air and naval forces
383 467
35 153
Sea cargo monitoring and embargo

in Adriatic No-fly zone enforcement
21,000
Nation building
51
52
Mission
Dates
Strength
51. Military Observation Mission in

Ecuador and Peru (MOMEP)
Operation Safe Border
199598
Logistics & Air Transport, 4 UH-60

helos and 64 USA
52. Intervention Force (IFOR)NATO in

BosniaOperation Joint Endeavor
199596
20,000
58,000 total force
53. Stabilization Force (SFOR) NATO

in Bosnia Operation Joint Guard
199698
7,700 in Bosnia, 3,000 in rim

countries, 36,000 total force

Operation Deliberate Guard
Operation Determined Guard
19961998
No-fly zone
Embargo
55. Operation Desert Focus
Jul 1996
Force Protection 600
56. Operation Desert Strike
Sep 1996
Air attack over Southern Iraq
57. Operation Pacific Haven (Relocate

6,500 Kurds to Guam)
199697
1,690 military and civilians
58. Operation Quick Response
1996
NEO from Central African Republic
59. Operation Assured Response
1996
NEO from Liberia; 2,400 from

68 countries
60. Operation Guardian Assistance
1996
Zaire/Rwanda refugee aid
61. Operation Northen Watch

(No-fly zone over Northern Iraq)
Jan 97
1,100 U.S. plus U.K./Turkey
62. Operation Assured Lift (Liberia)
1997
5 C-130s and 200 USAF
63. Operation Silver Wake
1997
Helicopters, 4,000 offshore

NEO from Albania
64. Intrinsic Action I-III
JanDec 1998
1,500 U.S. troops & Kuwait
65. Determined Falcon (Air power

display over Albania & Macedonia)
Jun 98
U.S./Belgium/Denmark
France/Germany/Greece
Italy/Netherlands/Norway
Portugal/Spain/Turkey/UK
Greece/Italy/Netherlands/Portugal
Spain/Turkey/UK
66. Stabilization Force SFOR) NATO

in BosniaOperation Joint Forge
Jun 98
4,250 Army with Marine ARG support

Operation Deliberate Forge
Operation Determine Forge
Jun 1998
68. Operation Safe Departure
Jun 1998
NEO from Eritrea
69. Operation Shepherd Venture
Jun 1998
130 U.S. forces

NEO from Guinea-Bissau
No-fly zone
Embargo
70. Operation Balkan Calm
JulNov 1998
Kosovo Observer Mission
71. Operation Autumn Shelter
Aug 1998
NEO from Democratic Republic

of Congo
72. Operation Resolute Response

(Embassy bombing assistance,
Tanzania and Kenya)
Aug 1998
Joint Task Force
U.S. AND THE WORLD
Mission
Dates
Strength
73. Operation Infinite Reach
Aug 1998
Tomahawk missile strikes against

Sudan and Afghanistan
74. Operation Eagle Eye
Oct 1998
Unarmed reconnaissance over

Serbiaby U.S., UK, French, Italian,
and German aircraft
75. Operation Strong Support
Nov 1998Mar 99
Hurricane disaster relief in

Central America
76. Operation Desert Fox
Dec 1998
29,900 U.S., 1,500 UK
77. Operation Allied Force

(US Operation Noble Anvil)
MarJun 1999
Air campaign over Kosovo

and Serbia
78. Operation Allied Harbour (US

(US Operation Shining Hope)
AprJul 1999
Kosovar Albanian refugee aid
79. Operation Joint Guardian

(Kosovo ForceKFOR)
Jun 1999
5,400 soldiers with Marine ARG

support
80. Operation Avid Response
AugSep 1999
Humanitarian aid to Turkey
81. East Timor (INTERFET)

UN International Force
(US Operation Stabilise)
Oct 1999Feb 00
12 U.S. plus rotational force
82. U.N. Transitional Administration

East Timor (UNTAET)
Oct 1999
9,287, including 3 U.S. military

observers
83. Operation Fundamental Response
JanMar 2000
Humanitarian aid to Venezuela
84. U.S. Support Group East Timor

(USGET)
Feb 2000
12 U.S. plus rotational force
85. Operation Atlas Response
Mar 2000
Humanitarian aid to Mozambique
86. Determined Response

(USS Cole bombing)
Oct 2000
Joint Task Force
87. Desert Spring (Kuwait)(formerly

Intrinsic Action)
Oct 2000
2,300 US troops and aircraft carrier

battle group rotating presence
for training
88. Desert Falcon (Kuwait)
Feb 2001
2,850 US troops
89. Desert Focus (Kuwait)
Feb 2001
2,850 US troops
SOURCES: DoD, Unified Commands, and Military Department Public Affairs Offices; Congressional Research Service. Table prepared by Center for
Defense Information.
53
54
International Peace Monitoring/Observation/Keeping Missions

1. UN and Other Multinational Missions by continent.
UN Missions
Other Multilateral
Africa South of Sahara

North Africa/Middle East/
17
10
Persian Gulf
11
Asia
Europe
21
Americas
39
15
23
22
2. As of January 1, 2001:
Missions Completed
Missions ongoing
3. The 15 ongoing missions are manned by just over 50,000 troops, military observers, police, and international civilians drawn from 88 countries, and local civilians. The U.S. contribution is 901 observers and police,
but no troops.
4. Of the 54 United Nations mandated peace, humanitarian, and observer missions through January 1, 2001,
thirty-five were initiated during the 1990s and one the UN Mission in Eritrea and Ethiopia (UNMEE) in
2000. Eighty-eight nations have personnel in the field.
5. Estimated Costs of UN Peace Operations:
1948January 1, 2001
Estimated July 1 2000June 30 2001
$21 Billion
$3 Billion
CURRENT MISSIONS AS OF JANUARY 1, 2001
Full Title
Acronym
Start
Date
Total
Force
Level
U.S.
Contribution
UN Truce Supervision Organization Israel-Egypt
UNTSO
1948
375 *
UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan
UNMOGIP
1949
124
UN Force in Cyprus
UNFICYP
1964
1,433
UN Disengagement Observer Force [Golan Heights]
UNDOF
1974
1,181
UN Interim Force in Lebanon
UNIFIL
1978
6,192
UN Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission
UNIKOM
1991
1,318
UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara
MINURSO
1991
660
UN Observer Mission in Georgia
UNOMIG
1993
350
UN Mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina
UNMIBH
1995
2,062
U.S. AND THE WORLD
55
CURRENT MISSIONS AS OF JANUARY 1, 2001 (continued)

Total
Force
Level
Full Title
Acronym
Start
Date
UN Mission of Observers in Prevlaka
UNMOP
1996
34
UN Mission in Kosovo
UNMIK
1999
5,407 **
UN Transitional Administration
in East Timor
UNTAET
1999
UN Organization Mission in the

Democratic Republic of the Congo
MONUC
1999
UN Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea
UNMEE
U.S.
Contribution
10,790
5,537
(authorized)
2000
4,200
* UNTSO provides 50 personnel to UNIFIL and 80 to UNDOF.

** Does not include OSCE contribution.
In December 1999 the Security Council also mandated a new Iraqi inspection regime, the Iraq Monitoring,
Verification, and Inspection Commission UNMOVIC to resume the work of the U.N. Special Commission in
searching for weapons of mass destruction. However, Iraq has refused to allow the team to deploy.
In addition, the UN Secretary General is represented by 68 special and personal representatives or
envoys, some of whom are associated with the UNs 14 non-peacekeeping political missions or offices
NON-UN MULTINATIONAL MISSIONS

Total
Force
Level
Full Title
Acronym
Start
Date
Korean War
Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission
(North/South Korea)
NNSC
195053
1953
Inter-American Peace Force Dominican Republic
IAPF
196566
Multinational Force & Observers Sinai
MFO
1979
1,844
5.72m
10
U.S.
Contribution
Multinational Force [Lebanon]
MNF
198284
1,900
Operation Just Cause [Grenada]
1986
8,000
Desert Shield/Desert Storm [Kuwait]
199091
800,000
Economic Community of West African States

Military Observer Group
(Liberia); (Operation Assured Lift)
ECOMOG
199298
12,400
The OSCE Missions of Long Duration in Kosovo,

Sanjak and Vojvodina (Inactive)
1997
1992
360 UN
20
The OSCE Spillover Monitor Mission to Skopje
1992
The OSCE Mission to Georgia
1992
20
The OSCE Mission to Estonia
1992
1992
500600
Joint Peacekeeping Force Georgia/South Ossetia
56
NON-UN MULTINATIONAL MISSIONS (continued)
Full Title
Acronym
Start
Date
Total
Force
Level
CIS Collective Force in Tajikistan
1993
The OSCE Mission to Moldova
1993
The OSCE Mission to Latvia
1993
The OSCE Mission to Tajikistan
1993
11
Operation Deny Flight

(Bosnia No-Fly Zone enforcement)
1993-95
Operation Able Sentry (Macedonia)
1993
500
Joint Peacekeeping Force Moldova
1993
6,000
25,000 +
Operation Uphold Democracy (Haiti)
199496
Rwanda (French forces)
1994
2,500
Operation Vigilant Warrior (reaction to Iraqi

troop movements)
1994
29,000 +
The OSCE Mission to Ukraine
1994
Russian/CIS Peacekeeping Force Georgia/Abkhazia

Operation United Shield (Somalia UN
extraction UNOSOM II)
21,000
X
X
X
1994
1,500
1995
14,000
60,000
Intervention Force Operation Joint Endeavor (Bosnia)
IFOR
199596
The OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina
1995
180
Stabilization Force Operation Joint Guard (Bosnia)
SFOR
1996
20,000
Liberia NEO Evacuation (2,400people from

68 countries)*
1996
Military Observation Mission in Ecuador-Peru

Operation Safe Border (logistics and air transport)
MOMEP
199698
The OSCE Mission to Croatia
1996
190
Economic Community of West African States

Monitoring Group Sierra Leone
ECOMOG
1997
15,000
Multinational Protection Force Albania
ALBA
1997
1,294
Inter-African Mission to Monitor the

Implementation of the Bangui Agreements
MISAB
1997
1,578
Peace Monitoring Group in Bougainville
BELISI
1998
The OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission
OSCE KVM
199899
2,000
1999
5,500
NATO Albania Force
U.S.
Contribution
X
X
64
262
X
The OSCE Mission in Kosovo
OSCE MIK
1999
647
Kosovo Force (Operation Joint Guardian)
KFOR
1999
38,000
Intervention Force East Timor
INTERFET
199900
11,310
U.S. AND THE WORLD
57
NON-UN MULTINATIONAL MISSIONS (continued)

Start
Date
Total
Force
Level
Operation Palliser (Sierra Leone stabilization

and NEO)*
2000
3,500
Operation Basilica (Sierra Leone

military training mission)
2000
310
Full Title
Economic Community of West African
Acronym
ECOMOG
2000
U.S.
Contribution
1,676
States Monitoring Group Guinea

*
Non-combatant evacuation operation.
NOTE: The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has 16 field activities (15 of which are in the former USSR) in addition to those listed above.
58
U.S. Military Relations with Foreign Countries

1. Collective Defense Treaties:
North Atlantic (NATO) Treaty: Signed April 4, 1949. Parties: Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark,
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain,
Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.
ANZUS Treaty: Signed September 1, 1951: Parties: Australia, New Zealand, United States.
U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty: Signed August 30, 1951. Parties: Philippines, United States.
U.S.-Japan Mutual Cooperation and Security Treaty: Signed January 19, 1960. Parties: Japan, United States.
U.S.-Korea Mutual Defense Treaty: Signed October 1, 1953. Parties: South Korea, United States.
Rio Treaty: Signed September 2, 1947. Parties: Argentina, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Costa
Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua,
Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.
NOTE: No treaty requires stationing U.S. forces in foreign countries.
2. Number of U.S. Military Personnel, Civilian DoD Employees, and Dependents By Region*
Region
U.S. Military
Personnel
Civilian DOD
Employees
U.S.
Dependants
Europe
117,411
46,262
142,513
East Asia/Pacific
101,447
38,586
54,792
The Americas (less the U.S.)

North Africa/Middle East/South Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa
Former USSR
Undistributed
TOTALS
5,416
478
1,040
29,384
224
1,145
17
892
150
160
35
3,775
157
266
257,817
86,648
199,688
3. Countries Host to the Most U.S. Military Personnel*

Country
U.S. Military Personnel
Country
U.S. Military Personnel
Germany
69,203
Spain
2,007
Japan
40,159
Turkey
2,006
South Korea
36,565
Iceland
1,636
United Kingdom
11,207
Belgium
1,554
Italy
11,190
Portugal
1,005
Saudi Arabia
7,053
Bahrain
949
Bosnia-Herzegovina
5,708
Cuba
688
Serbia (includes Kosovo)
5,427
Greece
678
Kuwait
4,602
As of 30 September 2000
SOURCE: Department of Defense. Tables prepared by Center for Defense Information.
U.S. AND THE WORLD
59
De-alerting
The prospect of the United States successfully
developing and fielding a National (and perhaps even
an allied) Missile Defense system has reinvigorated
the debate about de-alerting nuclear weapons.
De-alerting is the process by which the extremely high
readiness launch status of nuclear weapons systems is
reduced to a lesser level of preparedness to launch.
During the Cold War, parts of the vast Soviet and
American nuclear arsenals stood ready at a moments
notice to be employed in the unthinkable all out
nuclear war. In addition to missiles, specially
equipped command, control, and communications
aircraft such as the U.S. National Emergency Airborne
Command Post (NEACP) were constantly in the air.
A portion of the B-52 bomber fleet loaded with
nuclear weapons was on 15 minute strip alert,
ready to take off at the first indication of a possible
Soviet nuclear strike.
As tensions and suspicions eased, this state of
instantaneous readiness was reduced on both sides.
Planes were taken off strip alert; the airborne command posts no longer were in the air 24 hours every
day of the year. Discussions about reducing the
number of nuclear weapons led to the Strategic Arms
Reduction Treaties START I and START II. Russian
and American leaders pledged to detarget missiles
previously aimed at each others territory (although
they can be quickly retargeted).
As the 1990s progressed, two changes altered the
American-Russian nuclear balance. First, starved of
resources, the Russian nuclear weapons complex and
associated detection and warning systems began to
deteriorate rapidly. Second, pressure mounted in the
U.S. Congress to build and deploy a limited
(originally 125 and then 250 interceptors) national
anti-ballistic missile shield.
Given their greatly deteriorated nuclear force
structure, Russian leaders became uneasy about their
potential vulnerability to the unthinkable: a surprise,
devastating U.S. offensive missile strike that crippled
much of their still-operational nuclear weapons
complex coupled with a missile defense system
capable of defeating whatever Russian nuclear
weapons survived the American first strike.
Put another way, the Russians see the proverbial
one-two punch that could deliver the knock-out blow
to their strategic forces. The first punch would
decimate Russias vulnerable strategic retaliatory
forces. On any given day, out of a nominal arsenal of

6,000 plus warheads, Russia can count on fewer than
100 and perhaps as few as nine weapons surviving a
sudden U.S. missile attack. On any given day, these
weapons would reside on a single submarine and in a
single regiment of land-mobile rockets. The second,
decisive punch, seen through Russian eyes, is a U.S.
missile shield around U.S. territory capable of
mopping up this small residual force once it was
launched in retaliation.
What American leaders seem unable to grasp is
the fact that fielding U.S. missile defenses will
increase the net nuclear threat to the United States
because Moscows only viable alternative to the onetwo punch is to re-alert its forces that is, to go on
hair-trigger status.
U.S. officials try to dismiss these concerns by
pointing out that Russias thousands of weapons could
easily overwhelm a thin U.S. missile defense consisting
of only one or two hundred interceptors. What they
dont mention is that Russias second-strike force may
consist of only tens of weapons. One or two hundred
U.S. interceptors is a relatively big and threatening
number. Like military planners the world over, the
Russians will assume that the interceptors would work,
and that their deterrent arsenal would be checkmated
by the Americans in this situation.
While Americans might dismiss Russian concerns
about U.S. intentions, Moscow is cognizant that the
United States officially has declined to declare a nofirst use stance with regard to nuclear weapons. As
prudent risk-takers, Russian strategists know that they
can overwhelm the American missile shield only if
they plan to launch massively and quickly in a crisis.
This means either firing first or firing on warning from
their decrepit early warning sensors so that their
offensive forces clear their silo fields before incoming
U.S. missiles can strike them. That is a dangerous
escape valve because it increases the danger of
launch on false warning or miscalculation.
(This problem is all too real. A degraded early
warning network loses some of its ability to detect an
actual attack, but it simultaneously loses some of its
ability to screen out false indications of attack
generated by the sensor network. A broken communications link may delay the transmission of a legal
launch order, but it may also degrade safeguards
against an illegal launch.)
60
Moreover, economic pressures could easily drive

the numbers of Russian strategic weapons down to
the low hundreds over the next 10 to 15 years.
Russian confidence in their deterrent force would
wither proportionately, even for scenarios in which
Russian forces launch first or on warning.
What could Russia do? It could increase alert rates
of missile submarines at sea and road-mobile
rockets. It might heighten the readiness of its early
warning radars and nuclear command posts. In spite
of its economic problems, it could try to increase the
deployment rate of its Topol M strategic missile and
would likely deploy multiple warheads on the Topol
M. Moscow might consider extreme responses
including the fielding of space mines designed to
disable American space-based sensors in the event
of U.S.-Russian hostilities.
Thus any national or allied missile defense that
excludes Russia (and China) represents a real threat,
one that reinforces the psychology of insecurity that
can be offset by hair-trigger readiness (launch on
warning). In trying to protect American territory
against small attacks from rogue nations or small
accidental or unauthorized launches by Russia, the
United States actually would increase the risk of an
accidental or mistaken large-scale Russian missile
launch. If this risk grows by even a fraction of one

percent, then the additional peril to Americans would
far outweigh the benefits of protecting them partially
from a nebulous, uncertain future threat from a
country such as North Korea.
Is there a way out of this conundrum? One
possibility is to cut deeply the offensive missile
arsenals and take all silo-busting U.S. warheads
off alert and put them in long-term storage. By
de-alerting most or all of the current 2,200 American weapons on high alert, a U.S. national missile
defense would appear far less threatening to
Russia. Russian strategic missiles would be far less
vulnerable to U.S. offensive forces and thus they
would be far more capable of overwhelming U.S.
defenses. Russia in fact would be able to dealert its
own strategic missiles and thereby greatly reduce
the risk of a mistaken or unauthorized Russian
missile attack.
Regardless of the decision on a national or allied
missile defense, mutual dealerting ought to be the
main item on the Russian-American nuclear security
agenda. Progress toward eliminating the hair-trigger
on U.S. and Russian nuclear missiles is more critical to
American security than anything else on the table
today. But time is running out.
U.S. AND THE WORLD
61
European Security Structures at a Glance

NORTH ATLANTIC
TREATY ORGANIZATION (NATO)
TYPE: Military alliance
HISTORY: NATO was formed by the Washington
Treaty on April 4, 1949 as a common defense organization designed to prevent or repel aggression
against member states. NATO members pledge to
come to each others aid in case of attack and build
standardized military forces to ensure successful
cooperation in times of war. NATOs strictly defensive
mission changed after the end of the Cold War. In
1995, NATO began operating outside its members
territory when it attacked, with a mandate from the
United Nations Security Council, Serbian forces in
Bosnia. In 1999, it attacked civilian and military targets
in Yugoslavia in response to aggression by Serbian
forces in the province of Kosovo. NATO maintains
peacekeeping forces in both Bosnia and Kosovo. The
alliance grew from 10 to 16 members between 1952
and 1982 and it added three more members from the
former Soviet bloc the Czech Republic, Poland, and
Hungary in 1999. NATO also adopted a policy of
accepting in the future all nations that are qualified
and capable of contributing to the alliance.
EVALUATION: The premiere defense organization of
the Western democracies, NATO successfully
contained the Soviet threat during the Cold War. It
built a powerful military machine through joint military
planning, operations and exercises, and constructed
an elaborate military infrastructure network. NATO
remains the primary vehicle for U.S. military involvement in Europe. NATO responded to the changes in
Europes security environment by adopting new
duties, but not without controversy. In particular, the
1999 air war against Yugoslavia caused tensions within
the alliance as well as between NATO on the one
hand and Russia and the UN on the other because it
was launched without UN Security Council approval
and in apparent violation of international norms.
ORGANIZATION FOR SECURITY
AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE (OSCE)
TYPE: Collective security organization
HISTORY: The OSCE was formed by the 1975 Helsinki
Final Act as the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). The CSCEs name was changed
to the OSCE at the 1994 Budapest Summit. The
OSCE serves as an instrument for early warning,

conflict prevention, crisis management and postconflict rehabilitation in Europe. It addresses a wide
range of security issues: human rights, refugees, arms
control, economic development, political reforms,
and environment. In the military realm, the OSCE
works on arms reduction efforts, military-to-military
cooperation and other confidence and securitybuilding measures.
EVALUATION: The OSCE has become the organization of choice for early warning, conflict prevention,
crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation in
Europe. OSCE observers monitored the cease-fire
agreement in Kosovo before the 1999 NATO bombing campaign and led the state-building effort in the
province after the war. The organization is also
mediating in several conflicts in the former Soviet
Union in Transdniester, Abkhazia, and Nagorno
Karabakh. Its biggest success in the military security
realm has been the conclusion of the OSCE-initiated
Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE), which
imposed limits on most types of conventional
weapons and established a thorough monitoring
system. However, the OSCE does not have any
enforcement power and its decisions are not legally
binding. It operates on the assumption that its
members (all European states plus the United States
and Canada) will cooperate to prevent destabilization
in Europe. On numerous occasions, individual OSCE
members have foiled either the passage or implementation of resolutions and agreements deemed
inconsistent with their national interest.
EUROPEAN UNION (EU)
TYPE: Political and economic union with a military
dimension
HISTORY: The EU was established in 1992 on the
basis of the European Community (EC), which in turn
developed from existing European trade and commodity organizations formed in the 1960s. Originally
an economic and political body, the EU plays and
increasingly active role in foreign policy and military
issues. In 1997, member states signed the Treaty of
Amsterdam tasking the EU with defining and implementing a common foreign and security policy. In
1999, leaders of EU nations decided to create a
50,000-60,000-strong Rapid Reaction Force as well as
62
the necessary planning and decision-making bodies.

In 2000, plans for an EU defense identity were
formalized further with the establishment of formal
defense ties with NATO and an agreement on
national contributions to the Rapid Reaction Force.
EVALUATION: As of January 2001, the EUs defense
identity was only in the planning stage. The EUs
involvement in conflicts to date has been humanitarian
and political in nature. The new Rapid Reaction Force is
earmarked for missions such as humanitarian and
rescue tasks; peacekeeping tasks; and peacemaking.
The EU does not aspire to provide for defense of its
members. It currently lacks sufficient capability to carry
out a significant military action outside of its territory,
but EU members have pledged to eliminate weaknesses in areas such as intelligence and power projection. The EU is also pursuing an agreement with NATO
on joint use of the alliances facilities in times of crises.
COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES (CIS)
TYPE: Political and economic grouping with a military
dimension
HISTORY: The Commonwealth of Independent States
was formed by the successor states to the Soviet Union
in 1991 as a vehicle for economic, political, and military
cooperation. Although attempts at creating a unified
military failed, CIS countries agreed to coordinate their
defense efforts. Nine member states Armenia,
Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan,
Belarus, Georgia and Azerbaijan signed a Treaty on
Collective Security (also known as the Tashkent Treaty)
on May 15, 1992. It obligated signatories to come to
each others aid if attacked and prohibited them from
joining any organizations aimed against other CIS
members. Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Uzbekistan
withdrew in 1999. On October 11, 2000, six CIS
members Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,
Armenia and Belarus signed a follow-up document to
the Tashkent Treaty, the Collective Security Treaty. It
called for creation of joint rapid reaction units to protect
external CIS borders. The CIS cooperation framework
was evoked for a range of operations: protecting
borders of the CIS countries (Tajikistan), separating
warring parties on CIS territory (Abkhazia), establishing
a joint air-defense system, and coordinating military
planning and procurement.
EVALUATION: Although 400 treaty documents on
military cooperation have been signed by CIS
countries, fewer were ratified and an even smaller
number implemented. Very few CIS-wide military
activities exist; most cooperation programs were
negotiated on a state-to-state basis. The most

tangible products of CIS military cooperation are the
peacekeeping missions and the creation of an airdefense system. The CIS collective security organization is dominated by Russia, which supplies virtually
all peacekeeping troops and pays the majority of the
costs of joint programs. Other CIS states have
accused Russia of using the Commonwealth to
advance Russian rather than joint interests, and three
states Georgia, Uzbekistan, and Azerbaijan
essentially quit CIS military structures altogether.
Participation of states other than Russia is also limited
by their generally poor economic situation and, in
many cases, ongoing conflicts on their territory.
WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION (WEU)
TYPE: Military alliance
HISTORY: In March 1947, France and the United
Kingdom signed a Treaty of Defensive Alliance in
Dunkirk in which they agreed to cooperate militarily.
This alliance was widened with the signing of the
Brussels Treaty in March 1948, by France, the UK,
Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. This
established the Western Union which, with the signing
of the October 1954 Paris Agreements, evolved into
the Western European Union. The WEU was involved
in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war and the 199091 war
against Iraq. Members pledge to come to the aid of
one another in case of attack. In June 1992, WEUs
focus shifted toward the conduct of the so-called
Petersberg Missions, namely humanitarian and rescue
tasks, peacekeeping, and tasks of combat forces in
crisis management. WEU naval forces helped enforce
the embargo against Yugoslavia in 1993 and provided
a police contingent for the Bosnian city of Mostar.
EVALUATION: The WEU was largely moribund during
the Cold War when it played a secondary role to NATO.
Its potential was often evoked by European nations
trying to establish a purely European defense identity.
However, when European nations signed an agreement
in1999 to create a European defense organization, they
tasked the European Union with its implementation. The
WEU adopted a number of new missions during the
Balkan conflicts but these responsibilities will be turned
over to the EU in 2001. In 2000, EU leaders decided to
keep the WEU, albeit in a limited form, in order to
continue its work in coordinating armaments programs
among the European states. Moreover, because the EU
does not obligate the members to defend each other,
the WEU remains the vehicle for cooperation in case of
an attack against a WEU member.
U.S. AND THE WORLD
63
Asian Security at a Glance

ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEAST
ASIAN NATIONS (ASEAN)
TYPE: Political and economic
HISTORY: ASEAN was formed by Indonesia, Malaysia,
the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand to promote
political and economic cooperation and regional
stability. The ASEAN Declaration, signed on August 8,
1967 and considered the organizations foundation
document, formalized the principles of peace and
cooperation to which ASEAN is dedicated. The
strategy underlying the organization saw economic
development as the way to stave off communist
insurgencies. Brunei joined in 1984, shortly after its
independence from the United Kingdom. With the
end of the Cold War, Vietnam (1995), Laos and
Myanmar (1997) and Cambodia (1999) became
members. In 1994, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF,
see below) was established.
EVALUATION: ASEAN maintained an unwritten rule
to avoid interference in what the members considered
internal policy matters. Regional harmony remained
paramount. However, events beginning in 1997 the
Asian financial crisis, the massive haze from Indonesian forest fires, a coup in Cambodia, and political
instability in Indonesia, including East Timor
brought about the need for greater political-military
coordination. For the first time, in November 2000,
ASEAN military leaders met in Thailand and agreed to
join forces to manage low-intensity military operations
such as disaster- and humanitarian-relief operations
and the suppression of piracy.
ASEAN REGIONAL FORUM (ARF)
TYPE: Security dialogue
HISTORY: ARF is the outgrowth of the annual
ministerial-level dialogue between ASEAN and its ten
Dialogue Partners: Australia, Canada, China,
European Union, India, Japan, Republic of Korea,
Russia, New Zealand, and the United States. The
inaugural ARF meeting, held in July 1994 in Bangkok,
Thailand, established the first Asia-Pacific multilateral
forum for consultations on security issues. Papua New
Guinea, Mongolia, and the Democratic Peoples
Republic of Korea were later invited, bringing the
total membership to 23. The rotating chairman of
ASEAN presides over ARFs annual meeting in July.
Support groups on confidence building measures,

disaster relief, search and rescue, and peacekeeping
operations provide the structure for ongoing
consultations. Reconciliation on the Korean peninsula
and missile defense were major topics in 2001.
EVALUATION: ARF serves to integrate all the major
Asia-Pacific players into a security regime. By
avoiding the creation of pariahs, such as North
Korea, ARF prevents the formation of hostile groupings that could upset regional stability. Although it
has brokered no major agreements nor mediated
conflicts among its members, ARF has provided a
forum that clarifies members national interests and
creates a venue for private talks, such as Canada and
New Zealand finalizing opening diplomatic relations
with North Korea at the 2000 meeting.
ASIA-PACIFIC ECONOMIC COOPERATION
(APEC)
TYPE: Economic
HISTORY: The APEC forum was established in 1989
to promote economic integration and cooperation
around the Pacific Rim. Its 21 members United
States, Canada, China, Taiwan (Chinese Taipei), Hong
Kong, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines,
Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei,
South Korea, Papua New Guinea, Mexico, Chile,
Peru, Russia, and Vietnam envision free and open
trade for developed countries by 2010 and developing countries by 2020.
EVALUATION: The United States continues to be the
driving force behind APEC, maintaining its interest in
preventing an exclusive East Asian trading bloc.
President Clinton raised the organizations profile in
1993 when he initiated the first-ever leaders meeting
in Blake Island, Washington. While bilateral security
issues are discussed privately at annual meetings, its
agenda of economic globalization is the driving force
that the U.S. and other members believe will promote overall peaceful relations.
SOUTH PACIFIC FORUM (SPF)
TYPE: Political cooperation
HISTORY: Under Australian and New Zealand
leadership, SPFs other members Cook Islands, Fiji,
Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Federated States of
64
Micronesia, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea,

Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu
agreed in 1971 to work to promote regional political
cooperation.
EVALUATION: SPF serves to give small island

governments access to the officials of their larger
neighbors. The Forum promotes diplomatic dialogues
to moderate political instability in the region, such as
helping to resolve Fijis two political coups.
U.S. AND THE WORLD
65
U.S. Military Commands

The United States is the only nation which divides the
entire globe into military commands with a general or
admiral in command of each region and designated
forces. This practice began during World War II when
global warfare forced the U.S. armed services to
change from small, separate branches into an integrated armed force that deployed vast land, sea, and
air forces around the globe. This practice of assigning
U.S. military forces responsibility for specific regions
worldwide is known as the Unified Command Plan.*
Currently there are 9 Unified Commands (composed of units from two or more military services)
*
Geographical Responsibilities
Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM)**
Pacific Command (USPACOM)
Central Command (USCENTCOM)***
European Command (USEUCOM)****
Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM)
Functional Responsibilities
Space Command (USSPACECOM)
Special Operations Command (USSOCOM)
Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM)
Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM)
The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 requires the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to conduct a biennial
review of the UCP to examine the force structure, missions, and responsibilities, including geographic boundaries of each unified command. The next
review takes place this year.
Since the previous edition of this Almanac:

** U.S. Atlantic Command has been renamed United States Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM). However, the Commander in Chief of Joint Forces
Command retains his duties as the NATO Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic. Officially established on October 7, 1999, USJFCOM is the primary
catalyst for joint force integration, training, experimentation, doctrine development and testing.
*** U.S. Central Command has assumed responsibility for the Central Asian states of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan
(1 October 1999).
****U.S. European Commands area of responsibility was extended to include the water areas around Europe and Africa (1 October 2000).
SOURCE: Department of Defense Website www.defenselink.mil
USJFCOM
USCENTCOM
USEUCOM
USSOUTHCOM
USPACOM
66
Arms Control and Other Military-Related Agreements and Treaties

NUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL AGREEMENTS
Antarctic Treaty: Signed December 1, 1959. Entered
into force June 23, 1961. Parties: 37 nations. Prohibits
any use of Antarctica for military purposes.
Hot Line Agreement: Signed and entered into
force June 20, 1963. Parties: United States and Soviet
Union (Russia). Established prompt, direct communications links between the heads of state of each side.
A Hot Line Modernization Agreement was signed
September 30, 1971 and a Hot Line Expansion
Agreement July 17, 1984.
Limited Test Ban Treaty: Signed August 5, 1963.
Entered into force October 10, 1963. There are 117
nations who are party to the Treaty. Prohibits nuclear
weapon tests in the atmosphere, in outer space, and
under water.
Outer Space Treaty: Signed January 27, 1967.
Entered into force October 10, 1967. There are 126
nations who are party to the treaty. Prohibits nuclear
weapons in outer space.
Treaty of Tlatelolco: Signed February 14, 1967.
Entered into force April 22, 1968. Parties: 30 Latin
American and Caribbean nations with 27 ratifications.
The U.S., U.K., France, Russia, China, and Netherlands have signed the relevant protocols to the
treaty. Establishes a nuclear weapons free zone in
Latin America.
Non-Proliferation Treaty: Signed July 1, 1968.
Entered into force March 5, 1970. Parties: 187 nations
who agreed to extend the treaty indefinitely in
May, 1995. The principal non-signatories are Israel,
India, and Pakistan. Divided the world into nuclear
and non-nuclear weapon states based on status in
1968. Obliges non-nuclear states to refrain from
acquiring nuclear weapons and to accept International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards on
their nuclear energy facilities. Obliges nuclear
weapons states to work toward global nuclear
disarmament and to refrain from providing nuclear
weapons to non-nuclear states.
Seabed Arms Control Treaty: Signed February 11,

1971. Entered into force May 18, 1972. Parties: 119
nations. Prohibits placement of nuclear weapons on
seabed and ocean floor.
Accidents Measures Agreement: Signed and entered
into force September 30, 1971. Parties: United States
and Soviet Union (Russia). Measures to prevent
accidental nuclear war including agreement to notify
each other of planned missile launches and the
detection of unidentified objects.
SALT IInterim Agreement: Signed May 26, 1972.
Entered into force October 3, 1972. Parties: United
States and Soviet Union (Russia). Froze at existing
levels the number of strategic ballistic missile
launchers on each side. Permitted an increase in
submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) up to
an agreed level only with the dismantling or destruction of a corresponding number of older intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) or SLBM launchers.
ABM Treaty: Signed May 26, 1972. Entered into force
October 3, 1972. Parties: United States and Soviet
Union (Russia). Prohibited nationwide anti-ballistic
missile (ABM) defenses, limiting each side to two
deployment areas (one to defend the national capital
and one to defend an ICBM field) of no more than 100
ABM launchers and interceptor missiles each. In early
December 2001, the Bush administration gave the
Russians formal notice of intent to withdraw from the
treaty in six months.
ABM Protocol: Entered into force May 24, 1976.
Parties: United States and Soviet Union (Russia).
Limited each side to a single ABM deployment area.
Prevention of Nuclear War Agreement: Signed and
entered into force June 22, 1973. Parties: United States
and Soviet Union (Russia). Agreed that an objective of
their policies is to remove the danger of nuclear weapons
and of the use of nuclear weapons. Committed to enter
urgent consultations to avert the risk of nuclear confrontation between them or with other countries.
U.S. AND THE WORLD
67
Threshold Test Ban Treaty: Signed July 3, 1974.

Entered into force December 11, 1990. Parties: United
States and Soviet Union (Russia). Limited military
nuclear tests on each side to a 150-kiloton threshold.
Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers: Signed and entered

into force September 15, 1987. Parties: United States
and Soviet Union (Russia). Established centers
designed to reduce the risk of nuclear war.
Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty: Signed May 28,

1976. Entered into force December 11, 1990. Parties:
United States and Soviet Union (Russia). Limited
peaceful nuclear explosions on each side to a 150kiloton threshold.
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty: Signed

December 8, 1987. Entered into force June 1, 1988.
Parties: United States and Soviet Union (Russia).
Eliminated all U.S. and Soviet ground-launched
ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500
and 5,500 kilometers, their launchers and associated
support structures, and support equipment.
U.S.-IAEA Safeguards Agreement: Signed November

18, 1977. Entered into force December 9, 1980. Parties:
United States and IAEA. Agreement between the
United States and the IAEA to apply IAEA safeguards
in designated facilities in the United States.
SALT II Treaty: Signed June 18, 1979. Parties: United
States and Soviet Union (Russia). Never ratified, but
both nations pledged to comply with the treatys
provisions. Provided for broad limits on strategic
offensive nuclear weapons systems, including equal
numbers of strategic nuclear delivery vehicles and
restraints on qualitative developments which could
threaten future stability.
Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear
Material: Open for Signature March 3, 1980. Parties:
50 nations. Provides for certain levels of physical
protection during international transport of nuclear
material and establishes a general framework for
cooperation among states in the protection, recovery,
and return of stolen nuclear material.
Treaty of Rarotonga: Signed April 6, 1985. Entered
into force December 11, 1986. Parties: 13 South
Pacific nations. All five declared nuclear weapons
states have signed the relevant protocols to the treaty.
The United States signed the protocols on March 25,
1996, but has yet to ratify. Establishes a nuclear
weapon free zone in the South Pacific.
Missile Technology Control Regime: Informal
association formed in April 1987. Parties: 32 nations as
of August 2000. For missiles capable of delivering
weapons of mass destruction, established export
control guidelines and annexes listing missile equipment and technologies which would require export
licenses.
Ballistic Missile Launch Notification Agreement:

Signed and entered into force May 31, 1988. Parties:
United States and Soviet Union (Russia). Agreement
to notify each other, through nuclear risk reduction
centers, no less than 24 hours in advance, of the
planned date, launch area, and area of impact for any
launch of an ICBM or SLBM.
START I Treaty: Signed July 31, 1991. Entered into
force December 5, 1994. Parties: United States and
Soviet Union [Russia]. Strategic nuclear weapons
affected by the START I Treaty that remained in
Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus after the Soviet
Unions demise were scheduled for removal under
provisions of the Lisbon Protocol of May 1992. START
established limits on deployed strategic nuclear
weapons which are more restrictive than SALT
treaties since START sets limits below existing
deployed weapons levels and provides for on-site
inspections.
START II Treaty: Signed January 3, 1993. Parties:
United States and Russia. Ratified by the United
States on January 26, 1996. As of publication, it was
still awaiting ratification by the Russian Duma and
remained contingent upon the continuance of the
ABM treaty and the status of bi-lateral relations
between the US and Russia. Will enter into force after
ratification by both countries. Limits each side to
3,000-3,500 deployed strategic nuclear weapons.
Treaty of Pelindaba: Signed April 11, 1996. Parties: as
of November 1998, 56 signatories including the US
and five other non-African states. Ten nations have
ratified. The five nuclear weapons states have signed
the relevant protocols to the treaty. Establishes a
nuclear weapons free zone in Africa.
68
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: Signed September

24, 1996. Parties: as of March 14, 2001, 160 nations
had signed and 75 had ratified the treaty. The US is
not among the 67 nations to have ratified thus far. To
enter into force, the 44 nations which have nuclear
electrical-generating and research reactors are
required to sign and ratify the treaty. Included in the
44 are India, Pakistan, and North Korea, none of
which has signed the treaty. Of the 44 that must ratify,
30 have done so. Bans all explosive nuclear tests.
Memorandum of Agreement Between the United
States of America and the Russian Federation on the
Establishment of a Joint Center for the Exchange of
Data from Early Warning Systems and Notifications
of Missile Launches (JDEC MOA): Signed June 4,
2000. Parties: Russia Federation and the United States.
Sets up an uninterrupted exchange of information on
launches of ballistic missiles and space launch vehicles
from the early warning systems of the two nations.
Memorandum of Understanding on Notifications of
Missile Launches: Signed December 16, 2000.
Parties: Russian Federation and the United States.
Establishes a Pre- and Post-Launch Notification
System (PLNS) for launches of ballistic missiles and
space launch vehicles, and provides for the voluntary
notification of satellites forced from orbit and certain
space experiments that could adversely affect the
operation of early warning radars.
SOURCES: Bureau of Arms Control, U.S. Department of State; Federation
of American Scientists; Arms Control Association.
NONNUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL AGREEMENTS

Geneva Protocol: Signed June 17, 1925. Entered into
force February 8, 1928. Ratified by the United States
January 22, 1975. Parties: 131 states. Prohibits the use
of asphyxiating or poisonous gases and liquids and
all bacteriological (biological) methods of warfare.
Essentially a no first use agreement because many
signatories ratified it with the reservation that it
would cease to be binding if an enemy failed to
observe the prohibitions.
Biological Weapons Convention: Signed April 10,
1972. Entered into force March 26, 1975. Parties and
signatories: 160 states (143 ratifications, 17 signatories). Prohibits development, production, stockpiling,
acquisition, or retention of biological agents not

associated with peaceful uses, biological and toxin
weapons, and their delivery systems. Required
destruction or diversion of all prohibited agents to
peaceful purposes within 9 months after entry into
force. Prohibits transfer of, or assistance to manufacture, prohibited agents.
Incidents at Sea Agreement: Signed and entered
into force May 25, 1972. Parties: United States and
Soviet Union (Russia). Agreement on the prevention
of incidents on and over the high seas, including
steps to avoid collision; not interfering in the formations of the other Party; avoiding maneuvers in areas
of heavy sea traffic; requiring surveillance ships to
maintain a safe distance from the object of investigation so as to avoid embarrassing or endangering the
ships under surveillance; using accepted international signals when ships maneuver near one another;
not simulating attacks at, launching objects toward,
or illuminating the bridges of the other Partys ships;
informing vessels when submarines are exercising
near them; requiring aircraft commanders to use the
greatest caution and prudence in approaching
aircraft and ships of the other Party and not permitting simulated attacks against aircraft or ships,
performing aerobatics over ships, or dropping
hazardous objects near them.
Environmental Modification Convention: Signed May
18, 1977. Entered into force October 5, 1978. Ratified
by the United States December 13, 1979. There are
66 states party to the treaty plus 16 states which have
signed but have not formally adopted the treaty.
Prohibits deliberate manipulation of natural processes for hostile or other military purposes.
Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (the
Inhumane Weapons Convention): Opened for
signature on April 10, 1981. Entered into force
December 2, 1983. Signed by the United States on
April 8, 1982 and ratified on March 24, 1995. Parties:
76. Bans the use of nonmetallic fragmentation
weapons and blinding lasers, and imposes restrictions on the use of land mines and incendiary
weapons. CCCW Amended Protocol II on mines,
booby traps, and other devices has been ratified by
46 countries, including the United States, which
U.S. AND THE WORLD
ratified it on May 24, 1999. CCCW Protocol IV on

blinding laser weapons has been ratified by 45
countries, not including the United States.
Australia Group: Informal association formed in 1984
in response to chemical weapons use in the Iran-Iraq
War. Parties: 30 states and the European Commission
as an observer. Harmonizes export controls on
chemicals that can be used to produce biological and
chemical weapons.
Stockholm Conference: Signed and entered into
force September 19, 1986. Parties: 35 states. Established confidence and security-building measures
designed to increase openness and predictability
with regard to military activities in Europe.
U.S.-Soviet Bilateral Memorandum of Understanding: Signed and entered into force September 23,
1989. Parties: United States and Soviet Union (Russia).
Agreement to exchange data on size, composition,
and location of chemical weapon stockpiles and
storage, production, and destruction facilities and to
conduct reciprocal visits and both routine and
challenge inspections.
U.S.-Soviet Bilateral Destruction Agreement: Signed
in June 1990. Has not entered into force. Parties:
United States and Soviet Union (Russia). Abandoned
by Russia in what was viewed as an attempt to hinder
CWC ratifications and now dormant, although there
are indications that the Russians may be willing to
revisit the accord. Agreement to stop producing
chemical weapons, to reduce stockpiles to no more
than 5,000 agent tons with destruction to begin by
December 31, 1992 and to be completed by December 31, 2002, and to cooperate in developing safe
methods for destroying chemical weapons. Revised
deadlines now call for destruction to begin by June
30, 1997 and to be completed by June 30, 2004.
Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty: Signed
November 19, 1990. Provisionally entered into force
July 17, 1992. Legally entered into force November 9,
1992. Parties: 30 states. Established limits on the
number of tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery,
combat aircraft, and helicopters in Europe.
Open Skies Treaty: Signed March 24, 1992. Parties:
27 states. The United States and 23 other states have
ratified the treaty. Ratifications by Russia and Belarus
69
are still required for entry into force. Permits unarmed

reconnaissance flights designed to promote military
transparency and confidence among former NATO
and Warsaw Pact adversaries.
CFE 1A Treaty: Signed July 10, 1992. Entered into
force July 17, 1992. Parties: 30 states. Established limits
on the number of troops in Europe. CFE IA is a
politically binding, but not legally binding, agreement.
Chemical Weapons Convention: Opened for signature
January 13, 1993. A total of 174 countries have signed the
treaty to date and 141 have ratified the treaty. The treaty
entered into force April 29, 1997, 180 days after deposit of
the 65th ratification. Prohibits the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer, and use of
chemical weapons. Requires declaration of chemical
weapons or chemical weapon capabilities, including those
primarily associated with commercial use. Requires
destruction of declared chemical weapons and associated
production facilities. Provides for routine inspections of
relevant facilities and challenge inspections upon request.
Agreement on Consultation Mechanism to
Strengthen Military Maritime Safety United States
and Peoples Republic of China: Signed January 19,
1998 by the U.S. Department of Defense and the PRC
Ministry of National Defense. Establishes annual
meetings designed to promote common understandings regarding activities undertaken by maritime and
air forces operating in accordance with international
law, including principles reflected in the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Ottawa Landmines Convention: Negotiated 1996-97,
the Ottawa Landmines Convention was opened for
signature December 3, 1997. It entered into force
March 1, 1999, faster than any previous treaty. A total
of 142 countries have signed the Convention and 122
have ratified it. The Convention prohibits the use,
stockpiling, production, and transfer of anti-personnel mines and their destruction. The United States
has not signed the Ottawa Convention.
Child Soldiers Protocol: The Optional Protocol to the
Convention on the Rights of the Child on Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict establishes 18 as
the minimum age for direct participation in hostilities,
compulsory or forced recruitment, and for any
recruitment or use in hostilities by non-governmental
70
armed groups. The Protocol was adopted by the UN

General Assembly by unanimous consent on May 25,
2000 after six years of negotiations. The Protocol was
signed by President Clinton on July 5, 2000. A total of
92 countries have signed the Protocol and 11 have
ratified it. The Protocol is a stand-alone treaty, and is

open to all countries, even those that have not
ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,
and does not obligate states to do so. The Optional
Protocol enters into force February 12, 2002.
SOURCES: Arms Control and Disarmament Agency; United Nations, Arms Control Reporter, International Campaign to Ban Landmines, International
Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers.
GLOSSARY AND RESOURCES
REFERENCES AND GLOSSARY
73
Recent Significant DoD and Defense-related Reports

The United States and the International Criminal
Court: The Choices Ahead, American Academy of
Arts and Sciences, November 2000
Report of the Independent Commission on the
Verifiability of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,
The Verification Research, Training, and Information
Centre, London, November 8, 2000
The Report of the National Defense University
Quadrennial Defense Review 2001 Working Group,
Department of Defense, November 8, 2000
Strengthening Transatlantic Security: A Strategy for the
21st Century, Department of Defense, December 2000
Global Trends 2015, National Foreign Intelligence
Board, December 20, 2000
Report to the President on the Findings and Recommendations Concerning the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty, General (Ret.) John Shalikashvili, January 4, 2001
Proliferation: Threat and Response, Department of

Defense, January 10, 2001
Commission to Assess United States National
Security Space Management and Organization,
January 11, 2001
Secretary of Defense Annual Report to the President
and the Congress 2001, January 16, 2001
2001 Annual Industrial Capabilities Report to
Congress, Department of Defense, January 23, 2001
Roadmap for National Security: Imperative for
Change, U.S. Commission on National Security/21st
Century, January 31, 2001
Quadrennial Defense Review Report, September 30,
2001
Sources & Recommended Readings

Air Force (magazine). Arlington, VA: Air Force
Association, monthly. Almanac edition produced
annually in May. Internet: www.afa.org/
Annual Report to the President and Congress by
the Secretary of Defense. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, annually in January-March.
Internet: www.dtic.mil/execsec/adr_intro.html
Arms Control Reporter: A Chronicle of Treaties,
Negotiations, Proposals, Weapons and Policy
(binder). Cambridge, MA: Institute for Defense and
Disarmament Studies, monthly updates. Internet:
www.idds.org/
Army (magazine). Arlington, VA: Association of the
U.S. Army, Green Book edition produced annually
in October. Internet: www.ausa.org
Budget of the U.S. Government. Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office, annually in February.
Internet: http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/
index.html
Bureau of Arms Control, U.S. State Department
(formerly the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency). Reports and Fact Sheets. Internet
www.state.gov/www/global/arms/bureauac.html
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports.
Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office.
Internet: www.cbo.gov/docs.shtml
Congressional Presentation for Foreign Operations.
Washington, DC: Department of Defense and
Department of State, annual. Internet:
www.state.gov/www/budget/fy2001/fn150/
forops_full/index.html
Defense Monitor (newsletter). Washington, DC:
Center for Defense Information, eight to ten issues
annually. Internet: www.cdi.org
Department of Defense Fact File (binder). Washington, DC: Department of Defenses Office of Public
Affairs, last produced in April 1993.
Directorate for Information, Operations, and

Reports (D.I.O.R.) reports. Examples include:
General/Flag Officer Worldwide Roster (M13),
Military Manpower Statistics (M03), 100 Companies
Receiving the Largest Dollar Volume of Prime
Contract Awards (P01), and Worldwide U.S. Active
Duty Military Personnel Casualties (M07). Washington, DC: DoDs Washington Headquarters Services,
quarterly and annually. Internet: web1.whs.osd.mil/
peidhome/peidhome.htm
Foreign Military Sales, Foreign Military Construction
Sales and Military Assistance Facts. Washington,
DC: Defense Departments Defense Security Cooperation Agency. Internet: www.dsca.osd.mil/
publications.htm
General Accounting Office (G.A.O.) reports.
Washington, DC: General Accounting Office, daily.
Internet: www.gao.gov
Janes military publications. Examples include All the
Worlds Aircraft (annual), C4I Systems (annual),
Fighting Ships (annual), Janes Defence Weekly
(magazine) and Janes Intelligence Review (monthly).
Alexandria, VA: Janes Information Group. Internet:
www.janes.com
JCS Publication One (1-02): Dictionary of Military
and Associated Terms. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, last produced in March 1994.
Internet: www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict
The Military Balance. Quantitative assessment of
military forces and defense expenditures of over 160
nations. London: International Institute for Strategic
Studies, annually in October. Internet: www.iiss.org/
pub/iisspubs.asp
Military Strength/Armed Forces Strength Figures
(DOD Press Release). Washington, DC: Office of the
Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs), monthly with a
two month delay. Last posted Internet:
www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2000/
b10172000_bt635-00.html
National Defense Budget Estimates. Washington,

DC: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defenses
Comptroller, annually in March. Internet:
www.dtic.mil/comptroller/fy2001budget/
SELECTED RECOMMENDED WEBSITES
National Security Strategy of the United States.

Washington, DC: Office of the President of the
United States, last produced in October 1999.
Internet: www.whitehouse.gov/
Defense Department
Selected Acquisition Report (S.A.R.) summary of

defense program cost and schedule changes for
select weapons systems. Washington, DC: Office of
the Secretary of Defense, quarterly. Published as a
DoD News Release. For FY2000 year end S.A.R. see
Internet: www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2000/
b12112000_bt735-00.html
Sea Power (magazine). Arlington, VA: Navy League of
the United States, monthly. Almanac edition
produced annually in January. Internet:
www.navyleague.org
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
(S.I.P.R.I.) World Armaments and Disarmament
Yearbook. Stockholm: International Peace Research
Institute, annually in the summer. Internet:
www.sipri.se/
United States Government Manual. Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office, annual. Internet:
www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aaces002.html
World Fact Book, Central Intelligence Agency.
Published annually in July by Brasseys, Washington,
DC. Internet: www.odci.gov/cia/publications/
factbook/index.html
World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Verification and Compliance, U.S. Department of State, last produced in April
2000 for 1998. Internet: www.state.gov/www/global/
arms/bureau_vc/wmeat98fs.html
World Military and Social Expenditures. Washington,
DC: World Priorities, Inc., biannually. Last produced
for 1996.
75
Center for Defense Information

www.cdi.org
U.S. Department of Defense Homepage

www.defenselink.mil/
Directory of Defense Department Web Sites
http://sites.defenselink.mil/
An index of the web sites operated by any agency,
office or military unit under the jurisdiction of the
U.S. Defense Department.
DoD Dictionary of Military Terms
www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/
The Defense Departments searchable listing of
military terms and acronyms
Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense (Comptroller) Home Page
www.dtic.mil/comptroller/
Contains tons of Pentagon budget information,
including the annual request by program and
National Defense Budget Estimates.
DOD Directorate for
Information Operations and Reports
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/diorhome.htm
DoDs official source of statistical information,
including procurement and personnel
Government Agencies and Congress
General Accounting Office (GAO) Homepage
www.gao.gov/
Includes on-line versions of GAO reports
Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Homepage
www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/index.html
Federal budget information, OMB publications
and reports
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Homepage
www.cbo.gov/
CBO information on the budget
76
THOMAS Legislative Services Homepage

http://thomas.loc.gov/
The Library of Congresss official homepage.
Includes information on legislative activities,
pending legislation, and text of the Congressional
Record.
U.S. House of Representatives
www.house.gov/
U.S. Senate
www.senate.gov/
The official homepages of the U.S. House and
Senate, with links to all individual members and
committees.
The White House Homepage
www.whitehouse.gov/
The State Department Homepage
www.state.gov/
Nuclear Arms Control

Bureau of. Arms Control, U.S. State Department
(Formerly the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency)
www.state.gov/www/global/arms/bureauac.html
Includes primary materials on U.S. nuclear treaties
and more U.S. government perspective, including
texts of treaties, fact sheets, background on
negotiations, speeches, etc.
National Security Archive Homepage
www.seas.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/
This non-governmental organizations Nuclear
Non-Proliferation and Nuclear History databases
contain primary source documents.
Todds Atomic Homepage
www.nuc.berkeley.edu/neutronics/todd.html
Broad range of nuclear topics with numerous links
from a base at U.C. Berkeley.
NATO Homepage
www.nato.int
Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers

www.crnd.org
Working group of peace and security organizations, mainly located in Washington, D.C.
Security Issues Digest (US Mission to NATO)

www.nato.int/usa/
NGO Committee on Disarmament

www.igc.apc.org/disarm/index.html
US European Command
www.eucom.mil/
Abolition 2000
www.wagingpeace.org/abolition2000/
background.html
A global network to eliminate nuclear weapons.
NATO and Europe
US Air Forces in Europe

www.usafe.af.mil/
US Naval web sites index
www.navy.mil/nol/cat.html
Allied Forces Southern Europe (NATO)
www.afsouth.nato.int/
UK Ministry of Defence
www.mod.uk/
UK Foreign&Commonwealth Office
www.fco.gov.uk/
UK Defense and Security Issues
www.britain-info.org/Defence/
European Union
http://europa.eu.int/index-en.htm
Center for Non-proliferation Studies

http://cns.miis.edu/
Includes a comprehensive collection of related
links.
Nuclear Control Institute
www.nci.org/home.htm
Technical resource on nuclear safety and nonproliferation.
Natural Resources Defense Council
www.nrdc.org/nrdc/
International Atomic Energy Agency Homepage
www.iaea.org/worldatom/
The Committee on Nuclear Policy

www.stimson.org/policy/projects/memo-bb.htm
An organization dedicated to finding and promoting innovative solutions to the security challenges
confronting the United States and other nations in
the twenty-first century
Nuclear Explosion Monitoring Research and Engineering Program
(Formerly Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Research
and Development Program)
www.nemre.nn.doe.gov/nemrectbt.rnd.doe.gov/
nemre
Maintained by the Department of Energy. Links to
CTBT sites.
National Ignition Facility Homepage
www-lasers.llnl.gov/lasers/nif.html
Official page of one of the major components of the
Energy Departments stockpile stewardship
program.
Pantex Homepage
www.pantex.com/
Official page of Americas only nuclear weapons
assembly and disassembly plant.
International Arms Trade
UN Foundations UN Wire
77
www.unfoundation.org/unwire/unwire.cfm
The UN Foundation is an independent organization
that provides a daily update on issues related to the
UN. The peacekeeping and security section has daily
disarmament updates on military issues, effecting not
only the UN, but UN member states. The wire also
provides links to other stories on the same topics.
Examples of the most recent daily topics include
Disarmament, Iraq, Kosovo, and Peacekeeping.
The Federal Register
www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html
An official US government website, provides daily
publications for Rules, Proposed Rules, and
Notices of Federal agencies and organizations, as
well as Executive Orders and other Presidential
Documents. An excellent source to read of proposed
armed sales and those arms sales receiving debate
or consideration.
Wassenaar Arrangement On Export Controls
www.wassenaar.org
Official website of the Wassenaar Arrangement
On Export Controls for Conventional Arms and
Dual-Use Goods and Technologies
International Campaign to Ban Landmines
www.icbl.org
Official website of the ICBL.
78
Key Military Definitions

Arms Control Regime: any plan or process based on
international agreements governing the numbers,
types, performance characteristics and location of
military equipment and units.
Ballistic Missile Defense: weapons systems designed
to intercept and destroy incoming ballistic
missiles. Includes National Missile Defense (NMD)
which is to protect the entire nation from longrange ballistic missiles and Theater Missile
Defense (TMD) which would defend U.S. troops
deployed abroad and in battle from short- to
medium-range ballistic missiles.
Battle Group: a standing naval task group normally
consisting of one carrier, six to eight surface
combatants, and two submarines. Cruisers and
flagships of Marine Amphibious
Operations Group can substitute for carriers.
Chemical Weapons Convention: international treaty
which prohibits the development, acquisition, and
stockpiling of chemical weapons.
Civil Affairs: activities that establish, maintain,
influence, or exploit relations between military
forces, civil authorities, and the civilian populace in
an area of operations.
Combined Force: a force composed of elements
from two or more nations under the operational
control of a single commander, usually from one of
the nations contributing forces.
Combined Joint Task Force: combined force under
the auspices of NATO with separable but not
separate military capabilities that are task specific.
Emphasis on flexibility. Could potentially be
employed by organizations other than NATO,
including the WEU, OSCE, and UN. Concept
designed to modify NATO to the post-Cold War
world. Viewed as a means of facilitating NATO
out-of-area operations, contingency operations
such as peacekeeping, and operations with
nations that are not members of NATO.
Command Authority: full legal authority from the

President to military commanders to organize and
employ forces as necessary to accomplish
assigned missions. Includes the subordinate
concept of operational control.
Combat Service Support: essential functions that
sustain the operational units supply, maintenance, health, transportation.
Combat Support: fire support and other operational
assistance provided to combat forces (air defense,
artillery, military police, intelligence, signal).
Counterproliferation: measures to prevent, slow, or
reverse the spread of nuclear, chemical, or
biological weapons or related technologies.
Counterterrorism: offensive measures to prevent,
deter, and respond to terrorism. Antiterrorism
denotes defensive measures that reduce vulnerability to terrorist incidents.
Division: a ground force unit approximately 14,000 to
16,000 strong with the intrinsic logistical capability
to operate independently.
Host Nation Support: civil and/or military assistance
rendered by a nation to foreign forces within its
territory.
Humanitarian Assistance: missions conducted to
relieve or reduce the effects of serious natural or
manmade disasters.
Indications and Warning: intelligence activities
intended to detect and report time-sensitive
information about foreign activities or intentions
that threaten U.S. national interests or citizens
abroad.
Industrial Readiness: the preparedness of industry
to produce essential military material to support
military activities.
Joint Force: a force composed of elements from two
or more services under the operational control of
a single commander.
Levels of War: tactical level at which battles are

planned and executed by war fighting units;
operationallevel at which campaigns and major
operations are planned and supported;
strategicpresidential and congressional level at
which broad security goals are formulated and
forces authorized.
Major Combat Element: organizations that directly
produce combat capability Army separate
brigades and divisions, Air Force Squadrons, Navy
task forces, and Marine expeditionary forces.
Maritime Prepositioned Ships: forward-deployed,
civilian-crewed, Military Sealift Command chartered ships with equipment and supplies for
Marine and Army brigades.
Military Capability: the ability to accomplish a
specific wartime objective. It consists of force
structure, modernization, readiness, and
sustainability.
Military Ground Units: Squad 9-11, Platoon 36,
Company 90-150, Battalion/Squadron 500-850,
Brigade 1500-2500, Division 14,000-16,000, and
Army Corps 40,000 plus. Normally, three of each
unit comprises the next larger unit. Army combat
brigades can be separate or part of a division.
Brigades & divisions vary from two to five subordinate units.
Military Operations Other Than War: All deployments involving military forces in which the
primary mission is not combat. Includes noncombatant evacuations, peacekeeping, peace
monitoring, and support for humanitarian and
other relief operations.
Minilaterals: Meetings between small numbers of
nations (typically three or four) from the same
geographical region to discuss common security
interests.
National Security Strategy: the art and science of
developing and applying the instruments of
national power diplomatic, economic, social,
military, informational, and environmental.
National Military Strategy: the art and science of
applying military power to attain national objectives in peace and war.
79
No-fire Line: a line short of which artillery, naval

gunfire, and attack aircraft do not fire except on
request of the supported commander in order to
avoid friendly-fire casualties.
Nonappropriated Funds: money from DoD military
and civilian personnel and their dependents used
to augment funds appropriated by Congress for
morale, welfare, recreation, educational, and
religious programs.
Nuclear Weapons: Strategic an imprecise term
usually referring to long-range weapons used to
devastate an enemys homeland. Tactical loose
term usually meaning short-range weapons used
to destroy an enemys military forces in battle.
Operational Control (OPCON): the authority to
organize and employ forces to accomplish a
specific mission or task. A subordinate element of
Command Authority.
Operations Security (OPSEC): the process of
identifying friendly force actions that, if known to
an enemy, could result in effective countermeasures against friendly forces.
Paramilitary: groups such as Border Guards or
Interior Troops which are distinct from regular
armed forces but resemble them in organization,
equipment, training, or mission.
Precision Bombing: bombing directed at a specific
point target. Often used with the questionable
term surgical strike. Can employ global positioning system (GPS) satellites or lasers (or both) to
denote targets for precision guided munitions.
Production base: the total national industrial
production capacity available for the manufacture
of military equipment.
Psychological Operations (PSYOP): operations to
convey selected information or inducements to
enemy military and civilian personnel to influence
their emotions and actions.
Readiness (military capability): the ability of forces,
weapons, or equipment to execute their assigned
missions. The unit readiness rating system compares
personnel (numbers, rank structure, military specialties,
level of training), equipment (on hand and operational), and stocks of repair parts and supplies on hand
80
against predetermined benchmarks. The commander

also makes an overall evaluation of the units morale
and combat cohesion to arrive at one of the four C
ratings, with C-1 the highest and C-4 the lowest.
START: the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) I

and II which reduces the number of strategic
deployed nuclear weapons in the arsenals of the
United States and Russia.
Ready Reserve: the Selective Reserve and Individual

Ready Reserve liable for active duty as prescribed
by law.
Strategic Mobility: the capability to deploy and

sustain military forces worldwide. Involves both
airlift and sealift assets.
Reserve Components: the Army National Guard and

Army Reserve, Naval Reserve, Marine Corps
Reserves, Air National Guard and Air Force
Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve.
Strategic Weapons: weapon systems having intercontinental range.
Restricted areas (air): designated areas in the U.S. in

which flight by civilian aircraft is restricted or
completely banned so that military units can
conduct training.
Revolution in Military Affairs: the quantum leap in
battlefield effectiveness resulting from the synergism achieved when technological breakthroughs
affecting numerous weapons systems are combined with radical changes in military doctrine and
force structure.
Rules of Engagement: directives that detail the
circumstances and limitations under which U.S.
forces are permitted to initiate combat activities
against an adversary.
Safe Haven: designated areas to which noncombatants may go for protection from combat.
Security Assistance: programs under which the U.S.
provides military articles, training, and other
military-related services. Can be in the form of
grants, credit, cash sales.
Security Pluralism: The array of cooperative and
complementary frameworks in which nations seek
to address their security concerns through the
establishment of bilateral and multilateral relationships and dialogue.
Squadron: An Army unit equivalent in size to a battalion
and used for reconnaissance. Also a fixed or rotary
wing aircraft unit that is the building block for aviation
wings. In general, Air Force squadrons have from 1024 primary aircraft, Navy squadrons from 10-18
primary aircraft, and Marine squadrons 12-20 primary
aircraft. Numbers do not include back-up planes.
Tactical Weapons: short-range systems used on the

battlefield.
Threat Analysis: process of gathering and analyzing all
available information against a potential or actual
enemy whether another nation-state or terrorist
group. The theoretical basis for developing national
military strategy, force levels, and budgets.
Unconventional Warfare: a broad spectrum of
military and paramilitary operations predominately
conducted by indigenous forces which are trained,
funded, equipped, and directed by an external
source. Includes but is not limited to both insurgency and counterinsurgency.
Unified Command: a command with a broad
continuing mission, composed of forces from two
or more military departments.
War Reserves: stockpiled equipment and supplies
intended to support essential operations after war
begins but before resupply from new procurement
is received.
Weapons of Mass Destruction: refers to nuclear,
chemical, biological, or radiological weapons. Can
include missile delivery systems.
Wing: an Air Force, Navy (fleet air wing), or Marine
Corps unit composed of mission group(s) and
supporting organizations. Numbers of primary
airplanes vary depending on the number of
squadrons in a wing.
655 Report: Refers to Section 655 of the Foreign
Assistance Act which requires itemization of sales,
licenses, gifts, and other transfers of military equipment in the prior fiscal year. The 655 Report lists only
licenses approved, not actual weapons deliveries.
SOURCE: JCS Publication One (1-02): Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms.
81
Selected Military Acronyms

ABM Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
ACOM
ALCM
AO/AOR
ARG
Atlantic Commanda Unified

Warfighting Command
Air Launched Cruise Missile
Area of Operations/Area of Responsibility
Amphibious Ready Group (Marines)
ATAS Air-to-Air Stinger (Missile)

AWE
BMDO
Advanced Warfighting Experiment

Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
BRAC Base Realignment and Closure

Commission
C4I
Command, Control, Communications,

Computer, Intelligence
DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects

Agency (formerly ARPA)
DDG Guided Missile Destroyer
DSCA Defense Security Cooperation Agency
(formerly DSAA)
E-BDE Enhanced Readiness Brigade (Army
National Guard)
ELINT Electronic Intelligence
EMD Engineering and Manufacturing
Demonstration (weapons)
EUCOM European Commanda Unified
Warfighting Command
EU European Union
EW Electronic Warfare
FFRC Federally Funded Research Company
CAP Combat Air Patrol/Crisis Action Plan

CENTCOM Central Commanda Unified
Warfighting Command
CG
Guided Missile Cruiser/Commanding

General
CI Counterintelligence
CJCS Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
CJTF Combined Joint Task Force (NATO)
CNA/CND
Computer Network Attack/Defense
COCOM Combatant Command (command

authority)
COMINT
CRAF
CTF
Communications Intelligence
Civil Reserve Air Fleet
Combined Task Force (two or more

nations participating)
CTBT Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

CV/CVN
Aircraft Carrier/Nuclear Powered

Aircraft Carrier
FFG Guided Missile Frigate

FMF/FMS Foreign Military Financing/Foreign
Military Sales
FSCI Fire Support Coordinating Line
FSS Fast Sealift Ship
FYDP Future Years Defense Plan
GPS Global Positioning System
HUMINT Human Intelligence
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
ICBM Intercontinental Ballistic Missile
MET International Military Education and
Training
IMINT Imagery Intelligence
IT-21 Information Technology for the 21st
Century
ITAR International Traffic in Arms Regulation
I&W Indications and Warning
JCET Joint/Combined Exchange Training
JCS Joint Chiefs of Staff
82
JDA
Joint Duty Assignment
JPATS Joint Primary Aircraft Training System
NRO
National Reconnaissance Office
NSA National Security Agency
JROC
Joint Requirements Oversight Council
NSC National Security Council
JROTC
Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps

(in high schools)
ODC
Office of Defense Cooperation (see

MAAG)
OPCON
Operational Control (not command

authority)
JSCP
Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan
JSTARS Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar

System
JTF
KVM
Joint Task Force

Kosovo Verification Mission
LIC Low Intensity Conflict

LOS Line Of Sight (weapons)
LOTS Logistics-Over-The-Shore
LRRP Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol
MAAG Military Assistance Advisory Group
MAGTF
Marine AirGround Task Force
OPTEMPO Operating Tempo

OSCE Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense
PACOM Pacific Command a Unified
Warfighting Command
PDD/PDM
Presidential Decision Directive/

Memorandum
PDM Program Decision Memorandum

PFP
Partnership for Peace (NATO)
MCM Mine Countermeasure

MEB/MEF Marine Expeditionary Brigade/Marine
Expeditionary Force
MILSTAR Military Strategic and Tactical Relay
(satellite)
MOOTW
Military Operations Other Than War

(formerly OOTW)
MPSRON Maritime Prepositioning Squadron

MTW Major Theater War (formerly MRC)
MUOS Mobile User Objective System

(satellite communications)
NBCR Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, Radiological (weapons)
NCA National Command Authorities
NEO
NG
NMD
Noncombatant Evacuation Operation
National Missile Defense (Star Wars)
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
Precision Guided Munition
PLRS Position Location Reporting System

POM Program Objective Memorandum
POMCUS Prepositioning of Material Configured
to Unit Sets
PSYOPS Psychological Operations
RDT&E
Research, Development, Test, and

Evaluation
RFF Ready Reserve Fleet

RMA
RO/RO
Revolution in Military Affairs

Roll-On/Roll-Off ships
ROE Rules of Engagement

ROTC Reserve Officer Training Corps
SAM
Surface to Air Missile Redeye,

Stinger, Avenger, Patriot
SAR
Selected Acquisition Report; Search

And Rescue; Synthetic Aperture Radar
National Guard
NMS National Military Strategy

NPT
PGM
SCI Sensitive Compartmented Information

SEAD Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses
SECDEF
Secretary of Defense
SFG
Special Forces Group
SIGINT
Signals Intelligence
SLBM/SLCM Submarine Launched Ballistic/Cruise

Missile
SLEP
SOCOM
TDA Table of Distribution and Allowance

THAAD Theater High Altitude Air Defense
TIARA Tactical Intelligence and Related
Activities
Special Operations Command

a Unified Warfighting Command
TOE Table of Organization and Equipment
SOUTHCOM Southern Command a Unified

Warfighting Command
SSC
TACAIR Tactical Aircraft
TMD Theater Missile Defense
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
SSBN
83
Service Life Extension Program (for

equipment)
SOFA Status of Forces Agreement
SPACECOM
Space Command a Unified Command
TOC Tactical Operations Center
TPFDD Time-Phased Force and Deployment

Data
TRANSCOM Transportation Command a
Functional Unified Command
TRICARE DoD Managed Health Care Program
for active duty and retired military,
their families and survivors
UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarine

(Trident SLBM)
UCAV Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle
Smaller-Scale Contingencies
UCMJ Uniformed Code of Military Justice
SSGN Guided Missile Submarine, nuclear

powered. Also SSG
STAR Satellite Tracking using Ambient Radio
Frequency
START Strategic Arms Reduction Talks
STOVAL Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing
Aircraft AV-8 Harrier
STRATCOM Strategic Command a Unified
Command
USUHS Uniformed Services University of

Health Sciences
UW Unconventional Warfare
V/STOL Vertical/Short Takeoff and Landing
Aircraft
WEU Western European Union
WMD Weapons of Mass Destruction
Board of Advisors
Doris Z. BatoSanta Fe, NM
Arthur D. Berliss, Jr.Captain, USNR (Ret.); former
Vice-President, Allen-Hollander Co., New York, NY
Edward H.R. BlitzerFormer Chairman, Lightolier
Inc., New York, NY
Dick BrukenfeldDobbs Ferry, NY
Ben CohenChairman, Ben & Jerrys Homemade,
Inc., South Burlington, VT
James R. ComptonPresident, J.R. Compton
Developments; Chair, Fund for Peace Board,
Los Gatos, CA
Joseph N. DeblingerPresident, Deblinger Sales &
Marketing Corp., Manhasset, NY
Gay DillinghamCNS Communications, Santa Fe, NM
James A. DonovanColonel, USMC (Ret.), Author,
former publisher Journal of the Armed Forces,
Atlanta, GA
Gene R. La RocqueRear Admiral, U.S.N. (Ret.),

Chairman Emeritus, CDI
Eugene M. LangFounder/Chairman Emeritus,
REFAC Technology Development Corp. and
I Have A Dream Foundation, New York, NY
Mrs. Ellie MeyersDeerfield, IL
Robert M. Meyers, M.D.Deerfield, IL
Paul NewmanMotion Pictures, Los Angeles, CA
Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Pulitzer IVSt. Louis, MO
Rudolph S. RasinPresident, The Rasin Corporation,
Chicago, IL
John M. RockwoodPublisher, Chicago, IL
Martha S. SchaussRiver Forest, IL
Julie Schecter, Ph.D.Director, Peaked Hill Trust,
Wayland, MA
Richard SchuckmanBusiness Executive, Fair Lawn, NJ
Robert L. FromeSenior Partner, Olshan, Grundman

and Frome, Attorneys, New York, NY
John J. ShanahanVice Admiral, USN (Ret.),

Ormond Beach, FL
Seth M. GlickenhausInvestment Banker, New York, NY
Adele E. StarrMamaroneck, NY
Yoel Haller, M.D.Santa Barbara, CA
Philip A. StrausPartner, Neuberger and Berman,

Members, New York Stock Exchange, New York, NY
Mrs. Eva HallerSanta Barbara, CA

Dr. James D. HeadPresident, Strategy
Development Company, Freeland, MI
Chairman of the Board
David H. HorowitzNew York, NY
Robert G. JamesRear Admiral, USNR (Ret.),
President, Enterprise Development Associates,
New York, NY
Dr. Alan F. KayBusinessman, St. Augustine, FL
Philip A. Straus, Jr.Photographer, Philadelphia, PA

Andrew UngerleiderEarthstone International Ltd.,
Santa Fe, NM
Albert B. WellsPresident, The Abelard Foundation,
Inc.; Kingsley, Schreck, Wells & Reichling, Private
Investments, San Francisco, CA
Harold WillensFormer Chairman, Factory Equipment Corporation, Los Angeles, CA
Joanne WoodwardActress-Director, Westport, CT
For additional copies, contact:

1779 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
202.332.0600 Fax 202.462.4559
E-mail: info@cdi.org Internet: www.cdi.org

Military Almanac 2001-2002 CDI

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Military Almanac 2001-2002 CDI

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Military Almanac 2001-2002 CDI

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

20012002

CENTER FOR DEFENSE INFORMATION

Research and writing for the 2001-2002 Military Almanac was

U.S. AND THE WORLD ................................................................................................................................................................. 41

REFERENCES AND GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................................ 71

CENTER FOR DEFENSE INFORMATION

Center for Defense Information

Program tapes are widely used in schools and by

CDI makes information available in several forms:

The Defense Monitor

Weekly Defense Monitor: CDI Staff analyses of

CDIs Distinguished Military Fellows

Speakers Bureau and Briefings to Visiting Groups

CDI ALMANAC 2001 2002

The CDI Library

U.S. MILITARY FORCES

U.S. MILITARY FORCES

Composition of U.S. Armed Forces

NAVAL FORCES (ACTIVE/RESERVE)

CDI ALMANAC 2001 2002

Post Cold War Defense Reviews

The National Defense Panel (NDP) review of 1997,

U.S. MILITARY FORCES

U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century

advocate enactment of the first 49 proposals.

CDI ALMANAC 2001 2002

On education, the Commission calls on Congress

statutory member of the NSC. It also suggests

U.S. MILITARY FORCES

responsible for strategic and contingency planning

program categories to develop the required

CDI ALMANAC 2001 2002

different departments and agencies with national

The budget and policy processes need to be

The congressional leadership needs to mirror

Space Management and Organization, and the 2001

U.S. MILITARY FORCES

PostCold War Military Transformation

Key stimulus: War against Serbia in 1999 completed

Army Experiment page: http://

Previous Plans: Force XXI, to be implemented by

NAVY THE FUTURE . . . FROM THE SEA, AND

Key figure: Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki,

Previous Plans: . . . From the Sea, which turned the

ARMY THE OBJECTIVE FORCE

Main thrust: Move to conflicts faster by creating

Main thrust: Keep forces close to conflict areas, able

CDI ALMANAC 2001 2002

Main thrust: Marine forces are a key element in the

Operational concepts: Traditionally, Air Force wing

U.S. MILITARY FORCES

Military Strengths of U.S., Allied, and

OTHER COUNTRIES OF SIGNIFICANCE

CDI ALMANAC 2001 2002

Global Nuclear Weapons Facts

ESTIMATED TACTICAL (BATTLEFIELD) WEAPONS AND HEDGE

HEDGE: U.S. Nuclear Policy, established in 1990, created a stockpile

NUCLEAR WEAPONS FUTURE***

U.S. MILITARY FORCES