Defense.gov Now Redirects to War.gov(defense.gov) |
Defense.gov Now Redirects to War.gov(defense.gov) |
After all, "War and Peace" had a working title "War, what is it good for" before his mistress insisted he change it.
In reality the majority of the US military budget does not go to defence in the colloquial sense, it's far more about projecting US power globally (which isn't necessarily a bad thing if you think that the US is projecting it's power for good).
"War" is a better description and sounds less innocent than "defence" would imply, although I think you could argue that even this is a slightly misleading description.
We had a War Department. Rebranding to Defense was a PR move to hide what was really happening.
This is a good thing as it’s far more truthful.
he can start calling it by something else.... but its still the DOD.
If you wait and just update the logo as things naturally ages out, then it's going to take decades.
This is a good name even if you are against wars like I am.
Calling it "Defense" just gives the wrong impression that most of the money goes towards "defending" ourselves instead of attacking others. We should avoid euphemisms when naming government agencies.
The next move is to follow the USFL and Miss USA/Miss Teen USA playbook and create his own Nobel Prize.
Can they change the ATF to the Department of Uncategorized Federal Overreach?
Also, NOAA should be called the Weather Force.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
― George Orwell, 1984https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Wa...
- Ugliness is beautiful.
- Happiest people are the saddest.
- The darkest light is bright.
- Comfort is uncomfortable.
- Impossible is easy.
- The biggest people are the smallest.
- The bravest are the most afraid.
- Obvious things are the most uncertain.
- Peace is war.
You can keep going for all words with an antonym. Any insight or truth in these statements comes from your brain trying to give them meaning because they're grammatically correct and so short they can't be immediately discarded as obviously false.
I'm not sure at all about anything anyway. But right now, I have friends working for "Defense AI related" projects and knowing their interests in AI, I'm sure all the companies are doing is to stamp AI-ready label in the same missiles.
Remember that anyone can say that a linear model is AI.
> It is almost impossible to overstate the inanity of this move. The United States has a Department of Defense for a reason. It was called the “War” Department until 1947, when the dictates of a new and more dangerous world required the creation of a much larger military organization than any in American history. Harry Truman and the American leaders who destroyed the Axis, and who now were facing the Soviet empire, realized that national security had become a larger undertaking than the previous American tradition of moving, as needed, between discrete conditions of “war” and “peace.”
> These leaders understood that America could no longer afford the isolationist luxury of militarizing itself during times of threat and then making soldiers train with wooden sticks when the storm clouds passed. Now, they knew, the security of the country would be a daily undertaking, a matter of ongoing national defense, in which the actual exercise of military force would be only part of preserving the freedom and independence of the United States and its allies.
* https://archive.today/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/arch...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Nichols_(academic)
The current president seems to think that this change is important, but Nichols goes over some previous presidents:
> That name was good enough for Truman, who served in combat in World War I and dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. And it was good enough for President Dwight Eisenhower, the former supreme allied commander, who oversaw the largest military operations ever undertaken in all of human history.
> It was also good enough for John F. Kennedy, who served his country as a naval officer and nearly got killed during World War II. It was good enough for Lyndon B. Johnson, who won the Silver Star for his military service, and then, as commander in chief, embroiled the United States in a decade-long war in Southeast Asia. It was good enough for Naval Reserve officer Richard Nixon, who took over Johnson’s war and unleashed the fury of American bombers overseas. It was good enough for Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, both former Navy officers. It was good enough for Ronald Reagan, a former Army officer who as president pushed through a huge program of military expansion and modernization. It was good enough for his successor, George H. W. Bush, a decorated naval aviator who was shot down during combat in the Pacific.
* Ibid
> Hegseth concurred with Trump's contention.
> "We changed the name after World War II from the Department of War to the Department of Defense and … we haven't won a major war since," Hegseth said.
Will this name change suddenly make the USA any more successful in winning wars? That is doubtful at best but I do prefer the lack of euphemism in this new old name. War is dirty business and the more this is made clear the better it is.
Not really. It's the old name of the Department of the Army. Except for the first nine years of the DoW's existence, the Navy had its own, independent department, as did the USAF once it was established as a separate branch.
The Department of Defense didn't exist until after WW2, and was called the National Military Establishment for the first couple of years.
You see a similar pattern in the UK, which had the War Office for the Army, the Admiralty for the Royal Navy and the Air Ministry for the RAF: after WW2, the Ministry of Defence was created, initially liaising and co-ordinating between the service ministries, and then fully absorbing and replacing them.
tl;dr the Department of War is the old name of the Department of the Army, not of the Department of Defense.
Completely untrue, because a statement such as this requires counter examples, comparators.
Compare the US to any colonial power. Such countries were hell bent on ruling the world. The Brits had the largest empire the world has ever seen, boots on ground in dozens of colonies. And everyone in Europe was invading each other, their colonies endlessly and constantly.
Compared to the scale and scope of action those colonial powers undertook, the US is the most peaceful and benevolent country ever.
Modern comparisons show much the same. For example, Canada was more than a decade in Afghanistan. Canada is not war like, but does think stamping out oppressive regimes is a good idea. Canada also has blue hats in multiple countries.
Those sort of actions may turn out poorly, but the intentions are not to harm but help. And yes, I agree that is debatable except we're talking about the statement I quoted.
And when you look at truly aggressive nations, such as Russia, again no comparison. When recently has the US invaded a country, with the goal of taking it over and absorbing it? That's right, never in living memory.
If US truly did what it had the power to do, it could have easily taken over the world.
Has it? Did it invade everyone? No.
Yes, the US does deploy its military might. Yes, maybe it should less often.
No, it isn't aggressive, it's just very powerful.
I would very much argue it restrains its use of power mightily.
Next youll tell us black people should really be slaves or go back to africa.
Thanks gyy
The founding fathers thought the different branches would want to keep their power. They didn't expect that feckless senators and representatives would want to hand off parts of their jobs so they could tell voters the bad happenings aren't their fault.
Oh and Israel bombed Qatar with implicit US approval.
He likely does not want to actually invade anyone or do anything that brings actual war to the US but he does want the personal benefits that come with being at war.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/09/09/americas/venezuela-yvan-g...
So far that's going as well as the Wars on Drugs and Poverty did.
It’s not Gen Z or the Alphas (“future generations”) are thirsting for war. It’s still going to the same organization no matter what we call it.
It’s just a fig leaf argument to justify a colossal waste of money and time.
The DoD has many problems but the name isn’t one of them.
No, its not; not that the implicit equation of “how it used to be” with “how it ought to be” is valid to start with.
> We had a War Department. Rebranding to Defense was a PR move to hide what was really happening.
No. We had a War Department that was the agency responsible for the Army, including what was then the Army Air Forces, and a Navy Department that was the agency responsible for the Navy including the Marine Corps. Splitting and rebranding the former to the two Departments of the Army and Air Force was done to simultaneously more accurately reflect its responsibilities and to address the growing significance of air power.
This split was simultaneous with the old and now split up War Department and the old but keeping its name Navy Department being subordinated to the new consolidated military establishment named the Department of Defense, but the Defense Department wasn’t a new name for the War Dpartment, it was the name for a completely new thing placed above the older, separate military departments.
What checks to his power?
The US is already in a state of emergency, one magically extended into infinity by the legislative branch redefining what a "day" is. The Alien Enemies act has already been used to justify Trump's mass deportation program as a war against the "invasion" of the US by immigrants, and that continues despite pushback from the courts, because Trump has declared openly that he doesn't consider himself bound by the courts.
And given what he's already gotten away with, his thesis seems to be correct. He isn't going to seek the pretense because he knows he doesn't need to.
But even if those working under him are faultlessly loyal, that doesn't mean the rest of the population is. Trump knows that even his base won't tolerate behaviour that is blatently illegal (such as running for a 3rd term) unless there is some kind of legal justification such as an emergency war situation. This is what I believe this is all in aide of.
I suspect that you are being facetious, but for the benefit of anyone else reading, this is not true. It's a "factoid" (an invented fact mistaken as true)[1] spawned from a joke on the TV program Seinfeld[2].
This has been your daily wet blanket.
(Unless, of course, you were saying "Boooourrrns")
Calling the U.S. ‘peaceful and benevolent’ overlooks the sheer volume, aims and consequences of its military actions. It may not colonize in the traditional sense but its interventions often reshape nations in the US' favour, often violently, without accountability and leaving the populace of those countries much worse off than before.
I think it's not wise to judge present day against history as we should be aiming for improvement over time but if we look at recent history the US has a history of destabilising governments, often democracies, in favour of a more US aligned government. Often these efforts fail and the country descends into chaos. In others it leads to a government that uses death squads to help US businesses (see the banana republics).
Russia's aims in Ukraine were mostly likely to install a Russian aligned leader. This is similar to the USA's history of installing or supporting anti-democratic leaders. So whilst the US might not be absorbing countries but that shouldn't be the only metric for control.
Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan was under UN mandates and I agree that peace keeping forces are often good but that is not comparable to US military interventions. The US often acts unilaterally, or with limited partners and lack of widespread support.
With 251 military interventions since 1991 [1] we can cherry pick the best and worse uses of force, and I agree that sometimes force is needed, but I see the long term trend that the intention is indeed to help but it is mostly to help US interests. Consider as well that colonial Britain (and other colonial powers) also thought they were being helpful and bettering their colonies by bring "civilisation". Just because you think or state your aims are good doesn't make them so.
I'd argue that whilst the US could definitely not take over the world militarily (see how often it fails to take over a country) it already has in large part due to trade and culture and this is why it fears China so much, as China is now a rival for that power.
[1] https://towardfreedom.org/story/archives/americas/u-s-launch...
For example, imagine the immense scope and power and capability the US had over all its adversaries in ... say, the 90s. The Soviets gone, Russia in chaos, China not a world power.
Now give that power to colonial UK, which fervently believed in the right to rule the world. The result would most assuredly been "For King and Country, God save the Queen!", and taking their already immense empire to new heights.
Imagine giving that power to Germany during WWII. We'd all be speaking German now.
From where I sit, this is what I refer to as "peaceful and benevolent", compared to colonial powers.
Back to your modern response, re: Russia has already absorbed part of the Ukraine, back in 2014. It annexed Crimea with zero intention of leaving, not for any political reason.
Its current invasion of the rest of the Ukraine, should not be viewed as just pressuring for political control, Putin has already clearly demonstrated a desire for more than that, in taking Crimea. Regardless, Crimea alone proves my point.
--
When I search text on your provided link, I find no match for UN, United Nations, peace or peace keeping. The US has interceded under the UN in endless operations. How many of the 251 were just that? The link does not say.
Again, yes, the US does project its power. Yes, maybe it should not be as much as it does.
However, compared to Germany circa WWII, colonial powers, and modern aggressors such as Russia, it is indeed 'peaceful and benevolent'.
Especially considering the power it has, and most especially has had.
My dude, we struggle to take over poor middle-eastern countries. I'm not sure how you think us trying to take over the world would go.
It has however, at times, projected power for limited durations, with a goal to leave after. This has often been coupled with unclear goals, political maneuvering, and changing political situations back home.
This is very different from an empirical, king and country, nation wide focused goal.
These smaller actions have never mobilized the entire country on an expansionist, war time footing.
However, if we instead did something different called "try to take over a country"—which also does involve projecting power, and also occupying foreign nations for long periods of time, perhaps even up to and including 20 years—it would not be coupled with unclear goals, political maneuvering, and changing political situations back home.
> These smaller actions have never mobilized the entire country on an expansionist, war time footing.
So we've done these things which failed, but if we did a different thing, it would definitely succeed.
Instead, the literal goal was to give an entire generation of people time to grow up with democracy, set up institutions, have full bellies, excellent schooling, equality between the sexes, the list goes on.
The goal was never to stay, only to train, assist, help. The goal was to remove a threat, but at the same time make lives better. This is a laudable goal.
Regardless of the success or not, or even if the goal was doable, reasonable, the type of force applied, the way civilians were treated after, the negotiations with local politicians were all very different. To compare this sort of action, with whole scale war with the intention of permanent occupation isn't a fair comparison.