Why does the United States have so many branches of the military?
453547
each one has a diferent purpose
899638
We had something along those lines when Selective Service was geared up for Vietnam.  There were too many people, however, so a lottery was established.  Consider the numbers for the US, between ages of 15-64 there are 100 million males, narrowing that by the Census Bureau, there are about 21 million Americans between 20-24, of which there are just shy of 11 million males.\n\nThat's one awful big army.  Sorry, but we don't need it and the rest of the world wouldn't stand for it.  Thanks for thinking though, because the military service during WWI and WWII was one of the great standardizing forces in American education and culture at the time.
175372
It is an issue of accountability.  The US and most countries have their programs separated because the goals of each is different.\n\nCivilians program focuses on safe use of nuclear energy for the production of electricity for use.\n\nMilitary programs focuses on the development of weapons and testing of those weapons.\n\nThey have distinctly different goals and should be separated to allow each with resources to be the best.
1035292
Acutally the military is better for many women than civilian life. The training and advancement oppertunities are the best they have ever been for females. There are restrictions on serving in Special Forces, Submarines, and most ground Combat units. But they are females on most ships, flying planes, and holding command ranks through out the world. How many Fortune 500 firms can say that???
209230
Your question is to confusing. Are you talking about how the the military helps in globalization?\n\n2 points for me
470375
In general, the US would count as the nation with the most capable military.  However this does not mean that we are necessarily the best at everything.  For example the Russians are considered to be the world's experts in combat in extreme winter conditions.\n\nNow one thing you have to consider is that in balance to the size of our military there is the wide range of our military requirements.  For example the US Navy is operating all over the world.  Since we have worldwide national interests - whe have to be able to defend those interests.  (Or they become somebody else's.)
1070240
They joined the Military to do one thing and one thing only.  DEFEND AMERICA FROM FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC ENEMIES.  If you don't want to fight in a war, then don't join the Military.  I spent 8 years in the field of Special Operations, and know the sacrifices that have to be made by service members.  I support whatever the President of The United States calls for concerning the U.S. Military.
89558
A bicameral legislative branch allows for states with a smaller population to have a more equal voice in government.  If laws were only written and passed by a representative branch then the larger states would have the most say in legislation, thus being able to force their issues to the front to the detriment of the lower population states.\n\nBy having an branch that puts all states on an equal footing, lower population states can excercise power to ensure that their needs are not trampled by the needs of larger populations.
826876
The primary role, responsibility and purpose of the army is clearly stated in the US Constitution.  \n\nTo defend and protect the nation.\n\nSimple answer, yes but accurate.\n\nToday there are so many other requirements placed on the army it would be easier for you to review the information yourself.  Here are a couple of sites you can check.\n\narmy.com\nmilitary.com\narmy.mil\nglobalsecurity.org\nusarmy.com
231542
The military is not stupid. We need men to protect our country. What we need is better POLITICAL LEADERS that do not start unnecessary wars.
1140148
There is no "best" branch.  They all serve a purpose and we need all of them to serve those purposes.  To say that the Marine Corp. is "better" than the Coast Guard is like saying penicillin is better than amoxicillin.  Both are immensely needed and useful depending on the situation.  People just like the idea of saying one thing is better than another because humans need to feel superior over someone or group.  It's sad really.  \nI consider none of them to be the "best".  If we could all just live in peace and stop needing to feel we MUST be 'better' than someone or group we wouldn't need to even have branches of military to keep each other at bay.
622016
the world will not be a safer place. Other nations need US help for support. Not only in battle, but also for spying and other support. As you know, US forces are all over the globe.
455158
The full power over our Military was Given to King Bush and The Bush Bunch by Our Congress right after 911.When we attack another country now,it is not as the US, although it is mostly US military,it is King Bush and his Multi- National forces.The tragic part for us U.S. Citizens is the whole world thinks we are all behind this.The truth is many,many of us can see how awfully wrong all this is.The main fear is it will get much,much worse.
761656
Army-The Army’s mission is to fight and win our Nation’s wars by providing prompt, sustained land dominance across the full range of military operations and spectrum of conflict in support of combatant commanders. \n\nNavy-The mission of the Navy is to maintain, train and equip combat-ready Naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression and maintaining freedom of the seas.\n\nAir Force-The mission of the United States Air Force is to deliver sovereign options for the defense of the United States of America and its global interests -- to fly and fight in Air, Space, and Cyberspace.\n\nMarines-Marines are trained, organized and equipped for \noffensive amphibious employment and as a “force in readiness.”\nTo provide a Fleet Marine Force with combined arms and supporting air components for service with the United States Fleet in the seizure or defense of advanced naval bases and for the conduct of such land operations as may be essential to the execution of naval campaign.  To provide detachments and organizations for service on armed vessels of the Navy and security detachments for the protection of naval property at naval Stations and bases.
1020158
there are many branches, read this\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
245191
First, there is NO Constitutional requirement for the U.S. President (or ANY elected official in the U.S. government) to have served in the military.  \n\nIt is true that a large percentage have done so -- at times (esp if they volunteered) it is one piece of their interest in public service, so it's not surprising that many of our presidents have done so.   Also, military service has often helped their "resume" and made them more electable (esp if they held a high rank or were involved in heroics that made them a popular hero -- best examples: Washington, Wm.H Harrison ("Tippecanoe"), Taylor, Jackson, Grant).\n\nOf the 12 who did NOT serve in the military, it is interesting to note when they fell -- four of the first eight presidents were not in the military (J.Adams, Jefferson, J.Q.Adams, VanBuren), though some of these clearly were very active in the cause of the Revolution and founding of the country.     \n\nFrom William Henry Harrison to Teddy Roosevelt (seventeen presidents), only ONE (Grover Cleveland) was not in the service.   \n\nImmediately AFTER Teddy, NONE of the next six were in the military!  (Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, FDR)   Of course, it should be noted that there was not a lot of "opportunity" (that is, a major war) at the time these men would have been the right age for military service.       \n\nFinally, from Truman to the present (eleven presidents), only ONE (Clinton) was not in the service.\n\nIf anyone really cares about the party affiliation of those not in the military:\n1 = Federalist\n2 = (Democratic)-Republicans\n5 = Democrats\n4 = GOP\n\nCan't say I see much significance in those numbers.  Try judging the WHOLE package.. ALL their contributions.  (Some with stellar military credentials were stellar presidents, some were bombs!  Same for those who were not in the military.)
838922
It depends on the individual. I can only answer for myself as to why I joined the branch I did.\n\nI wanted to join the military. I am not a person given to doing lots of workouts and exercise. I am not a jock or sports minded person. ( mind you I am not out of shape though. I do love rock climbing, Caving, and hiking.) So I did not see myself as a foot soldier with a rifle. This rules out both the Army and the Marines.\n\nI am more a technical kind of person. I love computers and knowledge. ( A geek you might say) Both the Air Force and the Navy are highly technical. But which to choose? I wanted to be in the know. and to see the world, to travel. I wanted to be right on the front as to see all the exciting things there are to see in the military.\nOK so I looked at the Air Force. Except for the small 5% that are the pilots and aircrew, All of your Airforce personnel are stationed far behind the lines and never see much at all. Most are just one form of Mechanic or Supply Clerk. Other than watching the planes take off, they see nothing at all of the action.\n\nSo now I looked at the Navy. Again the Branch is highly technical. but even if you were just a cook or a supply clerk, you were right there with the rest of the ships crew. When the ship performed a weapons test, you were there to watch it. (Not sitting back at some airbase miles away like in the Air Force). \nAnd travel?! No other branch of service sees more of the world than the US Navy! I have seen most of Asia and the Middle East due to the USN. Not just one or two other countries like I would have with the other branches.\nI became an EW in the USN (Electronic Warfare Systems Operator) I stood watch up in C.I.C. (Combat) and was one of the first to know if we came under attack and first to start a defense against the attack. It was the EW's who briefed the Captain and other officers of any threats posed by potential enemies in our area of operation.