To reduct means to reduce, decrease, or make smaller. Therefore a reduction in armed forces would be a decrease in the numbers of people and machinery in the service of the armed forces. E.g. If an army is changed from 10,000 men to 5,000, there has been a reduction in the size of armed forces.
There have been armed forces for thousands of years. If you are talking about the armed forces of the USA, you could say they were in place before the nation existed. Militias were forming in the American colonies and fighting against the British army and navy in 1775. They represented Pennsylvania, New Jersey, or whatever colony they came from. The United States of America as a nation didn't really exist until later.
A veteran is considered anyone that has served in the armed forces. Anyone that came back from Korea would have been a Veteran of the Korean War. Once one has received a discharge from the armed forces, they are a veteran.
The technicality is in the title within your question. The US President is the civilian "commander in Chief" of the US Armed Forces as stated in the US Constitution, however, during NATO supported conflicts, in the past, there has been a military position of Supreme Commander of NATO forces, which reports to the US President and NATO.
It was only five years after the end of WW II that the US was at war again, in Korea. Following the Korean War there have been a series of other wars. The US armed forces have been kept busy. Among other things, the Army Air Corps was split off and became the US Air Force.
It's eather or... im a member of the armed forces, Navy to be exact. I've been in five years and normally it's said "Enlist in the Armed Forces." ie. He and/or She is enlist ed/ing in the armed forces.
To reduct means to reduce, decrease, or make smaller. Therefore a reduction in armed forces would be a decrease in the numbers of people and machinery in the service of the armed forces. E.g. If an army is changed from 10,000 men to 5,000, there has been a reduction in the size of armed forces.
Finland has a medium sized armed forces. Since they have not been in any recent wars, their army has gotten smaller.
There have been armed forces for thousands of years. If you are talking about the armed forces of the USA, you could say they were in place before the nation existed. Militias were forming in the American colonies and fighting against the British army and navy in 1775. They represented Pennsylvania, New Jersey, or whatever colony they came from. The United States of America as a nation didn't really exist until later.
The three main objectives of the Canadian Armed Forces are clear and have been their objectives since the Canadian Armed Forces were formed. The objectives are to defend Canada, to defend North America, and to defend Canada's allies.
An officer is a member in the armed forces who has been promoted to a rank where they have authority over others. This means they can command those in lesser ranks.
Yes, women serve on active duty in the military. In the United States, women have been serving in the armed forces for decades, and there are no gender restrictions on active duty service. Women contribute in various roles and occupations, including combat positions.
Defintely. Armed forces have been using maps for a long time. Today they use computer maps whenever possible, but the principle is the same. Without maps, well, let's just say that the armed forces would be lost without them.
The Royal Navy is known as the senior service over the British Army and Royal Air Force because it has been in existence longer.
Sarah Palin has not served on active duty in any of the U.S. Armed Forces. It should be noted that as the Governor of Alaska, she was the Commander of Alaska's National Guard, but she has never been in uniform.
No, there have been a number of Catholics holding high ranks in the Armed Services.
The British Harrier Pilots did well, but the British Navy under estimated the Argentine A-4 Skyhawk pilots (the US sold them US Jet Aircraft years earlier). Had not the Argentine pilots armed their bombs better, the British Navy would have probably lost the war. The A-4 pilots scored many hits on British warships, but half were duds. They had been armed for detonating at different altitudes. Had those bombs been armed properly, the British Navy would've been sunk, nearly all of them.