Rebranding an entire department under the US government cannot be cheap. That does not sound like something a frugal government does without a very good reason.
This action might save trillions of dollars when the future generations will see all this money going to war, instead of "defense". And you are worried about a few million it might take to rebrand?
Maybe it's more obvious when named this way, but I don't think I've ever been under the impression that the DoD is focused on peaceful means of keeping the peace.
Transparency might cost a government in a direct sense, but the liberal argument would be that a transparent government is a more democratic and accountable government therefore that cost should ultimately result in better governance which has lots of indirect benefits.
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.
I understand it's also something which takes an act of Congress, not that this administration seems to care about that at all. See also tariffs. And delaying the TikTok ban.
Pretty sure OP is referring to the propaganda this admin spewed about DOGE's purpose being to save money. An admin that actually cared about saving money wouldn't waste money on a pointless rebrand.
Sure, but those logos need to replace the old ones, everywhere. The new logo might cost a few millions to design, but that's the least of it. You'd need to replace the old logo and naming everywhere from signs, websites, letterheads, social media, software products and everything in between. Everything that currently says DoD now needs to say DoW. I don't know if they changed the colour scheme, but if they did, they'd might need to repaint a bunch of things as well.
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.
> For those who don't know it, this is the name the department has had for most of its history
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.
The history justification is moot given that the reason for the name wasn't clarifying an existing role (the US is already very aggressive militarily and happy to attack whenever and wherever it pleases) instead the justification that went with the naming is that the US should be even more aggressive. That, as well as not being necessary or wanted by the world, goes counter to Trump's pre-election promise not to involve the US in more foreign wars.
the US is already very aggressive militarily and happy to attack whenever and wherever it pleases
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.
That defense domain's been in use for like the whole mainstream history of the Internet probably right? That's a big one to just redirect all of a sudden. Is it just the public website redirected or every email address and whatever from history? Uggh
"Weather Force" sounds like a low-budget kids show. The characters? So there's 'Lightning' of course, who is generally angry. 'Sunshine', naturally - the happy one of the group. Also, uh, 'Drizzle'? hmmm. Could use some work.
From Orwell's "1984" which was published in 1949, the same year the Department of Defense was established out of what used to be the Department of War or "War Office". In 1947 The Department of War was split into three separate departments - Army, Navy and Air Force - which were gathered into the National Military Establishment which in turn was renamed to Department of Defense in 1949.
Combining a thing with its opposite is a generic algorithm for generating short, profound-sounding sentences in the language game. You can try it with anything
- 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.
Readit News
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.
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 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.
https://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.