9 ms·
Defense.gov Now Redirects to War.gov
- OhMeadhbh 1y agoDid congress declare war on someone while I was napping? Just sort of curious if we're officially at war or if this is one of those "War on Drugs" or "War on Poverty" things.
- defrost 1y agoIt's part of the ongoing War on EDS (Epstein Derangement Syndrome). So far that's going as well as the Wars on Drugs and Poverty did.
- pjc50 1y agoRussia escalated their incursions into NATO airspace with the result of several drone kills: https://news.sky.com/story/poland-scrambles-nato-defences-after-russian-drones-repeatedly-violated-airspace-in-ukraine-attacks-13427923 https://news.sky.com/story/poland-scrambles-nato-defences-af... Oh and Israel bombed Qatar with implicit US approval.
- altacc 1y agoNeither of these are something the US would ever react to diplomatically let alone militarily, except maybe to give Israel more weapons.
- mcdonje 1y agoCongress has been ceding power to the executive branch to greater and greater degrees over time. The president can effectively declare a war, even if not technically. 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.
- pbiggar 1y agoThey don't declare war anymore if they can avoid it. Being at war comes with obligations and consequences, so they prefer to drone strike Yemen and Gaza without declaring war
- spuz 1y agoYou need to update your world model. Trump would very much like to officially declare war with Venezuela because it gives him certain wartime authorities (such as the Alien Enemies Act and the Insurrection Act) which he can use to to deport people without due process and deploy the armed forces domestically. This is why he ordered the destruction of a speedboat near Venezuela, has increased the bounty on the arrest of Venezuela's president Maduro and called him the head of the Cartel of the Suns. This is also why he is changing the department of defense to the department of war. He wants to use the pretense of war to subvert any checks against his power. 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-gil-interview-intl-latam-hnk https://edition.cnn.com/2025/09/09/americas/venezuela-yvan-g... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpwywjgynyxo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpwywjgynyxo
- pbiggar 1y agoInteresting. That does match what we've seen. Interesting his use of the word "terrorists" - they also use this word to describe the resistance against Israel's oppression. Truly a multi-faceted word that can be used to justify any crime against humanity!
- krapp 1y ago>He wants to use the pretense of war to subvert any checks against his power. 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.
- krapp 1y agoCongress hasn't declared war since WW2. If you think that sort of formality is still relevant, you've been napping for a while.
- OhMeadhbh 1y agoAnd the last time we had a war department was during WW2. Coincidence? I think not.
- ChrisArchitect 1y agoThat 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
- joelccr 1y agoMost US military email is @mail.mil, if I recall correctly. Still a huge change!
- dlcarrier 1y agoI like this lack of euphemisms. Can they change the ATF to the Department of Uncategorized Federal Overreach? Also, NOAA should be called the Weather Force.
- gilleain 1y ago"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.
- dlcarrier 1y agoSame with Space Force. I though Space Command was a much better name.
- jackvalentine 1y agoThis is just Captain Planet but lamer.
- fehu22 1y ago[flagged]
- bilekas 1y agoIt's okay, while he may start it he will then end it and look to claim a nobel peace prize.
- whatsupdog 1y agoHow is grade 6 treating you so far?
- edwinjm 1y agoThe Nobel Peace Prize, which he really wanted, isn't a priority anymore, is it?
- Zealotux 1y agoThey gave it to Obama, anything is possible.
- goku12 1y ago‘War Is Peace. Freedom Is Slavery. Ignorance Is Strength.’
- SanjayMehta 1y agoIf you look at some of the people who received the Nobel Peace Prize, you can’t fault him for thinking he should get one too.
- cosmicgadget 1y agoI think he knew it was game over when Putin told him to pound sand. The next move is to follow the USFL and Miss USA/Miss Teen USA playbook and create his own Nobel Prize.
- dobladov 1y agoIt is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.
- Yizahi 1y agoAmnesia.gov
- leventhan 1y agoFor once, reducing the budget for the war department doesn't sound bad
- glimshe 1y agoFor those who don't know it, this is the name the department has had for most of its history: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_... 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.
- altacc 1y agoThe 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.
- b112 1y agothe 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.
- mrweasel 1y agoRebranding 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.
- altacc 1y agoThere's the best and most justifiable reason for doing anything: Dear Leader said so. /s
- simonw 1y agoI 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.
- FranzFerdiNaN 1y agoWhy would they? The Supreme Court has already decided that Trump is basically a king.
- fabian2k 1y agoWhy would you assume the current government is frugal in any way?
- kccoder 1y agoPretty 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.
- whatsupdog 1y agoThis 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?
- 1y ago
- motbus3 1y agoApproving money for war is harder than approving money for defense. I don't think it was his intention. He wants to sound masculine and brave, like Putin seems to do for him. 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.
- voxadam 1y agoWar is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. ― George Orwell, 1984
- detritus 1y agoI doubt he wrote that then, given he'd been dead for 34 years at that point.
- sertsa 1y agoIt’s from the book “1984”, published in 1949.
- detritus 1y agoSadly you ignored the main takeaway from the quotation, "ignorance is strength".
- hagbard_c 1y agoNeither of these are applicable to the return of the War Department. This on-the-nose name for the department leaves nothing to guess about its purpose - war clearly is not peace and ignorance of that fact is not strength hence the name War Department instead of Ministry of Peace.
- computerthings 1y ago[dead]
- rmonvfer 1y agoI’m pretty sure he’s quoting the book
- jhanschoo 1y agoOn the other hand, I think anyone who knows when Orwell died should know Noneteen-Eighty-Four, so the comment should be seen as a joke, though it helps to give a textual signal like /jk
- varispeed 1y agoPutin is having a laugh, having entire US administration dancing to his tune.
- vim-guru 1y agoWhat an ugly logo, and the kerning is all wrong. Man!
- FjordWarden 1y agoWow there is so much spacing after the "of" that I read it as "U.S. Department of space war"
- tempodox 1y agoThe “of” is in italics, while the surrounding text is not. Is war on typography part of the mission?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- SanjayMehta 1y agoTruth in advertising.
- keyle 1y agoIt is true they're all about cutting waste, they just saved 4 bytes!
- random_ind_dude 1y agoWill defense contractors be known as war contractors from now on?
- throw0101a 1y agoFrom Tom Nichols (a now-retired prof at the US Naval War College): > 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/archive/2025/09/defense-war-cringe-department/684112/ https://archive.today/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/arch... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Nichols_(academic) 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
- grigio 1y agothanks for saving 4 letters when i type it
- tmdetect 1y agoA top contender for “not the onion”. > 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.
- hagbard_c 1y agoWell, he is right so it should not be in the Onion. He does not say the USA has not fought any major wars, just that it hasn't won any. If anything the name Department of War is far more honest about the purpose of the institution, namely fighting and - presumably - winning wars. The Fire department is called so because it is tasked with fighting fire, it is not called the Protection from Incendiary Hazards department for a reason. 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.
- tempodox 1y agoMarginally better than redirecting to `love.gov`.
- ofrzeta 1y agoGreat. Now rename the Department of Health & Human Services.
- 1718627440 1y agoDepartment of Human Value Extraction?
- josefritzishere 1y agoI think this is my least favorite stupid thing in 2025 and it has a lot of competition.
- lildoggy 1y agoWhere is DOGE? Isn't their mission to eliminate waste and fraud. This lateral decision without congressional input sure sounds expensive in a Defense (WAR) budget that is ballooning under The Trump Administration. Add to this the cost of using our military for landscaping projects at an estimated at a million+ per day.That estimate is only from the Lod Angeles occupation.
- beej71 1y agoA savings of 4 UTF-8 bytes per!
- cosmicgadget 1y agoIf we use anything other than US_ASCII I will be disappointed.