Talk:UNSC Armed Forces

Why aren't the Marines and Navy included here? Or have they just not been gotten around to yet? -- Councillor Specops306 - Kora 'Morhek 21:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Trooper is resilient in saying that the Navy and Marines aren't in the UNSCDF. I've shown and told him a lot of evidence about a Defense Force isn't purely *defensive* in nature. For example, the Israeli and Australian Defense Forces; they have an Army, Air Force....and a Navy. File:United Nations logo.pngGeneral Tony, Administrator of Halopedia^Talk 8/05/2008

Transfer?

Is it possible for people to transfer between say the Army and Air Force? Say if ONI wanted to use an Air Force pilot for a mission or as part of a group, could they transfer them to the Navy?--210.56.88.80 11:25, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

People in the military don't really 'transfer' in the way how a civilian decides that he'd rather be a banker than a janitor. You stay in the branch you chose for as long as you're still in service, though I guess you could sign up for something else afterwards. Of course, you're asking if it could all happen at once - the answer is no. NOBLE team were still UNSC Navy personnel, but were working in a joint-service capacity with the UNSC Army. The capture of the Covenant corvette Ardent Prayer depended on the UNSC Navy and the UNSC Air Force to board the vessel - ONI didn't "transfer" the airmen into the Navy, they just took part because a brassed-up airman agreed to work with the Navy.-- Forerunner 11:33, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for the prompt and detailed response. That clears it up for me, makes sense too but I still wanted to clarify. Once again, thank you for your help.--210.56.88.80 11:45, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

You're welcome. I'm glad I went to that Navy class - they're a lot better at getting interest than the Air Force guys. :) -- Forerunner 11:47, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

"Soldiers"'

Why are Marines and sailors referred to as "soldier?" Is it now a universal term for military personnel or something? Signed, Tex the Spartan

In Halo it seems to be, I don't recall the term servicemen or servicewomen ever used. Course it's 500 years in the future and meanings of words change over time sometimes.Sith-venator Wavingstrider (Commlink) 20:31, 20 December 2012 (EST)

National forces on Earth

Why would member-states of the UEG maintain their own military forces? Was it some compromise in the charter or something, 'cause it's not as though there's any real any purpose for them to fight since it seems the only enemies the people of Earth have are the Flood, Innies and the Covenant. Sincerely, Tex the Spartan

Presumably, the member-states maintaining their own military forces allows for a large reserve pool of troops that doesn't have to be paid for by the UEG's taxes. Furthermore, in the aftermath of the Interplanetary War, when there were presumably still a lot of rebel holdouts still around, member-state military forces would be a rapid reaction force that would already be on the ground if the rebels got uppity before UNSC forces could arrive. Thirdly, the continued existence of national forces into the 26th century might be similar to the circumstances surrounding the continued existence of the right to bear arms in the United States in the 21st: It's seen as a defence against an overly-powerful central government, backed up by provisions that seemed like a good idea put down in a constitution centuries before.--The All-knowing Sith'ari (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Ah, makes a lot more sense now given how the UEG probably wouldn't tolerate civilians owning firearms as much as organized national forces. But why didn't any of the East African forces help out the UNSC?—This unsigned comment was made by 173.34.134.217 (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

All dead, maybe? Considered not very good so were relegated to the sidelines? Or perhaps they just helped out in different theatres but didn't get involved around Voi because of the importance of the objective. Also, why do you presume that about the UEG's stance on firearms ownership? Judging by the Insurrectionists, fairly significant numbers of people do own firearms and are prepared to use them.--The All-knowing Sith'ari (talk) 10:40, 14 August 2013 (EDT)

It would've been better if they at least mentioned that the local Kenya and Tanzanian troops were wiped up or otherwise occupied. Chief: What about the local military? Cortana: They're all either dead or on evac duty. Also the UNSC was willing to initiate the S-II program to fight the Insurrection-who's to say they banned assault weapons prior? Given how the Colonies had legitimate gripes about the UNSCs somewhat repressive nature, who's to say they didn't ban rifles and pistols? As for why the Innies acquired military-grade firearms, outlaws and insurgents like them tend to disobey weapons laws. Plus the FLP was able to acquire a NUKE-a commercial-grade nuke at that, but a nuke nonetheless that's definitely gotta be restricted and gotta cost quite a lot of cash or require a pretty well-thought plan that'll be high-cost anyway, plus that's only one instance where the Innies had nukes. Infantry weapons are nothing compared to nukes.—This unsigned comment was made by ‎69.193.53.138 (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

The principle of "show, don't tell" applies. Cortana and the Chief saying that would have sounded ridiculous, and would have taken up memory for an entirely unnecessary point.--The All-knowing Sith'ari (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2013 (EDT)

Do away with the UNSC ranking?

I wonder if it would be best for the wiki to merge all articles on UNSC ranking system since most of them, in my own assessment, do not meet the notability standards. Only a fair few are often used with the rest left standing as orphan articles.— subtank 16:25, 15 January 2014 (EST)

Yea, verily. I'd say perhaps a third of the ranks we have pages for have actually been referenced in official media, the Encyclopedia notwithstanding. What do you think about having separate pages for enlisted and commissioned ranks? That would prevent the clutter of having every entry on the same page, yet it would still be preferable to the current system. --Our vengeance is at hand. (Talk to me.) 23:13, 15 January 2014 (EST)

I'll start an article soon. Somewhere along the lines of "UNSCDF rank structure" perhaps? — subtank 13:43, 20 January 2014 (EST)

Just a word of caution. I see UNSCDF tossed around a lot when it should probably be just UNSC. The Defense Forces specifically would refer to those parts that do not take overt action such as the fleet of ships and the Marines deployed from them. They would be part of the UNSCEF or Expeditionary Forces. The UNSDF would be things like logistics, the Army, probably Air Force, space stations like MAC stations, etc. It may have gone unused but there was even a UNSC eagle emblem in the Reach texture files that had UNSCEF written on the banner. If you refer to the military as a whole, you should probably just use UNSC, unless you mean planetary or orbital stations and their complements specifically. I'm still working out the dynamics of a full UNSC organizational flow chart, but I thin the separation of UNSCDF and UNSCEF in terms of this ranking here would apply to all the UNSC forces, would it not? -ScaleMaster117 (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2014 (EST)

I must say I'm very glad you've cleared that up. For the last few years I've been bugged about the relationship between the UNSC and the Defense Force, primarily because the latter seemed so underutilized. That would explain why the UNSCDF logo has been seen only twice (to my recollection): Cairo Station is by its very nature a defensive installation, while Spirit of Fire is a support ship. I guess we've got a lot of work ahead of us.

On a related note, I'm necroing a topic Jugus called attention to a couple of years back. Despite this wiki's references to a "Covenant navy" and "Covenant army", there doesn't seem to be much (if any) reference for their distinct existences. Fluff from Reach and The Essential Visual Guide states that the Covenant used branches of service (cf. plasma repeater and Banshee), though it makes absolutely no indication as to the nature of these formations. The EVG seems to imply that the Covenant military was based around various ministries, most importantly the Ministry of Resolution. Could you shed any light on this? --Our vengeance is at hand. (Talk to me.) 22:44, 20 January 2014 (EST)