document_title: Pokhran-II

question_text: who was the president of india when first nuclear tests was conducted

text: Pokhran-II

text: India's nuclear bomb project[edit]

text: Efforts towards building the nuclear bomb, infrastructure, and research on related technologies have been undertaken by India since World War II. Origins of India's nuclear program dates back to 1944 when nuclear physicist Homi Bhabha began persuading the Indian Congress towards the harnessing of nuclear energy— a year later he established the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR).

text: In 1950s, the preliminary studies were carried out at the BARC and plans were developed to produce plutonium and other bomb components. In 1962, India and China engaged in the disputed northern front, and was further intimidated with Chinese nuclear test in 1964. Direction towards militarisation of the nuclear program slowed down when Vikram Sarabhai became its head and little interest of Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri in 1965.

text: After Indira Gandhi became Prime Minister in 1966, the nuclear program was consolidated when physicist Raja Ramanna joined the efforts. Another nuclear test by China eventually led to India's decision toward building nuclear weapons in 1967 and conducted its first nuclear test, Smiling Buddha, in 1974.[6]

text: Post-Smiling Buddha[edit]

text: Responding to Smiling Buddha, the Nuclear Suppliers Group severely affected the India's nuclear program.[7] The world's major nuclear powers imposed technological embargo on India and Pakistan, which was technologically racing to meet with India's challenge.[7] The nuclear program struggled for years to gain credibility and its progress crippled by the lack of indigenous resources and dependent on imported technology and technical assistance.[7] At IAEA, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared that India's nuclear program was not militarising despite authorising preliminary work on the hydrogen bomb design.[7]

text: As an aftermath of the state emergency in 1975 that resulted in the collapse of the Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's government, the nuclear program was left with a vacuum of political leadership and even basic management.[7] Work on the hydrogen bomb design continued under M. Srinivasan, a mechanical engineer, but progress was slow.[7]

text: The nuclear program received little attention from Prime Minister Morarji Desai who was renowned for his peace advocacy.[7]  In 1978, Prime Minister Desai transferred physicist Ramanna to Indian MoD, and his government was not entirely without progress in nuclear program and had the program continue to grow at a desirable rate.[7][8]

text: Disturbing news came from Pakistan when the world discovered the Pakistan's clandestine atomic bomb program.[7] Contrary to India's nuclear program, Pakistan's atomic bomb program was akin to United States's Manhattan Project, it was under military oversight with civilian scientists in charge of the scientific aspects of the program.[7]  The Pakistani atomic bomb program was well funded and organised by then; India realised that Pakistan was likely to succeed in its project in matter of two years.[7]

text: In 1980, the general elections marked the return of Indira Gandhi and the nuclear program began to gain momentum under Ramanna in 1981. Requests for additional nuclear tests were continued to be denied by the government when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi saw Pakistan began exercising the brinkmanship, though the nuclear program continued to advance.[7] Initiation towards hydrogen bomb began as well as the launch of the missile programme began under Late president Dr. Abdul Kalam, who was then an aerospace engineer.[7]

text: Political momentum: 1988–1998[edit]

text: In 1989, the general elections witnessed the Janata Dal party led by V.P. Singh, forming the government.[9] Prime Minister V.P. Singh down played the relations with the Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto whose Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) won the general elections in 1988. Foreign relations between India and Pakistan began to severely worsen when India began charging Pakistan of supporting the militancy in Jammu and Kashmir.[9] During this time, the missile program succeeded in the development of the Prithvi missiles.

text: Successive governments in India decided to observe this temporary moratorium for fear of inviting international criticism.[7] The Indian public had been supportive towards the nuclear tests which ultimately led Prime Minister Narasimha Rao deciding to conduct further tests in 1995.[9] Plans were halted after American spy satellites picked up signs of preparations for nuclear testing at Pokhran Test Range in Rajasthan.[9] President Bill Clinton and his administration exerted enormous pressure on Prime Minister Narasimha Rao to stop the preparations.[9] Responding to India, Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto issued harsh and severe statements against India on Pakistan's news channels; thus putting stress on the relations between two countries.[10]

text: Diplomatic tension escalated between two countries when Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto raised the Kashmir issue at the United Nations in 1995[11][12].[13] In a speech delivered by then-Speaker National Assembly Yousaf Raza Gillani, stressed the "Kashmir issue" as continue to endanger the peace and security in the region.[13] The Indian delegation headed by Atal Bihari Vajpayee at the United Nations, reiterated that the "UN resolutions only call upon Pakistan— the occupying force to vacate the "Jammu and Kashmir Area."[13]

text: 1998 Indian general elections[edit]

text: The BJP, came to power in 1998 general elections with an exclusive public mandate.[4] BJP's political might had been growing steadily in strength over the past decade over several issues.

text: In Pakistan, the similar conservative force, the PML(N), was also in power with an exclusive mandate led by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif who defeated the leftist PPP led by Benazir Bhutto in general elections held in 1997.[14] During the BJP campaign, Atal Bihari Vajpayee indulged in grandstanding— such as when he declared on 25 February that his government would "take back that part of Kashmir that is under Pakistan's control."[4] Before this declaration, the BJP platform had clear intention to "exercise the option to induct nuclear weapons" and "India should become an openly nuclear power to garner the respect on the world stage that India deserved."[4] By 18 March 1998, Vajpayee had publicly begun his lobbying for nuclear explosion and declared that "there is no compromise on national security; all options including the nuclear options will be exercised to protect security and sovereignty."[4]

text: Consultation began between Prime Minister Vajpayee, Dr.Abdul Kalam, R. Chidambaram and officials of the Indian DAE on nuclear options. Chidambaram briefed Prime Minister Vajpayee extensively on the nuclear program; Abdul Kalam presented the status of the missile program. On 28 March 1998, Prime Minister Vajpayee asked the scientists to make preparations in the shortest time possible, and preparations were hastily made.[15]

text: It was time of tense atmosphere when Pakistan, at a Conference on Disarmament, offered a peace rhetoric agreement with India for "an equal and mutual restraint in conventional, missile and nuclear fields."[4] Pakistan's equation was later reemphasised on 6 April and the momentum in India for nuclear tests began to build up which strengthened Vajpayee's position to order the tests.[4]

text: Preparations for the test[edit]

text: Unlike Pakistan's weapon–testing laboratories, there was very little that India could do to hide its activity at Pokhran.[16] Contrary to high-altitude granite mountains in Pakistan, the bushes are sparse and the dunes in the Rajasthan Desert don't provide much cover from probing satellites.[16] The Indian intelligence had been aware of United States spy satellites and the American CIA had been detecting Indian test preparations since 1995; therefore, the tests required complete secrecy in India and also needed to avoid detection by other countries.[16] The 58th Engineer Regiment of Indian Army's Corps of Engineers was commissioned to prepare the test sites without being probed by the United States spy satellites. The 58th Engineer's commander Colonel Gopal Kaushik supervised the test preparations and ordered his "staff officers take all measures to ensure total secrecy."[16]

text: Extensive planning was done by a very small group of scientists, senior military officers and senior politicians to ensure that the test preparations would remain secret, and even senior members of the Indian government didn't know what was going on. The chief scientific adviser and the Director of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), Dr. Abdul Kalam, and Dr. R. Chidambaram, the Director of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), were the chief coordinators of this test planning.[4] The scientists and engineers of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), the Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research (AMDER), and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) were involved in the nuclear weapon assembly, layout, detonation and obtaining test data.[4] A very small group of senior scientists were involved in the detonation process, all scientists were required to wear army uniforms to preserve the secrecy of the tests. Since 1995, the 58th Engineer Regiment had learned to avoid satellite detection.[4] Work was mostly done during night, and equipment was returned to the original place to give the impression that it was never moved.[4]

text: Bomb shafts were dug under camouflage netting and the dug-out sand was shaped like dunes. Cables for sensors were covered with sand and concealed using native vegetation.[4] Scientists would not depart for Pokhran in groups of two or three.[4] They travelled to destinations other than Pokhran under pseudonyms, and were then transported by the army. Technical staff at the test range wore military uniform, to prevent detection in satellite images.[16]

text: Nuclear weapon designs and development[edit]

text: Development and test teams[edit]

text: The main technical personnel involved in the operation were:[1]

text:
Project Chief Coordinators
Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam (later, President of India), Scientific Adviser to the prime minister and Head of the DRDO.
Dr. R. Chidambaram, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Atomic energy.
Defence Research & Development Organization (DRDO)
Dr. K. Santhanam; Director, Test Site Preparations.
Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research
Dr. G. R. Dikshitulu; Senior Research Scientist B.S.O.I Group, Nuclear Materials Acquisition
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC)
Dr. Anil Kakodkar, Director of BARC.
Dr. Satinder Kumar Sikka, Director; Thermonuclear Weapon Development.
Dr. M. S. Ramakumar, Director of Nuclear Fuel and Automation Manufacturing Group; Director, Nuclear Component Manufacture.
Dr. D.D. Sood, Director of Radiochemistry and Isotope Group; Director, Nuclear Materials Acquisition.
Dr. S.K. Gupta, Solid State Physics and Spectroscopy Group; Director, Device Design & Assessment.
Dr. G. Govindraj, Associate Director of Electronic and Instrumentation Group; Director, Field Instrumentation.

text: Movement and logistics[edit]

text: Three laboratories of the DRDO were involved in designing, testing and producing components for the bombs, including the advanced detonators, the implosion and high-voltage trigger systems. These were also responsible for weaponising, systems engineering, aerodynamics, safety interlocks and flight trials.[1] The bombs were transported in four Indian Army trucks under the command of Colonel Umang Kapur; all devices from BARC were relocated at 3 am on 1 May 1998. From the Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, the bombs were flown in an Indian Air Force's AN-32 plane to the Jaisalmer army base. They were transported to Pokhran in an army convoy of four trucks, and this required three trips. The devices were delivered to the device preparation building, which was designated as 'Prayer Hall'.[1]

text: The test sites was organised into two government groups and were fired separately, with all devices in a group fired at the same time. The first group consisted of the thermonuclear device (Shakti I), the fission device (Shakti II), and a sub-kiloton device (Shakti III). The second group consisted of the remaining two sub-kiloton devices Shakti IV and V. It was decided that the first group would be tested on 11 May and the second group on 13 May. The thermonuclear device was placed in a shaft code named 'White House', which was over 200 metres (660 ft) deep, the fission bomb was placed in a 150 metres (490 ft) deep shaft code named 'Taj Mahal', and the first sub-kiloton device in 'Kumbhkaran'. The first three devices were placed in their respective shafts on 10 May, and the first device to be placed was the sub-kiloton device in the 'Kumbhkaran' shaft, which was sealed by the army engineers by 8:30 pm. The thermonuclear device was lowered and sealed into the 'White House' shaft by 4 am, and the fission device being placed in the 'Taj Mahal' shaft was sealed at 7:30 am, which was 90 minutes before the planned test time. The shafts were L-shaped, with a horizontal chamber for the test device.[1]

text: The timing of the tests depended on the local weather conditions, with the wind being the critical factor. The tests were underground, but due to a number of shaft seal failures that had occurred during tests conducted by the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom, the sealing of the shaft could not be guaranteed to be leak-proof. By early afternoon, the winds had died down and the test sequence was initiated. Dr. K. Santhanam of the DRDO, in charge of the test site preparations, gave the two keys that activated the test countdown to Dr. M. Vasudev, the range safety officer, who was responsible for verifying that all test indicators were normal. After checking the indicators, Vasudev handed one key each to a representative of BARC and the DRDO, who unlocked the countdown system together. At 3:45 pm the three devices were detonated.[1]

text: Specifications and detonation[edit]

text: Five nuclear devices were Made during Operation Shakti.[17] All devices were weapon-grade plutonium[1] and they were:[1]

text:
Shakti I – A thermonuclear device yielding 45 kt, but designed for up to 200 kt.
Shakti II – A plutonium implosion design yielding 15 kt and intended as a warhead that could be delivered by bomber or missile. It was an improvement of the device detonated in the 1974 Smiling Buddha (Pokhran-I) test of 1974, developed using simulations on the PARAM supercomputer.
Shakti III – An experimental linear implosion design that used "non-weapon grade"[18] plutonium, but which likely omitted the material required for fusion, yielding 0.3 kt.
Shakti IV- A 0.5 kt experimental device.
Shakti V – A 0.2 kt experimental device.

text: An additional, sixth device (Shakti VI) is suspected to have been present but not detonated.[1]

text: At 3:43 pm IST; three nuclear bombs (specifically, the Shakti I, II and III) were detonated simultaneously, as measured by international seismic monitors.[4] On 13 May, at 12.21 p.m.IST 6:51 UTC, two sub-kiloton devices (Shakti IV and V) were detonated. Due to their very low yield, these explosions were not detected by any seismic station.[4] On 13 May 1998, India declared the series of tests to be over after this.[19]

text: Announcement[edit]

text: Following the Pokhran-II tests, India became the sixth country to join the nuclear club.[20] Shortly after the tests, a press meet was convened at the Prime Minister's residence in New Delhi. Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee appeared before the press corps and made the following short statement:

text:
“

Today, at 15:45 hours, India conducted three underground nuclear tests in the Pokhran range. The tests conducted today were with a fission device, a low yield device and a thermonuclear device. The measured yields are in line with expected values. Measurements have also confirmed that there was no release of radioactivity into the atmosphere. These were contained explosions like the experiment conducted in May 1974. I warmly congratulate the scientists and engineers who have carried out these successful tests.[21]

”

text: Reactions to tests[edit]

text: Domestic reactions[edit]

text: News of the tests were greeted with jubilation and large-scale approval by society in India.[22] The Bombay Stock Exchange registered significant gains. Newspapers and television channels praised the government for its bold decision; editorials were full of praise for the country's leadership and advocated the development of an operational nuclear arsenal for the country's armed forces.[22] The Indian opposition, led by Congress Party criticised the Vajpayee administration for carrying out the series of nuclear tests.[22] The Congress Party spokesman, Salman Khursheed, accused the BJP of trying to use the tests for political ends rather than to enhance the country's national security.[22]

text: By the time India had conducted tests, the country had a total of $44bn in loans in 1998, from IMF and the World Bank.[23] The industrial sectors of the Indian economy such as the chemicals industry, were likely to be hurt by sanctions.[23] The Western consortium companies, which had invested heavily in India, especially in construction, computing and telecoms, were generally the ones who were harmed by the sanctions.[23] In 1998, Indian government announced that it had already allowed for some economic response and was willing to take the consequences.[23]

text: International reactions[edit]

text: United States[edit]

text: The United States issued a strong statement condemning India and promised that sanctions would follow. The American intelligence community was embarrassed as there had been "a serious intelligence failure of the decade" in detecting the preparations for the test.[24]

text: In keeping with its preferred approach to foreign policy in recent decades, and in compliance with the 1994 anti-proliferation law, the United States imposed economic sanctions on India.[5] The sanctions on India consisted of cutting off all assistance to India except humanitarian aid, banning the export of certain defence material and technologies, ending American credit and credit guarantees to India, and requiring the US to oppose lending by international financial institutions to India.[25]

text: From 1998–1999, the United States held series of bilateral talks with India over the issue of India becoming party of the CTBT and NPT.[26] In addition, the United States also made an unsuccessful attempt of holding talks regarding the rollback of India's nuclear program.[27] India took a firm stand against the CTBT and refusing to be signatory party of it despite under pressure by the US President Bill Clinton, and noted the treaty as it was not consistent with India's national security interest.[27]

text: Canada, Japan, and other countries[edit]

text: Strong criticism was drawn from Canada on India's actions and its High Commissioner.[28] Sanctions were also imposed by Japan on India and consisted of freezing all new loans and grants except for humanitarian aid to India.[29]

text: Some other nations also imposed sanctions on India, primarily in the form of suspension of foreign aid to India and government-to-government credit lines.[30] However, the United Kingdom, France, and Russia refrained from condemning India.[30]

text: China[edit]

text: On 12 May the Chinese Foreign Ministry stated: "The Chinese government is seriously concerned about the nuclear tests conducted by India," and that the tests "run counter to the current international trend and are not conducive to peace and stability in South Asia.".[31] The next day the Chinese Foreign Ministry issued the statement clearly stating that "it is shocked and strongly condemned" the Indian nuclear tests and called for the international community to "adopt a unified stand and strongly demand that India immediate stop development of nuclear weapons".[32] China further rejected India's stated rationale of needing nuclear capabilities to counter a Chinese threat as "totally unreasonable".[32] In a meeting with Masayoshi Takemura of Democratic Party of Japan, Foreign Minister of the People's Republic of China Qian Qichen was quoted as saying that India's nuclear tests were a "serious matter," particularly because they were conducted in light of the fact that more than 140 countries have signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. "It is even more unacceptable that India claims to have conducted the tests to counter what it called a "China threat".[32] On 24 November 1998, the Chinese Embassy, New Delhi issued a formal statement:

text: (sic).... But regrettably, India conducted nuclear tests last May, which has run against the contemporary historical trend and seriously affected peace and stability in South Asia. Pakistan also conducted nuclear tests later on. India's nuclear tests have not only led to the escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan and provocation of nuclear arms races in South Asia, but also dealt a heavy blow to international nuclear disarmament and the global nonproliferation regime. It is only natural that India's nuclear tests have met with extensive condemnation and aroused serious concern from the international community.

text: Pakistan[edit]

text: The most vehement and strong reaction to India's nuclear explosion was from a neighbouring country, Pakistan. Great ire was raised in Pakistan, which issued a severe statement blaming India for instigating a nuclear arms race in the region.[4] Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif vowed that his country would give a suitable reply to India.[4] The day after the first tests, Foreign Minister Gohar Ayub Khan indicated that Pakistan was ready to conduct a nuclear test. He stated: "Pakistan is prepared to match India, we have the capability.... We in Pakistan will maintain a balance with India in all fields", he said in an interview. "We are in a headlong arms race on the subcontinent."[4]

text: On 13 May 1998, Pakistan bitterly condemned the tests, and Foreign Minister Gohar Ayub was quoted as saying that Indian leadership seemed to "have gone berserk [sic] and was acting in a totally unrestrained way."[34] Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was much more subdued, maintaining ambiguity about whether a test would be conducted in response: "We are watching the situation and we will take appropriate action with regard to our security", he said.[4]  Sharif sought to mobilise the entire Islamic world in support of Pakistan and criticised India for nuclear proliferation.[4]

text: Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had been under intense pressure regarding the nuclear tests by President Bill Clinton and Opposition leader Benazir Bhutto at home.[35] Initially surprising the world, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif authorised nuclear testing program and the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) carried out nuclear testings under the codename Chagai-I on 28 May 1998 and Chagai-II on 30 May 1998. These six underground nuclear tests at the Chagai and Kharan test site were conducted fifteen days after India's last test. The total yield of the tests was reported to be 40 kt (see codename: Chagai-I).[36]

text: Pakistan's subsequent tests invited similar condemnation from the United States.[37] American President Bill Clinton was quoted as saying "Two wrongs don't make a right", criticising Pakistan's tests as reactionary to India's Pokhran-II.[35] The United States and Japan reacted by imposing economic sanctions on Pakistan. According to the Pakistan's science community, the Indian nuclear tests gave an opportunity to Pakistan to conduct nuclear tests after 14 years of conducting only cold tests (See: Kirana-I).[38]

text: Pakistan's leading nuclear physicist, Pervez Hoodbhoy, held India responsible for Pakistan's nuclear test experiments in Chagai.[39]

text: U.N. sanctions[edit]

text: The reactions from abroad started immediately after the tests were advertised. On 6 June, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1172 condemning the test and that of Pakistan's.[40] China issued a vociferous condemnation calling upon the international community to exert pressure on India to sign the NPT and eliminate its nuclear arsenal. With India joining the group of countries possessing nuclear weapons, a new strategic dimension had emerged in Asia, particularly South Asia.[40]

text: Effects on Indian economy[edit]

text: Overall, the effect of international sanctions on Indian economy was minimal; the technological progress was marginal. Most nations did not call for embargoes against India as the exports and imports together constituted only 4.0% of its GDP, with United States trade accounting for only 10.0% of this total. Far more significant were the restrictions on lending imposed by the United States and its representatives on international finance bodies. Most of the sanctions were lifted within five years.

text: Legacy[edit]

text: The Indian government has officially declared the 11 May as National Technology Day in India to commemorate the first of the five nuclear tests that were carried out on 11 May 1998.[41]

text: It was officially signed by then-Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee in 1998 and the day is celebrated by giving awards to various individuals and industries in the field of science and technology.[41]

text: In popular culture[edit]

text: Parmanu: The Story of Pokhran is a 2018 Bollywood movie based on India's underground Pokhran-II nuclear test.


document_title: Commander-in-chief

question_text: who was the only sitting president to lead troops in the field during his term

question_tokens: who was the only sitting president to lead troops in the field during his term

root

text: Commander-in-chief

text: Definition[edit]

text: The formal role and title of a ruler commanding the armed forces derives from Imperator of the Roman Kingdom, Roman Republic and Roman Empire, who possessed imperium (command and other regal) powers.[1]

tag: p

text: In English use, the term first applied to King Charles I of England in 1639.[citation needed] It continued to be used during the English Civil War.[2] A nation's head of state (monarchical or republican) usually holds the nominal position of commander-in-chief, even if effective executive power is held by a separate head of government. In a parliamentary system, the executive branch is ultimately dependent upon the will of the legislature; although the legislature does not issue orders directly to the armed forces and therefore does not control the military in any operational sense. Governors-general and colonial governors are also often appointed commander-in-chief of the military forces within their territory.

text: A commander-in-chief is sometimes referred to as supreme commander, which is sometimes used as a specific term. The term is also used for military officers who hold such power and authority, not always through dictatorship, and as a subordinate (usually) to a head of state (see Generalissimo). The term is also used for officers who hold authority over an individual military branch, special branch or within a theatre of operations.[3]

text: Heads of state as commanders-in-chief[edit]

text: This includes heads of states who:

text:
Are chief executives with the political mandate to undertake discretionary decision-making, including command of the armed forces.
Mostly ceremonial heads of state (constitutional monarchs, viceroys and presidents in parliamentary republics) with residual substantive reserve powers over the armed forces, acting under normal circumstances on the constitutional advice of chief executives with the political mandate to undertake discretionary decision-making.

tag: ul

text: Afghanistan[edit]

text: According to the Constitution of Afghanistan, The President of Afghanistan is the Commander-in-chief of Afghan Armed Forces.

text: Albania[edit]

text: According to the Constitution of Albania, The President of the Republic of Albania is the Commander-in-chief of Albanian Armed Forces. The incumbent Commander-in-chief is President Ilir Meta.

text: Argentina[edit]

text: Under part II, chapter III, article 99, subsections 12, 13, 14 and 15, the Constitution of Argentina states that the President of the Argentine Nation is the "Commander-in-chief of all the armed forces of the Nation". It also states that the President is entitled to provide military posts in the granting of the jobs or grades of senior officers of the armed forces, and by itself on the battlefield; runs with its organization and distribution according to needs of the Nation and declares war and orders reprisals with the consent and approval of the Argentine National Congress.[4]

text: The Ministry of Defense is the government department that assists and serves the President in the management of the armed forces (Army, Navy and Air Force).[5]

text: Australia[edit]

text: Under chapter II of section 68 titled Command of the naval and military forces, the Constitution of Australia states that:

text: The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor General as the Queen's representative.[6]

text: In practice, however, the Governor-General does not play an active part in the Australian Defence Force's command structure, and the democratically accountable Australian Cabinet (chaired by the Prime Minister) de facto controls the ADF. The Minister for Defence and several subordinate ministers exercise this control through the Australian Defence Organisation. Section 8 of the Defence Act 1903 states:

text: The Minister shall have the general control and administration of the Defence Force, and the powers vested in the Chief of the Defence Force, the Chief of Navy, the Chief of Army and the Chief of Air Force by virtue of section 9, and the powers vested jointly in the Secretary and the Chief of the Defence Force by virtue of section 9A, shall be exercised subject to and in accordance with any directions of the Minister.[7]

text: Austria[edit]

text: The Constitution (German: Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz) states, in Article 80, that the Federal President is the (nominal) Commander-in-Chief of the Austrian Armed Forces. However, it further provides that the President may only have the Armed Forces at his disposal to the extent provided in the Defence Act (German: Wehrgesetz); and that the supreme command over the Armed Forces is exercised by the minister of defence authorized to serve in this capacity by the Federal Government, i.e. the cabinet under the chairmanship of the Chancellor, as defined in Article 69.[8]

text: Bangladesh[edit]

text: The commander-in-chief is the president, although executive power and responsibility for national defense resides with the prime minister. The only exception was the first commander-in-chief, General M. A. G. Osmani, during Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971, who was commander of all Bangladesh Forces, reinstated to active duty by official BD government order, which after independence was gazetted in 1972. He retired on 7 April 1972 and relinquished all authority and duties to the President of Bangladesh.[9]

text: Brazil[edit]

text: Article 142 of the Brazilian Constitution of 1988 states that the Brazilian Armed Forces is under the supreme command of the President of the Republic.[10]

text: Brunei[edit]

text: The Sultan of Brunei is the Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Brunei Armed Forces.

text: Canada[edit]

text: The powers of command-in-chief over the Canadian Armed Forces are vested in the Canadian monarch,[11] and are delegated to the Governor General of Canada, who also uses the title Commander-in-Chief.[12] In this capacity, the governor general is entitled to the uniform of a general/flag officer, with the crest of the office and special cuff braid serving as rank insignia.

text: By constitutional convention, the Crown's prerogative powers over the armed forces and constitutional powers as commander-in-chief are exercised on the advice of the prime minister and the rest of Cabinet, the governing ministry that commands the confidence of the House of Commons. According to the National Defence Act, the Minister of National Defence is responsible and accountable to parliament for all matters related to national defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.[13] In theory, the governor general could also use his or her powers as commander-in-chief to stop any attempts to use the Canadian Forces unconstitutionally, though this has never occurred and would likely be highly controversial.

text: People's Republic of China[edit]

text: Article 93 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China states the authority to direct the Armed Forces of the People's Republic of China is vested with the Central Military Commission; composed of a Chairman, and numerous Vice-Chairmen and members. The same article also states that the Chairman of the Central Military Commission assumes overall responsibility for the work of the Central Military Commission, and that it is responsible to the National People's Congress and the Standing Committee.[14]

text: Furthermore, Article 80 gives the President of the People's Republic of China (in addition to ceremonial head of state duties) the power to proclaim martial law, proclaim a state of war, and to issue mobilisation orders upon the decision of National People's Congress and its Standing Committee.[14]

text: The CMC Chairman and the President are distinctly separate state offices and they have not always been held by the same persons. However, beginning in 1993, during the tenure of Jiang Zemin as CMC Chairman and General Secretary of the Communist Party, it has been standard practice to have the President, the Chairman of the Central Military Commission, and the General Secretary of the Communist Party to be normally held by the same person; although the slight differences in the start and end of terms for those respective offices means that there is some overlap between an occupant and his predecessor.

text: Hong Kong[edit]

text: When Hong Kong was under British authority, the civilian Governor was ex officio Commander-in-Chief of the British Forces Overseas Hong Kong. After the territory's handover to the People's Republic of China in 1997, the commanders of the People's Liberation Army Hong Kong Garrison are PLA personnel from mainland China.

text: Croatia[edit]

text: According to the Croatian constitution, the President of Croatia is the Commander-in-Chief of Armed Forces of the Republic of Croatia. In peace, the commander-in-chief exercises his command through the Minister of Defense. In war and in cases where the Minister of Defense is not fulfilling orders, the commander-in-chief exercises his command directly through the chief of General Staff.

text: Czech Republic[edit]

text: According to the 1992 constitution, the President of the Czech Republic is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces according to Article 63(1)(c), and appoints and promotes generals under Article 63(1)(f). The President needs the countersignature of the Prime Minister for decisions concerning the above-mentioned provisions as per Articles 63(3-4), or otherwise they are not valid. The Prime Minister may delegate to other ministers the right to countersign these decisions of the President. The political responsibility for the Armed Forces is borne by the Government, which in Article 67 is defined as the "supreme body of executive power". According to Articles 39 & 43, the Parliament must give consent to the dispatch of Czech military forces outside the territory of the Czech Republic.[15]

text: The Ministry of Defence is the central authority of the state administration for the control of the Armed Forces.[16] The actual day-to-day management is vested in the Chief of the General Staff, the Czech chief of defence equivalent.[17]

text: Denmark[edit]

text: The position of the Danish monarch as the head of the military is deeply rooted in tradition. While the 1953 constitution does not explicitly designate the monarch as commander-in-chief; it is implicit, given the general provision in article 12 and the more specific wording of article 19 (2): "Except for purposes of defence against an armed attack upon the Realm or Danish forces, the King shall not use military force against any foreign state without the consent of the Folketing. Any measure which the King may take in pursuance of this provision shall forthwith be submitted to the Folketing".[18]

text: However, when reading the Danish Constitution, it is important to bear in mind that the King in this context is understood by Danish jurists to be read as the Government (consisting of the Prime Minister and other ministers). This is a logical consequence of articles 12, 13 and 14, all of which in essence stipulates that the powers vested in the monarch can only be exercised through ministers, who are responsible for all acts. Thus, the Government, in effect, holds the supreme command authority implied in articles 12 and 19(2).[19]

text: The Danish Defence Law (Danish: Forsvarsloven) designates in article 9 the Minister of Defence as the supreme authority in Defence (Danish: højeste ansvarlige myndighed for forsvaret). Under the Minister is the Chief of Defence, the senior-ranking professional military officer heading the Defence Command, who commands the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and other units not reporting directly to the Ministry of Defence.[20][21]

text:
King Christian IV onboard his flagship during the 1644 Battle of Colberger Heide, by Wilhelm Marstrand. The King's personal commitment during the battle, are memorized in first lines of the Danish royal anthem.

HDMY Dannebrog, the Danish royal yacht named after the national flag and operated by the Royal Danish Navy, in Vagur, Faroe Islands on 21 June 2005.

text: Dominican Republic[edit]

text: According to the Constitution, Article 128, Section II, Title IV, the President is the head of foreign policy, the civil administration and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, the National Police and all other state's security agencies.[22]

text: Egypt[edit]

text: In Egypt, the President of the Republic holds the ceremonial title of Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. A member of the government, usually defence minister, is commander-in-chief of the Egyptian Armed Forces, the incumbent being Sedki Sobhi. The president still remains the only individual capable of declaring war. Until the election of Mohamed Morsi in June 2012, prior Egyptian presidents had all been former military officers, and during the Yom Kippur War the president played a major role at all levels of the planning of the war, and was in a literal sense Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces giving direct orders to the commanders from the headquarters during the war as field marshal of the army, colonel general of the air force and air defence forces and admiral of the navy. Anwar Sadat often wore his military uniform, while former president Hosni Mubarak had abandoned this tradition.

text: Finland[edit]

text: According to the Finnish constitution, the President of Finland is the commander-in-chief of all Finnish military forces. In practice, the everyday command and control is in the hands of Chief of Defence and the Commander of the Finnish Border Guard. The economic administration of the Finnish Defence Force is the responsibility of Ministry of Defence. The duty of the president is to decide upon[23]:§31

text:
main principles of the military defence of the realm
principles of the execution of the military defence
other military command matters with wide-ranging importance to the military activity or the military establishment
any other military command issue that he wishes to decide upon

text: Since the constitutional reform of 2000, the Minister of Defence has the right to be present when the president uses his command powers, unless the matter is of immediate concern. In questions of strategic importance, the Prime Minister has the same right.[23]:§32

text: The president commissions and promotes officers and decides on activating reservists for extraordinary service and on the mobilisation of the Defence Forces.[23]:§40[24][25]:§ 128.2 If Parliament is not in session when a decision to mobilise is taken, it must be immediately convened.[25]:§ 129 Declarations of a state of emergency (Finnish: valmiustila, literally, "state of preparedness") and state of war (Finnish: puolustustila, lit. "state of defence") are declared by a presidential decree, given after a motion by the government, which is then submitted to the Parliament for ratification.[26][27]

text: The president has, in a state of emergency, the right to transfer the position of the commander-in-chief to another Finnish citizen.[25]:§ 129

text: France[edit]

text: In France, the President of the Republic is designated as "Chef des Armées" (literally "Chief of the Armies") under article 15 of the constitution, and is as such the supreme executive authority in military affairs. Article 16 provides the president with extensive emergency powers.[28]

text: However, owing to the nature of the semi-presidential system, the prime minister also has key constitutional powers under article 21: "He shall be responsible for national defence" and has "power to make regulations and shall make appointments to civil and military posts".[28]

text: Since the reign of Louis XIV, France has been strongly centralized. After crushing local nobles engaged in warlord-ism, the Kings of France retained all authority with the help of able yet discreet Prime ministers (Mazarin, Richelieu).

text: The 1789 Revolution transferred the supreme authority to the King (in the context of the short-lived constitutional Monarchy), then to the multi-member Comité de Salut Public during the Convention, and later to the Directoire, before being regained in the hands of Consul Napoléon Bonaparte, later Emperor Napoléon I, alone.

text: The Restoration restored the authority of the King, first in an absolute monarchy, then the constitutional July Monarchy of Louis Philippe, before it was overthrown in turn by the Second Republic and later the Second Empire of Napoleon III.

text: The following Third Republic was a parliamentary system, where the military authority was held by the President of the Council of Ministers. During World War I, the many visits to the trenches by the elderly statesman Georges Clemenceau impressed the soldiers and earned him the nickname Father of Victory (French: Le Père de la Victoire).

text: During World War II, Maréchal Philippe Pétain assumed power and held the supreme authority in Vichy France, while Général Charles De Gaulle, acting on behalf of the previous regime, founded the Free French Forces, upon which he held supreme authority all through the war.

text: The following and short-lived Fourth Republic was a parliamentary system, which was replaced by the present Fifth Republic, a semi-presidential system.

text: Ghana[edit]

text: Prior 1992 Commander-in-chief of the Ghana Armed Forces (GAF) military rank was held by GAF military personnel until the ratification of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana ratified by Ghana Air Force (GHF) Flight Lieutenant Jerry Rawlings and in accordance to the Constitution of Ghana, The Head of State of Ghana and President of Ghana is the Commander-in-chief of GAF. The incumbent Commander-in-chief of GAF (Ghana Armed Forces) is Head of State of Ghana and President of Ghana John Dramani Mahama.[29][30]

text: Guyana[edit]

text: According to the Guyanese constitution, the President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Unusually; there is a rank insignia for the position.

text: India[edit]

text: Supreme command of the Indian Armed Forces is vested in the President of India, although effective executive power and responsibility for national defence resides with the Cabinet of India headed by the Prime Minister. This is discharged through the Ministry of Defence, headed by the Minister of Defence, which provides the policy framework and resources to the Armed Forces to discharge their responsibilities in the context of the defence of the country.

text: On 15 August 1947, each service was placed under its own commander-in-chief. In 1955, the three service chiefs were re-designated as the Chief of the Army Staff (rank of general), the Chief of the Naval Staff (rank of vice-admiral) and the Chief of the Air Staff (rank of air marshal) with the president as the supreme commander. The Chief of the Air Staff was raised to the rank of air chief marshal in 1965 and the Chief of the Naval Staff raised to the rank of admiral in 1968.

text: Indonesia[edit]

text: According to Article 10 of the Constitution of Indonesia, the President of Indonesia holds the supreme command of the Indonesian National Armed Forces. Day-to-day operations of the Armed Forces is handled by the commander of the Armed Forces (Indonesian: Panglima TNI, a 4-star officer whom can be General (Army/Marine), Admiral (Navy), or Air Chief Marshal (Air Force)).

text: Indonesian Armed Forces has three service branches: Indonesian Army, Indonesian Navy (including Indonesian Marine Corps), and Indonesian Air Forces. Each service branch is headed by a Chief of Staff (also a 4-star officer) who has the task of developing soldier professionalism in each branch. However, the commanding authority is held by Commander of Indonesian National Armed Forces. Commanders have direct commanding authority to Main Combatants Command (Indonesian: Komando Utama Tempur) from all service branches such as Army Special Forces Command, Army Strategic Reserve Command, Military Area Command, Fleet Command, Military Sea Traffic Command, National Air Defense Command and Air-Force Operational Command. The Commander of the Armed Forces is appointed by the president from active Chiefs of Staff (Army, Navy, or Air Force) and must get approval from the House of Representatives. Chief of Staff is also appointed by the president from senior military officers. The president as commander-in-chief also has authority in senior military officer mutation and promotion in tour of duty. Minister of Defense has responsibility to assist the president in defense issues and create policies about authorization use of military force, manage defense budget, etc. For authorization use of military forces or declaration of war, the president must get approval from House of Representatives. The Commander of Armed Forces gives recommendations to the Minister of Defense in creating national defense policies.

text: Iran[edit]

text: Before 1979, the Shah was the commander-in-chief in Iran. After the inception of the Islamic Republic, the President of Iran was initially appointed that task, with Abolhassan Bani Sadr being the first commander-in-chief. However, Abolhassan Bani Sadr was impeached on 22 June 1981. It was after this event that the role of commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran was given to the Supreme Leader of Iran.

text: Ireland[edit]

text: The Supreme Commander of the Defence Forces is the President of Ireland,[31] but in practice the Minister for Defence acts on the President's behalf and reports to the Government of Ireland.[32] The Minister for Defence is advised by the Council of Defence on the business of the Department of Defence.[33] The Defence Forces are organised under the Chief of Staff, a three star officer, and are organised into three service branches, the Army, Naval Service, and Air Corps.

text: Italy[edit]

text: The Constitution of Italy, in article 87, states that the President of the Republic: "is the commander of the armed forces and chairman of the supreme defense council constituted by law; he declares war according to the decision of the parliament".[34]

text: Kenya[edit]

text: Chapter 131 of the Constitution of Kenya identifies the President as the Commander-in-Chief of the Kenya Defence Forces and the chairperson of the National Security Council.[35] The President appoints a chief of general staff, known as the Chief of the Kenya Defence Forces, who acts as the principal military adviser to the President and the National Security Council. The Chief of the Kenya Defence Forces is drawn from one of the branches of the Armed Forces, the Kenya Army, the Kenya Navy or the Kenya Air Force.

text: Malaysia[edit]

text: In accordance with Article 41 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is Supreme Commander of the Malaysian Armed Forces. As such, he is the highest-ranking officer in the military establishment, with the power to appoint the Chief of Staff (on the advice of the Armed Forces Council). He also appoints the service heads of each of the three branches of the military.

text: The Federal Constitution establishes that the office of Supreme Commander is attached to the person of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as the Federation's head of state:

text: Federal Constitution, Article 41 - The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall be the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces of the Federation.

text: The Federal Parliament passed the Federal Armed Forces Act to consolidate in one law all regulations that govern the three services ( Army, Navy, and Air Force ). It establishes the function and duties of the Federal Head of State in the capacity as Supreme Commander.

text: Mauritius[edit]

text: In the Republic of Mauritius, the President of the Republic is the commander-in-chief, according to Article 28 of the Constitution.[36]

text: After independence in 1968, Mauritius continued to recognise the Queen of Mauritius, as represented by the Governor-General of Mauritius, as commander-in-chief. After the country was proclaimed a Commonwealth Republic in 1992, the new constitution stipulated that a President would assume the position of the head of state and commander-in-chief.

text: Nigeria[edit]

text: In accordance with the Nigerian Constitution, the President of Nigeria is the commander-in-chief of the Nigerian Armed Forces.

text: Norway[edit]

text: Harald V, King of Norway, officially retains executive power. Article 25 of the constitution states: "The King is commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the realm"

text: However, following the introduction of a parliamentary system of government, the duties of the Monarch have since become strictly representative and ceremonial, such as the formal appointment and dismissal of the Prime Minister and other ministers in the executive government. Accordingly, the Monarch is commander-in-chief of the Norwegian Armed Forces, and serves as chief diplomatic official abroad and as a symbol of unity.

text: Pakistan[edit]

text: In the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, before the 1973 Constitution, the head of the army, i.e., the Chief of the Army Staff, was referred as Commander-in-Chief.:105[37] The term was replaced by Chief of Army Staff on 20 March 1972:62[38] The Chief of Army Staff is a four-star general whose term is 3 years, but can be extended or renewed once. The Chief of Army Staff is chosen by the Prime Minister of Pakistan.

text: Philippines[edit]

text: The President of the Philippines is both head of state and head of government, and is mandated by Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution to be Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.[39]

text: During the Fourth Republic, the 1973 Constitution introduced by Ferdinand Marcos created a semi-presidential system that split the Executive into two, with the prime minister retaining the office of commander-in-chief and the president reduced to a figurehead. The wording of Article VII, Section 9 in the previous constitution enabled Marcos as commander-in-chief to declare Martial Law and suspend the writ of habeas corpus on 21 September 1972. Marcos also issued an edict, conferring the rank of five-star general in the military to the President, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. He consequently sat as both president and prime minister until 1981, when Cesar Virata succeeded him to the latter office. Salvador Laurel was the country's last prime minister when the office was abolished after the 1986 People Power Revolution, and the position's powers (including military authority) were again merged with the Presidency.

text: The current Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines is President Rodrigo Duterte, serving as the supreme commander of all Filipino military units in the Philippines.

text: Poland[edit]

text: In Poland, the President is Commander-in-Chief of the Polish Armed Forces. However, the art. 134 ust. 4 of the constitution states:

text: The President of the Republic, for a period of war, shall appoint the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces on request of the Prime Minister. He may dismiss the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces in accordance with the same procedure. The authority of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, as well as the principle of his subordination to the constitutional organs of the Republic of Poland, shall be specified by statute.

text: During the interbellum period, the General Inspector of the Armed Forces was appointed the commander-in-chief for the time of war (Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces). However, after the war this function ceased to exist—thus it is likely that if Poland formally participates in a war, Chief of the General Staff of the Polish Armed Forces will be appointed Supreme Commander.

text: Portugal[edit]

text: The President of the Portuguese Republic is the constitutional Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces (in Portuguese: Comandante Supremo das Forças Armadas). However, the operational command is delegated in the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces.

text: In the Portuguese military parlance, the term "Commander-in-Chief" (in Portuguese: comandante-em-chefe or simply comandante-chefe) refers to the unified military commander of all the land, naval and air forces in a theater of operations.

text: Republic of China[edit]

text: As stipulated in the Constitution of the Republic of China, the President is also the Commander-in-Chief of the ROC Armed Forces (including the Military Police), the Special Forces, and the National Space Organization.

text: Russia[edit]

text: According to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, (Chapter 4, Article 87, Section 1) the President is the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.[41] The President approves the military doctrine and appoints the defense minister and the chief and other members of the general staff.[42]

text: The Russian Armed Forces is divided into three services: the Russian Ground Forces, the Russian Navy, and the Russian Air Force. In addition there are three independent arms of service: Strategic Missile Troops, Russian Aerospace Defense Forces, and the Russian Airborne Troops. The Air Defence Troops, the former Soviet Air Defence Forces, have been subordinated into the Air Force since 1998.

text: Saudi Arabia[edit]

text: Article 60 of the Basic Law of Saudi Arabia states: "The King is the commander-in-chief of all the armed forces. He appoints officers and puts an end to their duties in accordance with the law."

text: Article 61 further states: "The King declares a state of emergency, general mobilization and war, and the law defines the rules for this."

text: Lastly, Article 62 states: "If there is a danger threatening the safety of the Kingdom or its territorial integrity, or the security of its people and its interests, or which impedes the functioning of the state institutions, the King may take urgent measures in order to deal with this danger And if the King considers that these measures should continue, he may then implement the necessary regulations to this end."

text: Serbia[edit]

text: In accordance with the law, the President of Serbia is Commander-in-chief of Armed Forces and in command of the military. He appoints, promotes and recalls officers of the Army of Serbia.[43]

text: Slovenia[edit]

text: In Slovenia, the commander-in-chief is formally the President of Slovenia, although he or she does not exercise this position in peacetime. Instead, this role is usually assumed by the Minister of Defence.

text: Spain[edit]

text: As with most remaining European monarchies, the position of the Spanish monarch as the nominal head of the armed forces is deeply rooted in traditions going centuries back.

text: The Spanish Constitution of 1978 gives the King in article 62 (h):

text: supreme command of the Armed Forces[44]

text: However, article 64 require that all official acts of the King must be countersigned, by the President of the Government or other competent minister, for them to become valid. Furthermore, article 97 stipulates that;

text: The Government shall conduct domestic and foreign policy, civil and military administration and the defence of the State[44]

text: And article 98 furthermore specifies the composition of the Government (which the King is not a member of). No provision in the constitution requires the King/Government to seek approval from the Cortes Generales before sending the armed forces abroad.[44]

text: Since 1984, the Chief of the Defence Staff is the professional head of the armed forces and, under the authority of the Minister of Defence, is responsible for military operations and military organisation.

text: Sri Lanka[edit]

text: As head of state, the President of Sri Lanka, is nominally the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The National Security Council, chaired by the president is the authority charged with formulating and executing defence policy for the nation. The highest level of military headquarters is the Ministry of Defence, since 1978 except for a few rare occasions the president retained the portfolio defence, thus being the Minister of Defence. The ministry and the armed forces have been controlled by the during these periods by either a Minister of State, Deputy Minister for defence, and of recently the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Defence. Prior to 1978 the prime minister held the portfolio of Minister of Defence and External Affairs, and was supported by a Parliamentary Secretary for Defence and External Affairs.

text: Responsibility for the management of the forces is Ministry of Defence, while the planning and execution of combined operations is the responsibility of the Joint Operations Command (JOC). The JOC is headed by the Chief of the Defence Staff who is the most senior officer in the Armed Forces and is an appointment that can be held by an Air Chief Marshal, Admiral, or General. The three services have their own respective professional chiefs: the Commander of the Army, the Commander of the Navy and the Commander of the Air Force, who have much autonomy.

text: Suriname[edit]

text: In Suriname, the constitution gives the president "supreme authority over the armed forces and all of its members".[45]

text: Swaziland[edit]

text: The King is Commander in Chief of the Umbufto Swazi Defence Force

text: Thailand[edit]

text: The "Head of the Thai Armed Forces" (Thai: จอมทัพไทย; RTGS: Chom Thap Thai) is a position vested in the Thai monarch, most recently held by King Bhumibol Adulyadej until his death in October 2016, who as sovereign and head of state is the commander-in-chief of the Royal Thai Armed Forces.[46]

text: Turkey[edit]

text: President of the Republic of Turkey has the constitutional right to represent the Supreme Military Command of the Turkish Armed Forces, on behalf of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, and to decide on the mobilization of the Turkish Armed Forces, to appoint the Chief of the General Staff, to call the National Security Council to meet, to preside over the National Security Council, to proclaim martial law or state of emergency, and to issue decrees having the force of law, upon a decision of the Council of Ministers meeting under his/her chairmanship. With all these issues above written in the Constitution of Turkey, the executive rights are given to the President of the Republic of Turkey to be represented as the commander-in-chief of the nation.

text: United Kingdom[edit]

text: The Crown and H.M. Government[edit]

text: The British monarch is the "Head of the Armed Forces"[47] and has also been described as "commander in chief of the armed forces of the Crown".[48] Long-standing constitutional convention, however, has vested de facto executive authority, by the exercise of Royal Prerogative powers, in the prime minister and the Secretary of State for Defence. The Prime Minister (acting with the support of the Cabinet) makes the key decisions on the use of the armed forces.[49][50] The Queen, however, remains the "ultimate authority" of the military, with officers and personnel swearing allegiance only to the monarch.[51] A new constitutional convention appears to have become enshrined since the 2003 war in Iraq, whereby the UK will only take military action (other than in circumstances of having to immediately react defensively) with the consent of the House of Commons. Ultimately however The Queen remains the "ultimate authority" and can exercise such at will. As well as the Military the UK Police forces also swear allegiance only to the Monarch, not the Government. This is to ensure that Government Officials (including the Prime Minister) can be arrested for committing indictable offences just as any normal citizen, and are therefore not 'above the law' unlike the Monarch.

text: The Ministry of Defence is the Government department and highest level of military headquarters charged with formulating and executing defence policy for the Armed Forces; it employed 103,930 civilians in 2006.[52][53] The department is controlled by the Secretary of State for Defence (or "the Defence Secretary") and contains three deputy appointments: Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Minister for Defence Procurement, and Minister for Veterans' Affairs.

text: Responsibility for the management of the forces is delegated to a number of committees: the Defence Council, Chiefs of Staff Committee, Defence Management Board, and three single-service boards. The Defence Council, composed of senior representatives of the services and the Ministry of Defence, provides the "formal legal basis for the conduct of defence".[53][54] The three constituent single-service committees (Admiralty Board, Army Board, and Air Force Board) are chaired by the Secretary of State for Defence.

text: The Chief of the Defence Staff is the professional head of the Armed Forces and is an appointment that can be held by an Admiral, General or Air Chief Marshal (four-star officers). Before the practice was discontinued in the 1990s, those who were appointed to the position of CDS (professional head of the Armed Forces) had been elevated to the most senior rank in their respective service (a five-star officer).[55] The CDS, along with the Permanent Under Secretary, are the principal advisers to the departmental minister. The three services have their own respective professional chiefs (likewise four-star officers): the First Sea Lord who is also Chief of Naval Staff, the Chief of the General Staff and the Chief of the Air Staff.

text: Historic office of Commander-in-Chief[edit]

text: From 1660 until 1904 the professional head of the Army was known as the Commander-in-Chief and as such had significant independence and power. Under the Commonwealth Government, the Commander-in-chief was a de facto head of state.

text: Naval, Military and Air commands[edit]

text: Until 2012 each of the three services also had one or more commands with a (four-star) commander-in-chief in charge of operations. These were, latterly: Commander-in-Chief Fleet (CINCFLEET – sharing a Command HQ with Commander-in-Chief Naval Home Command (CINCNAVHOME)), Commander-in-Chief, Land Forces (CINCLAND) and Commander-in-Chief Air (CINCAIR). (At one time there were many more Naval, Military and Air Commands, each with (in many cases) their own Commanders-in-Chief.)

text: Since 2012, however, full operational command has been vested in the three Chiefs of Staff, and the appointment of distinct Commanders-in-Chief has been discontinued. This change was implemented in response to the 2011 Levene report, which advised that it would serve to "streamline top-level decision-making, simplify lines of accountability..., remove duplication between the posts and also provide impetus to the leaning of the senior leadership".[56] New three-star appointments (Fleet Commander, Commander Land Forces) mirror the old ones, but these are subordinate officers with delegated command responsibility, rather than Commanders-in-Chief.

text: Colonial Governors[edit]

text: In the colonies of the English Empire, and subsequently the British Empire, the duties of Lords Lieutenant were generally performed by the Commander-in-Chief or the Governor. Both offices may have been occupied by the same person.

text: By way of an example, this is still the case in Britain's second, and oldest remaining, where the Royal Navy's headquarters, main base, and dockyard for the North America and West Indies Station was established following independence of the United States of America. The colony had raised Militia and Volunteer forces since official settlement in 1612 (with a troop-of-horse added later), and a small force of regular infantry from 1701 to 1783. A large regular army garrison was built up after 1794, and the reserve forces faded away following the conclusion of the American War of 1812 as the local government lost interest in paying for their upkeep. From this point until the 1960s, Governors were almost exclusively senior officers of the Royal Artillery or Royal Engineers who were also military Commanders-in-Chief (and initially also Vice Admirals). Attempts to rekindle the militia without a Militia Act or funds from the colonial government were made throughout the century under the authorisation of the Governor and Commander-in-Chief, but none proved lasting. The colonial government was finally compelled to raise militia and volunteer forces (the Bermuda Militia Artillery and the Bermuda Volunteer Rifle Corps by act in the 1890s (the Bermuda Cadet Corps, Bermuda Volunteer Engineers, and Bermuda Militia Infantry were added at later dates), and these fell under the Governor and Commander-in-Chief, as well as under operational control of his junior, the Brigadier in charge of the Bermuda Command (or Bermuda Garrison, which included the regular as well as the part-time military (as opposed to naval) forces in the colony. Although the Royal Naval and the regular army establishments have been withdrawn from Bermuda, the Governor of Bermuda remains the Commander-in-Chief (though most recent office holders have not been career army officers) of the Royal Bermuda Regiment (a 1965 amalgam of the BMA and BVRC, which had both been re-organised in line with the Territorial Army after the First World War).[57][58]

text: United States[edit]

text: According to Article II, Section 2, Clause I of the Constitution, the President of the United States is “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”[59] Since the National Security Act of 1947, this has been understood to mean all United States Armed Forces. U.S. ranks have their roots in British military traditions, with the President possessing ultimate authority, but no rank, maintaining a civilian status, other than the title of Commander in Chief.[60] The exact degree of authority that the Constitution grants to the President as Commander in Chief has been the subject of much debate throughout history, with Congress at various times granting the President wide authority and at others attempting to restrict that authority.[61]

text: The amount of military detail handled personally by the President in wartime has varied dramatically.[62] George Washington, the first U.S. president, firmly established military subordination under civilian authority. In 1794, Washington used his constitutional powers to assemble 12,000 militia to quell the Whiskey Rebellion—a conflict in western Pennsylvania involving armed farmers and distillers who refused to pay excise tax on spirits. According to historian Joseph Ellis, this was the "first and only time a sitting American president led troops in the field", though James Madison briefly took control of artillery units in defense of Washington D.C. during the War of 1812.[63]

text: Abraham Lincoln was deeply involved in overall strategy and in day-to-day operations during the American Civil War, 1861–1865; historians have given Lincoln high praise for his strategic sense and his ability to select and encourage commanders such as Ulysses S. Grant.[64] On the other extreme, Woodrow Wilson paid very little attention to operational military details of World War I and had very little contact with the War Department or with General John J. Pershing, who had a high degree of autonomy as commander of the armies in France.[65] As President in World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt worked closely with his generals, and admirals, and assigned Admiral William D. Leahy as Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief.[66] Harry S. Truman believed in a high amount of civilian leadership of the military, making many tactical and policy decisions based on the recommendations of his advisors—including the decision to use atomic weapons on Japan, to commit American forces in the Korean War, and to terminate Douglas MacArthur from his command.[67] Lyndon B. Johnson kept a very tight personal control of operations during the Vietnam War, which some historians have sharply criticized.[68]

text: In 1990, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the ensuing Gulf War in 1991, saw George H.W. Bush assemble and lead one of the largest military coalitions of nations in modern times. Confronting a major constitutional issue of murky legislation that left the wars in Korea and Vietnam without official declarations of war, Congress quickly authorized sweeping war-making powers for Bush.[69] The leadership of George W. Bush during the War in Afghanistan and Iraq War achieved mixed results. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks by al-Qaeda, the subsequent War on Terror that followed, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq due to Iraq's sponsorship of terrorism and alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction, the speed at which the Taliban and Ba'ath Party governments in both Kabul and Baghdad were toppled by an overwhelming superiority of American and allied forces defied the predictions of many military experts. However, insufficient post-war planning and strategy by Bush and his advisors to rebuild those nations were costly.[70][71]

text: Before 1947, the President was the only common superior of the Army (under the Secretary of War) and the Navy and Marine Corps (under the Secretary of the Navy).[72] The National Security Act of 1947, and the 1949 amendments to the same act, created the Department of Defense and the services (Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force) became subject to the "authority, direction and control" of the Secretary of Defense; the civilian cabinet-level official serving as the head of the Department of Defense and who is appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.[73][74]

text: The Goldwater-Nichols Act in 1986 codified the default operational chain of command: running from the President to the Secretary of Defense, and from the Secretary of Defense to the combatant commander.[75] While the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff outranks all other military officers, he does not have operational command authority over the Armed Forces. However, the chairman does assist the President and the Secretary of Defense in the exercise of their command functions.[76]

text: During the 20th century, certain area commanders came to be called "Commander-in-chief".[77] As of 2011, there are nine combatant commanders: six have regional responsibilities, and three have functional responsibilities. Before 2002, the combatant commanders were referred to in daily use as "Commanders-in-chief" (for instance: "Commander in chief, U.S. Central Command"), even though the offices were in fact already designated as "combatant commander" (CCDR) in the law specifying the positions.[78] On 24 October 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld announced his decision that the use of "Commander-in-chief" would thereafter be reserved for the President only.[79]

text:
A painting depicting President George Washington and his troops before their march to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion in western Pennsylvania, 1794.

President Abraham Lincoln and Major General George B. McClellan in a military tent after the Battle of Antietam, 1862.

President Lyndon B. Johnson awards the Distinguished Service Cross to First Lieutenant Marty A. Hammer in Vietnam, 1966.

The Football is a briefcase, carried by an aide-de-camp, which gives the President the ability to access the Gold Codes and to launch a nuclear attack while away from a fixed command center.[80]

Admiral Mike Mullen and Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates attend a meeting of combatant commanders with President George W. Bush in the Cabinet Room at the White House, 2008.

President Donald Trump (third from right), as commander-in-chief, meets with Marine Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Joseph Votel, commander of U.S. Central Command Commander, and Gen. Raymond A. "Tony" Thomas, U.S. Special Operations Command Commander at USCENTCOM headquarters on MacDill Air Force Base, 2017.

text: U.S. States[edit]

text: In U.S. states, the governor also serves as the commander-in-chief of the National Guard, State Militia, and State Defense Forces. In the Commonwealth of Kentucky, for example, KRS 37.180[81] states:

text:
“
The Governor shall be commander in chief of the Kentucky active militia, and the adjutant general shall be the executive officer and shall be responsible to the Governor for the proper functioning of the Kentucky active militia, and he is hereby authorized and empowered to take necessary action to perfect and maintain an efficient organization for the purposes herein set out. He shall have charge of all matters of administration and organization, which shall be in all respects, insofar as necessary and applicable, the same as that of the National Guard.
”

text: Similarly, Section 7 of Article 5[82] of the Constitution of the State of California states:

text:
“
The Governor is commander in chief of a militia that shall be provided by statute. The Governor may call it forth to execute the law.
”

text: Venezuela[edit]

text: According to the Venezuelan constitution, the President is Commander in chief of the Armed Forces. The office of the Venezuelan military supreme commander in chief has always been held by the President of Venezuela as per constitutional requirements. However, with a new law sanctioned in 2008, the "Comandante en Jefe" rank is not only a function attributed to the executive branch but a full military rank given to the president upon taking office. Upon assumption he receives a saber, epaulette, shoulder knot, shoulder board and sleeve insignia and full military uniform to be used in military events while performing the duties as president. The shoulder insignia mirrors Cuban practice but is derived from the German-styled officer rank insignia.

text: Vietnam[edit]

text: The commander-in-chief of the armed forces is the President of Vietnam, through his post as Chairman of National Defense and Security Council. Though this position is nominal and real power is assumed by the Central Military Commission of the Communist Party of Vietnam. The Secretary of Central Military Commission (usually the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam) is the de facto Commander.

text: The Minister of Defence oversees operations of the Ministry of Defence, and the Vietnam People's Army. He also oversees such agencies as the General Staff and the General Logistics Department. However, military policy is ultimately directed by the Central Military Commission of the ruling Communist Party of Vietnam.

text: Other officeholders as commanders-in-chief or other situations[edit]

text: Ethiopia[edit]

text: The 1995 Constitution designates the Prime Minister of Ethiopia as "Commander-in-Chief of the national armed forces" in Article 74(1).[83]

text: Germany[edit]

text: Present, Federal Republic (1956-)[edit]

text: Upon the re-militarization of West Germany in 1955, when it joined NATO, the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany was amended in 1956 to include constitutional provisions for the command of the armed forces.

text:
In peacetime, under Article 65a, the Federal Minister of Defence (German: Bundesminister der Verteidigung) holds the supreme command authority (German: Inhaber der Befehls- und Kommandogewalt - IBuK) over the Bundeswehr.[84]
If the Bundestag declares the state of defence (German: Verteidigungsfall), the Federal Chancellor, under Article 115b, assumes the command authority over the armed forces.[84] As of 2018[update], this has never happened.
The President of Germany has thus no role in the command of the forces, although he continues to receive the ceremonial honors due to his position as a head of state.

text: The rationale for placing the command authority over the armed forces directly with the responsible minister in charge of the military establishment, and thus breaking with the longstanding German constitutional tradition in both earlier monarchical and republican systems of placing it with the head of state, was that in a democratic parliamentary system the command authority should directly reside where it would be exercised and where it is subject to the parliamentary control of the Bundestag at all times. By assigning it directly to the responsible minister, instead of with the Federal Chancellor, this also meant that military affairs is but one of the many integrated responsibilities of the government; in stark contrast of earlier times when the separate division of the military establishment from the civil administration allowed the former to act as a state within a state (in contrast to the Federal Republic, the Weimar Republic began with the Ebert–Groener pact, which kept the military establishment as an autonomous force outside the control of politics; the 1925 election of Paul von Hindenburg as Reichpräsident, surrounded by his camarilla and the machinations of Kurt von Schleicher, did little to reverse the trend).[85][86]

text: East Germany (1960-1990)[edit]

text: The legislature of the German Democratic Republic (GDR), the Volkskammer, enacted on 13 February 1960 the Law on the Formation of the National Defense Council of the GDR, which established a council consisting of a chairman and at least 12 members. This was later incorporated into the GDR Constitution in April 1968. The National Defense Council held the supreme command of the National People's Army (including the internal security forces), and the Council's chairman (usually the General Secretary of the ruling Socialist Unity Party) was considered the GDR's commander-in-chief.

text: The GDR joined with the Federal Republic of Germany on 3 October 1990, upon which the GDR's constitution and armed forces were abolished.

text: Before 1945[edit]

text: During the Kingdom of Prussia, German Empire, Weimar Republic and the Nazi era, whoever was the head of state—the King of Prussia/German Emperor (under the Constitution of the Kingdom of Prussia/Constitution of the German Empire) to 1918, the Reichspräsident (under the Weimar Constitution) to 1934, and the Führer from 1934 to 1945—was the Head of the Armed Forces (German: Oberbefehlshaber: literally "Supreme Commander").

text: Below the level of the Head of State, each military branch (German: Teilstreitkraft) had its own head who reported directly to the Head of State and held the highest rank in his service; in the Reichsheer - Generalfeldmarschall, and in the Reichsmarine - Grossadmiral.

text: After Chancellor Adolf Hitler assumed power as Führer[87] (after the death of President Paul von Hindenburg), he would later grant his war minister, Generalfeldmarschall Werner von Blomberg, the title of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces in 1935, when conscription was reintroduced. However, in 1938 due to the Blomberg–Fritsch Affair, Hitler withdrew the Commander-in-Chief title, abolished the war ministerial post and assumed personal command of the Armed Forces. The war ministerial post was de facto overtaken by the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, which was headed by Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Keitel until the German surrender.

text: Greece[edit]

text: According to Article 45 of the Greek Constitution, the President is the Head of the Greek Armed Forces, but their administration is exercised by the Government.[88] The Prime Minister, the Minister for National Defence and the Chief of the General Staff are the ones who command the Armed Forces.

text: Israel[edit]

text: In Israel, the applicable basic law states that the ultimate authority over the Israel Defense Forces rests with the Government of Israel (chaired by the Prime Minister) as a collective body. The authority of the Government is exercised by the Minister of Defense on behalf of the Government. However, the Commander-in-Chief of the IDF is the Chief of General Staff who, despite being subordinate to the Minister of Defense, holds the highest level of command within the military.[89]

text: Japan[edit]

text: In Japan, prior to the Meiji Restoration the role of the commander-in-chief was vested in the shōgun (the most militarily powerful samurai daimyō). After the dissolution of the Tokugawa shogunate the role of the commander-in-chief, resided with the Emperor of Japan. The present-day constitutional role of the Emperor is that of a ceremonial figurehead without any military role.

text: After Japan's move towards democracy, the position of Commander-in-Chief of the Japanese Self-Defence Forces is held by the Prime Minister of Japan. Military authority runs from the Prime Minister to the cabinet-level Minister of Defense of the Japanese Ministry of Defense.[90][91][92][93]

text: Malta[edit]

text: The Malta Armed Forces Act does not directly establish the President of Malta as the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. However, Maltese law allows the President to raise by voluntary enlistment and maintain an armed force. Likewise, the law allows the President to issue orders in order to the administrate the armed forces.

text: It is important to note that the Armed Forces do not swear allegiance to the President of Malta but rather to the Republic of Malta. On this basis, there is no direct link between the head of state and the armed forces. For this reason, this link is mediated by the Minister responsible for defence.

text: Nonetheless, the Presidential Palaces are guarded by the Armed Forces as a symbolic gesture of social cohesion.

text: Myanmar[edit]

text: See also Tatmadaw

text: Netherlands[edit]

text: The Constitution of the Netherlands states, in article 97, that "the Government shall have supreme authority over the armed forces". Article 42 defines the Government as the Monarch and the ministers, and that only ministers are responsible for acts of government. Article 45 further defines the ministers as constituting the Cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister, with "authority to decide upon overall government policy".[94][95]

text: Before a constitution change took place in 1983, even though the equivalent section stated that: "The King shall have supreme authority over the armed forces"; that did not give the monarch any autonomous command authority.[95]

text: The Minister of Defence has the primary ministerial responsibility for the armed forces, which are formally a part of the Ministry of Defence.[95] The Chief of Defence is the highest ranked professional military officer, and serves as an intermediary between the Minister of Defence and the Armed Forces, and is responsible to the Minister for military-strategic planning, operations and deployment of the Armed Forces.[96]

text: North Korea[edit]

text: The Constitution of North Korea is ambiguous about which official really is the country's head of state.

text:
Is it the Eternal President of the Republic, the late Kim Il-sung, designated as such in the preamble;[97]
is it the President of the Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly, who under article 117 of the constitution directs the work of the Presidium, represents the State, and accredits North Korean diplomats and receives credentials from foreign diplomats;[98]
or is it the Chairman of the National Defence Commission who in article 100 is described as the "highest military leading organ of State power and an organ for general control over national defense of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea"?[99]

text: In any case, the North Korean constitution, in article 102, is quite explicit regarding which official commands the armed forces:

text: The Chairman of the National Defence Commission of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is the supreme commander of the whole armed forces of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and commands and directs all the armed forces of the State.[99]

text: The Chairman is formally elected by the Supreme People's Assembly (article 91:5[100]) and serves for terms of office of five years (articles 101[99] & 90:1[100]); but in practice, the office is hereditary within the Kim Dynasty, as the late Kim Jong-il was posthumously designated as "Eternal Chairman of the National Defence Commission", while his son, Kim Jong-un, was appointed as the "First Chairman of the National Defence Commission".[101]

text: Sweden[edit]

text: In Sweden, with the Ordinance of Alsnö in 1280, nobles were exempted from land taxation if they provided cavalrymen to the King's service. Following the Swedish War of Liberation (1521–53) from the Kalmar Union, a Guards Regiment was formed under the King and from there the modern Swedish Army has its roots. During the age of the Swedish Empire, several kings—Gustavus Adolphus, Charles X, Charles XI & Charles XII—personally led their forces into battle. Under the Instrument of Government of 1809, which was in force until the current Instrument of Government of 1974 went into force on 1 January 1975; the Monarch was in §§ 14-15 explicitly designated as the Commander-in-Chief of the Swedish Armed Forces (Swedish: Högste befälhavare).[102]

text: At present, the Government (Swedish: Regeringen) as a collective body, chaired and formed by the Prime Minister of Sweden, holds the highest Executive Authority, subject to the will of the Riksdag; and is thus the present day closest equivalent of a command-in-chief, although not explicitly designated as such.[103] The reason for this change was, apart from the fact that the King was since 1917 no longer expected to make political decisions without ministerial advice, that the new Instrument of Government was intended to be made as descriptive on the workings of the State as possible, and reflective on how decisions are actually made. Minister of Justice Lennart Geijer further remarked in the government bill that any continued pretensions of royal involvement in government decisions would be of a "fictitious nature" and "highly unsatisfactory".[104]

text: Certain Government decisions regarding the Armed Forces (Swedish: Särskilda regeringsbeslut) may be delegated to the Minister for Defence, under the supervision of the Prime Minister and to the extent laid down in ordinances.[105]

text: To add to some confusion to the above, the title of the agency head of the Swedish Armed Forces and highest ranked commissioned officer on active duty, is actually Supreme Commander of the Swedish Armed Forces (Swedish: Överbefälhavaren).[106]

text: However, the Monarch (as of present King Carl XVI Gustaf), is still a four-star general and admiral à la suite in the Swedish Army, Navy and Air Force and is by unwritten convention regarded as the foremost representative of the Swedish Armed Forces.[107] The King has, as part of his court, a military staff. The military staff is headed by a senior officer (usually a general or admiral, retired from active service) and is composed of active duty military officers serving as aides to the King and his family.[108]

text: Switzerland[edit]

text: Supreme authority over the military belongs to the Federal Council, which is the Swiss collegial head of state. Nothwithstanding the previous sentence, under the Constitution, the Federal Council can only, in the operational sense, command a maximum of 4,000 soldiers, with a time limit of three weeks of mobilisation.[109] For it to field more service personnel, the Federal Assembly must elect a General (see below)[109] who is given four stars.[110] Thus, the General is elected by the Federal Assembly to give him the same democratic legitimacy as the Federal Council.[109]

text: In peacetime, the Armed Forces are led by the Chief of the Armed Forces (Chef der Armee), who reports to the head of the Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sports and to the Federal Council as a whole. The Chief of the Armed Forces has the rank of Korpskommandant or Commandant de corps (OF-8 in NATO equivalence).

text: In a time of declared war or national emergency, however, the Federal Assembly, assembled as the United Federal Assembly, specifically for the purpose of taking on the war-time responsibilities elect a General as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces under Article 168 of the Constitution. While The General acts as the highest military authority with a high degree of autonomy, he is still subordinate to the Federal Council (See Articles 58, 60, 174, 177, 180 & 185).[111] The Federal Assembly retains the sole power to dismiss the General, but the General remains subordinate to the Federal Council by the Council's ability to demobilise and hence making the position of General redundant.[109]

text: Four generals were appointed in Swiss history, General Henri Dufour during the Swiss Civil War, General Hans Herzog during the Franco-Prussian War, General Ulrich Wille during the First World War, and General Henri Guisan during the Second World War ("la Mob", "the Mobilisation"). Although Switzerland remained neutral during the latter three conflicts, the threat of having its territory used as a battlefield by the much bigger war parties of Germany and France required mobilization of the army.


document_title: 21 Jump Street

question_text: where was 21 jump street tv show filmed

question_tokens: where was 21 jump street tv show filmed

text: 21 Jump Street

text: Premise[edit]

text: The series focuses on a group of police officers headquartered at the eponymous address. These officers are all young and have especially youthful appearances, which allows them to pass for teenagers. Their assignments generally consist of undercover work in high schools or, less commonly, colleges, where they generally investigate drug trafficking and abuse. The show's plots cover issues such as alcoholism, hate crimes, drug abuse, homophobia, AIDS, child abuse and sexual promiscuity. Similarly, each problem is often solved by the end of the hour-long episode, giving an implicit moral about the impact of a particular activity. When the show originally aired, some episodes were followed immediately by public service announcements featuring cast members.

text: Cast[edit]

text: The show starred prominent actors and actresses at the time, including:

text:
Johnny Depp as Patrolman/Officer Tom Hanson (1987–1990)
Holly Robinson as Sergeant Judith "Judy" Hoffs (1987–1991)
Peter DeLuise as Officer Douglas "Doug" Penhall (1987–1990)
Dustin Nguyen as Sergeant Harry Truman Ioki/Vinh Van Tran (H.T. Ioki) (1987–1990)
Frederic Forrest as Captain Richard Jenko (season 1, first 6 episodes)
Steven Williams as Captain Adam Fuller (1987–1991)
Sal Jenco as Sal "Blowfish" Banducci (1987–1990)
Richard Grieco as Detective Dennis Booker (1988–1989)
Yvette Nipar as Jackie Garrett (1988-1989)
David Barry Gray as Officer Dean Garrett (1990)
Alexandra Powers as Officer Kati Rocky (1990)
Michael DeLuise as Officer Joseph "Joey" Penhall (1990–1991)
Michael Bendetti as Officer Anthony "Mac" McCann (1990–1991)

text: Jeff Yagher was originally cast as Officer Tom Hanson in the pilot. He was replaced after the original pilot episode was filmed, and his scenes were reshot with Johnny Depp. Midway through the first season, Frederic Forrest was replaced by Steven Williams. On the show, Forrest's character Richard Jenko is killed by a drunk driver. Johnny Depp left the series at the end of the fourth season, but was credited in the first two episodes of the fifth season, despite not having appeared.

text: Guest stars[edit]

text: Some notable guest stars on the series include: Dom DeLuise, Josh Brolin, Mindy Cohn, Bridget Fonda, Bobby Rodriguez, Jada Pinkett Smith, Brad Pitt, Vince Vaughn, Blair Underwood, John Waters, Rosie Perez, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Mario Van Peebles, Christina Applegate, Pauly Shore, David DeLuise, Bradley Gregg, Jason Priestley, Christopher Titus, Sarah Buxton, David Paymer, Diedrich Bader, Russell Wong, Kelly Hu, Shannon Tweed, and Peter Berg.

text: Production[edit]

text: Filming[edit]

text: Set in a fictional city and state (Metropolis, Evergreen State) in the United States, the series was primarily filmed in Vancouver, British Columbia. It was one of the first major television series to use Vancouver as a filming location and helped to establish the city as a center for film production.

text: Reception[edit]

text: 21 Jump Street, along with Married... with Children and The Tracey Ullman Show, debuted in the spring of 1987. All three shows were hits with audiences and helped to establish the then-newly launched Fox network.[5] 21 Jump Street was the first hit series for the Fox network.[6] In August, 21 Jump Street became the first Fox series to win its timeslot against a Big three network series.[7] In the United Kingdom, it was shown on the similarly nascent, and interrelated, Sky One, which had yet to reach a sizeable audience.[8]

text: Broadcast history[edit]

text:
Season
Time

1986–87
Sunday at 7:00-8:00 on FOX

1987–88

1988–89

1989–90
Monday at 8:00-9:00 on FOX

1990–91
Syndication

tag: table

text: Season 4 was the last season to air on the Fox network. In commentary on the Season 5 DVD set, Peter DeLuise said that Fox had decided to cancel the show after Season 4 because the ratings had fallen below a set limit. Following this season Johnny Depp and Dustin Nguyen left the show. The departure of their characters was never explained in the narrative of the TV series, but in the movie it is explained that Hanson was transferred to the DEA and was later joined by Officer Penhall. The Booker spin-off crossover episode, "Wheels and Deals Part One", is included with 21 Jump Street's syndication package, and is also included on the fourth season DVD set.

text: Officer Dean Garrett (David Barry Gray) makes his first appearance in "Everyday is Christmas". As it became harder for the original cast members to plausibly pass as high school students, his character and Officer Kati Rocky (Alexandra Powers) were intended to be "youthful" replacements, so the show could maintain its original premise of younger looking cops posing as high school students.

text: DVD releases[edit]

text: Anchor Bay Entertainment released all five seasons of 21 Jump Street on DVD in Region 1 between 2004 and 2006. The releases contain extensive music substitutions and inaccurate cover art (Johnny Depp appears on the season 5 cover, despite having left the series after the previous season. This is due to the finale 3 episode's being held over to season 5, including Depp's finale episode "blackout"). As of 2010, these releases have been discontinued and are now out of print.

text: On October 14, 2009, it was announced that Mill Creek Entertainment had acquired the rights to several Stephen J. Cannell series, including 21 Jump Street,[9] and subsequently re-released the first four seasons. In addition, Mill Creek also released 21 Jump Street - The Complete Series, an 18-disc collection featuring all 103 episodes of the series on DVD on July 27, 2010.[10]

text: In Region 2, Anchor Bay Entertainment has released all 5 seasons on DVD in the UK. They also released a complete series set on March 5, 2012.[11]

text: In Region 4, Madman Entertainment has released all five seasons on DVD in Australia. They also released a complete series collection on May 1, 2013.[12]

text:
DVD name
Ep #
Release dates

Region 1
Region 2
Region 4

The Complete First Season
13
October 26, 2004
January 19, 2010 (re-release)
January 31, 2005
September 7, 2006

The Complete Second Season
22
March 8, 2005
May 18, 2010 (re-release)
June 20, 2005
September 7, 2006

The Complete Third Season
20
September 6, 2005
July 27, 2010 (re-release)
January 23, 2006
September 7, 2006

The Complete Fourth Season
26
November 1, 2005
January 18, 2011 (re-release)
April 10, 2006
September 7, 2006

The Complete Fifth Season
23
March 21, 2006
September 18, 2006
June 7, 2007

The Complete Series
103
July 27, 2010
March 5, 2012
May 1, 2013

text: Film adaptation[edit]

text: On March 16, 2012, a feature film sequel to the television series from Sony Pictures was released starring Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum (who are also executive producers) and directed by Phil Lord and Chris Miller with the screenplay written by Michael Bacall from a story by both Hill and Bacall. Johnny Depp, Peter DeLuise, and Holly Robinson briefly reprise their roles as Tom Hanson, Doug Penhall, and Judy Hoffs, respectively.[citation needed] The film proved to be a critically hailed box office success.[citation needed]

text: Described in concept by Hill as an "R-rated, insane, Bad Boys-meets-John Hughes-type movie,"[13] the film departs from the dramatic style of the series and instead features a comedic tone. The film and series are also set in the same continuity. A sequel titled 22 Jump Street was released in 2014.