New England Regional Assembly Nomination Form: Fill & Download for Free

The level of misunderstanding expressed concerning this question is monumental.Short answer: The encounters at Lexington Green, Concord Bridge, and the road to Boston on the 19th of April 1775 certainly were among the best known in the history of the militia in America, but they were not the debut of the citizen army suddenly sprung from the soil. Americans had been called out earlier in their history and in the revolutionary crisis on a number of minor alerts and practice marches, and they were well organized and in some ways as well prepared as the regulars in Boston.More importantly, the whole countryside understood the "militia concept," which was to them no new thing. Beginning with the earliest colonial military companies, the organizational and tactical concepts surrounding the militia (alarm riders, alerts, inter-town cooperation, rapid assembly, and special detachments) had begun to develop. The preparations and campaigns of the half dozen colonial wars in the 17th and 18th centuries illustrate a continuing refinement of this concept right up to the end of the Revolution.[i]The basic command structure resided at the level of the colonial legislatures — each actin alone until the Stamp Act resistance of 1764. The Continental Association that formed to oversee the boycott [sic] of British goods became the nucleus of the Continental Army. On December 9, 1775, the Continental Congress resolved that a body of troops be raised in Delaware "for the defense of American liberty." Each colony had its own rules for its troops. When Congress authorized the creation of the Continental Army, it put aside many of the individual colonial regulations.The structure of the local militia companies in New England has been very well documented. Company strength ranged from 65 to 200 men but often fell below 65, at which time units might be combined from neighboring communities. Local command was invested in a captain, subalterns, and sergeants. After the middle of the seventeenth century, the nomination and commissioning of officers was being approved by the General Court in New England and by colonial governors elsewhere in British North America. While military authority generally came from a legislative body or the Crown, the actual management and strategy employed any war was left to the colonial governors. [ii][i] John R. Galvin. The Minute Men: The First Fight: Myths and Realities of the American Revolution (Washington, DC: Potomac Books, Inc., 2006. Kindle Edition), 108-115.[ii] See Fred W. Anderson, A People’s Army: Massachusetts Soldiers and Society in the Seven Years’ War (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984); Fred W. Anderson, “Why Did Colonial New Englanders Make Bad Soldiers? Contractual Principles and Military Conduct During the Seven Years’ War.” William and Mary Quarterly 3d ser., 38 (1981) 395-417; Adam J. Hirsch. “The Collision of Military Cultures in Seventeenth-Century New England.” The Journal of American History 26 (March 1988) 1187-1212; John K. Mahon, 254-275; Louis Morton. “The Origins of American Military Policy.” Military Affairs 22 (1958) 75-82; and John W. Shy, 175-185:Discussion:Lacking large standing armies, colonial Americans from the earliest times (1620 in New England; 1608 in Virginia) relied heavily on provincial forces or local militias for protection against attack or for prosecuting war with others. The purpose of a militia was to provide a quick reaction force mainly set to respond to Indian attacks, but the militia was ultimately used as an instrument for native suppression, a means of aggressive expansion, and a tool in times of civil unrest.The colonists in Virginia and New England were remarkably dissimilar in their political, economic, social, and religious attitudes. Yet in their beliefs concerning local defense they were very similar, possibly because they both shared the same English military traditions. Without regard to the region of Britain from which they came, Englishmen came to America armed to the teeth.Neither New York nor Pennsylvania had a large militia establishment beyond local companies. Those English who settled in Virginia, Maryland, or the Carolinas came armed and expected to fight off both the native population and any incursions by the Spanish. Unlike the other colonies with their mountain barriers to the west, the whole extent of the New England frontier was open — possibly a reason why the New England militia became was well organized. Finally, those who settled in the backcountry found that there was simply no adequate passive defense for such isolated habitations. Frontier colonists resorted to the expedient of "forting up" during times of unrest. A chain of log "forts" and garrison houses was established along the colonial frontier. These factors gave the English militia a unique regional flavor even to the type and quality of the soldiers it produced.Each English colony designed its own systems of defense, generally fashioned around a militia formed of its male citizens. These organizations were remarkably similar considering the number of individual colonial governments involved in their creation, and any differences are more easily ascribed to regional characteristics rather than any genuine inconsistency.An importantly different aspect of the militia in New England from that in the South seems to have been the formation in 1643 of the New England Confederation, which tried to unify the authority and command of the militia of several colonies. The Pequot War of 1637 initially indicated the need for a more organized response to defense needs among the New England colonies. The most important aspect of the formation of the confederation was its central purpose of "joint military and diplomatic action."The confederation lasted for forty-two years successfully overcoming various problems posed by the friction between colonial officers and the various colonial commissions. Mobilization of forces was often slow, intercolonial command was awkward, and colonial objectives were sometimes at cross-purposes. Although one aspect of the system was its phenomenal inefficiency, it should be noted that the militia in New England "won all the important wars undertaken [by it] in the colonial period." More importantly, the New England militias were able to raise at times upwards of 1,000 men to prosecute and win major wars against the Indian populations, all without revolting against their colonial governments, as had the militia in Virginia. Consequently, New Englanders did not fear their armed militia and neighbors.See:Stand Alarmed, Militia in America 1607-1783

Based on current US military and economic power it would win a conventional defensive war against the whole world.Here’s why. Get ready because this is a long answer to an admittedly silly question.Mt. Cheyenne is good symbol for Fortress North America. Let’s see if this is possible or if it is nothing but an American exceptionalist-isolationist fantasy.(Note: l assume the question refers to non-nuclear attack because in that case the answer is the far less interesting result of mutually assured destruction)The question posed assumed the US is fighting a defensive war against a conventional military attack.The problem for the attackers is that it is simply not possible to beat the US if it is playing defense in North America. The US has been so secure against attack in this manner for so long that it has been an expeditionary power for over 100 years.The US would not only win but probably win relatively easily. The degree of victory would be determined by the level of risk the US assumes not the level of danger imposed by its adversaries.The US strategy would be one of active defense. It would attack other countries in order to disrupt, degrade, or destroy their ability to attack the US.Answers that talk about the US conquering Mexico, Canada, or anywhere else are ridiculous. The primary military goal would be to optimize US defensive capacity and neutralize the world’s offensive capacity. There is no sense in invading, conquering, or occupying other countries for anything other than short term, tactical purposes in this sort of conflict.Specifically, in this scenario there is no rationale to occupying anything anywhere unless the US required some additional resources from that region for its continued defense.Neutralizing the rest of the world’s global offensive capabilities does not require invasions and is easier than most people probably think.The main reason is that there are very few offensive capabilities possessed by nations that can threaten the US. They may be able to threaten their neighbors but threatening the US thousands of miles away is a different story.Phase One: The North American TheaterBackground: At the beginning of hostilities the US would quickly capture or destroy all Canadian and Mexican military equipment that could be used to attack the US.Limited incursions into both countries would be part of this process with US forces later retreating to defensible perimeters near the borders.Mexico and Canada would be defeated near instantaneously because they both rely on the US for external defense.They do no have militaries funded, structured or equipped to fight the US. In fact they have just the opposite: underfunded militaries using old, often second-hand equipment bought from the US. Why? Because US military superiority ensures they also never get invaded. Under these circumstances it is rational to free-ride and let the US pay the security bills.Mexico’s military, for example, has a smaller budget than just the US Special Forces budget.Conflict: At the start of hostilities multiple fighter and bomber squadrons would scramble and quickly destroy all Canadian and Mexican air defenses and attack aircraft.There would be few US aircraft losses, perhaps even none. The difference in training, equipment, and combat experience is just that vast.The most formidable enemy opposition during this phase would be the fleet of ~118 Canadian CF-18’s. These aircraft are near the end of their service life and would be at a disadvantage against any US air superiority aircraft they encountered outside of some legacy F-15’s and F-16’s.Mexico has only a handful of fighters.Just the US Marine Corps has far more aircraft than both countries put together.The US would likely have air superiority within a day or at most a weekend.Nonetheless, the US would be thorough and ruthless in its subsequent air campaign.These two countries are the only two countries that could reliably threaten critical CONUS infrastructure such as dams, roads, bridges, electricity grid components, steel production, oil production, natural gas production, and other essential industries for a prolonged national defense against invasion.The US would make sure to destroy any port, air base, or other logistical or military infrastructure that could sustain imported military personnel.However, following the neutralization of their Air Forces both countries part in any ‘attack’ against the US would be largely over.Any and all massed ground forces would be quickly be destroyed from the air.Once they lose their militaries, the geography of North America conspires to make the position of both countries very tenuous.The borders formed after the Mexican-American War were designed to preclude Mexico from possessing any possible staging areas for major Mexican military incursions into the US.The inhospitable terrain of the Chihuahua and Sonoran deserts (Above in yellow) make massing, mobilizing, and sustaining substantial military incursions into the US very difficult.The parallel highlands of the Sierra Madre Occidental and Sierra Madre Oriental make it even more difficult.Together they make it virtually impossible. The small coastal strip below Texas and east and southeast of Monterrey would have the necessary infrastructure for a military attack destroyed.These geographic features makes even populating the north of Mexico difficult. Outside of border towns and Monterrey there are no major population centers within hundreds of miles of the US border.The situation is even worse for Canada.Mexico has a large population consolidated in the center of the country. It may not be able to attack the US but it is large and insulated enough for the US to leave it alone. Mexico would retain the same weak national government and fragmented country it has today. It would just be worse in degree.Canada is not so lucky. Canada would likely break apart as a country within a few weeks of attacking the US.Canada is composed of five populated regions: British Columbia, the Prairie States, Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritime Province. Each is geographically isolated from the rest.The Rockies split British Colombia from the Prairies, the Canadian Shield creates a vast stretch of inhospitable land between Ontario and the Prairies, the Shield and the St. Lawrence split Ontario and Quebec, and sheer distance shears the Maritime Provinces from Quebec and the rest of Canada.There is only one road and one railway connecting these provinces together.Each of the five regions is already more connected to neighboring US states than to the other provinces of Canada.The populations also largely directly border the US.With even minimal disruption of resource production and inter-province transportation all five regions would quickly become dependent on the US.If this was done absent a US invasion there would also be little to rally national unity. By attacking the US Canada would be removing the primary reason these very separate areas even confederated in the first place…which which was to deter a US conquest of some or all of them.Canada would become a series of functionally independent provinces each independently dependent on the US.After the quick loss of Canada’s national military in a few days, it is unlikely Canada would play a further part in the conflict.It would go back to being the same peaceful, if now more disunited and fragmented, country it is. It would just do so in pieces.Result: The US would have secured the remaining northern and southern parts of North America that could threaten it with massed attack or invasion by a coalition of adverseries.It has also largely prevented any threatening land force from developing in North America for the duration of the conflict.Other answers say that countries may avoid landing in the contiguous US and instead choose to move north after massing in Mexico. This would be impossible.It would be unthinkable to sustain any such forces in maneuvers in Mexico’s northern highlands and deserts. It would also be largely impossible for such forces to survive encounters with US air assets in North America.Some answers talk of massing forces even farther south such as in Central America, which would allow South American troops to also contribute to the troop buildup.Unfortunately this would just add jungles and highlands to the already inhospitable terrain of northern Mexico. Hundreds of thousands of loosely coordinate coalition troops would never be able to overcome it on their way to the US and emerge with the equipment, morale, and unified command structures needed to fight the US military.This is without even considering their inevitable targeting by US military forces along the entire route.Central American terrain is so inhospitable that there is not even a single road connecting North and South America.South American geography also means that due to the Andes mountains and Amazon rainforest only Peru, Ecuador, Columbia, and Venezuela could even theoretically contribute to such a troop buildup. However, none of these nations possess the forces needed to pose a credible threat.The first phase of the war would conclude with all land routes north or south into the US permanently closed. The next phase involves securing all air and sea routes into the US.Phase Two: Global Sea-Air-Land ConflictNaval Background: With Mexico and Canada neutralized the US is exposed to the rest of the world for what it really is: a massive island.Like other island nations such as the United Kingdom and Japan the most important strategic military service for the United States is its navy.This is easily forgotten due to the size and scope of the US military. Nonetheless it is still evident if you look in the right places.The US Navy receives the largest percentage of the Defense Budget of the services.The Navy budget is in part larger because it includes the Marines but the the fact there even is a separate branch for Marines shows the importance of naval power.The relative importance of the Navy is most evident when you compare it with other navies around the world.The US has the best and largest number of aircraft carriers. These ships are the basis of expeditionary naval power after their use in WWII invalidated the power navies with only destroyers. They can project power across the ocean as well as ashore. While there is a lot of talk of their current vulnerabilities there is no current replacement for their naval dominance.The US has more nuclear aircraft carriers, able to conduct global operations without refueling, then the rest of the world combined.The US also has more destroyers and about as many nuclear attack submarines as the rest of the world.Gross tonnage shows that the US has many more large ships than other countries.Nations with poor navies but a large numbers of small, fast attack ships for coastal operations skew the picture. Often these countries have designed their navies to harass the US navy when it gets too close.Many navies followed the path of the Soviet Union during the Cold War and created forces structured around anti-ship missiles installed on a host of ship platforms ranging from the very small to the very large.Such navies are not meant to fight the US on the open sea but to deter it from approaching their coastlines or nearby strategic assets.China is the most notable example of a country that has chosen this path. It is only just starting to develop blue water power projection capabilities. It will take many years before this becomes a real operational capability.Generally speaking the most competent navies in the world for power projection are the Japanese, French, and British followed by the Chinese, Russians, and then everyone else.Overall, there are no more than 15 competent navies in the world.This is partially by design as the US global system developed after WWII disincentivized the high cost of naval development. The US took on greater burdens to ensure fewer competitors.A reason the US did this is to prevail in a nightmare situation such as if all the significant Navy’s of the world turned on it.When operating from a posture of active defense with most US naval assets operating in the Eastern Pacific and Western Atlantic, and with expeditionary elements conducting joint strikes alongside Air Force and Special Operations forces, the US Navy is far superior to the combined might of the next 15 or 20 navys.Attacking the US with more than a few missiles or bombs requires landing substantial troops and supplies on ships. If you cannot get past the US Navy you cannot land anything and your invasion is over before it started.Logistical Background: The lack of any major power projection need for the last 75 years means most nations do not have the logistical infrastructure for sustained military operations against the US.The US is far away from everyone. In the Pacific it is about 4750 miles from Tokyo to Seattle. In the Atlantic it is around 3000 miles from the Iberian Peninsula to New England.Only a tiny subset of aircraft can fly such distances. The vast majority require aerial refueling. However, most nations do not have nearly the tanker aircraft needed to sustain operations against the US let alone handle attrition.Decades of expeditionary war has given the US an unrivaled global military logistics and transport capacity. By contrast other nations have very little.The lack of long range power projection engagements by other nations obscures this fundamental weakness. However, it becomes immediately clear in any military conflict.For example, in the Falklands War the UK was stretched to its absolute logistical limit. In recent years France has had to rely on US logistical support ot sustain its operations in Mali.In a war with the US these limitations would be heavily exploited. The limited, necessary logistical equipment of these countries would be attacked by the US to cripple potential operations against it.Few nations attack nations that do not directly neighbor them. No modern military except, of course, the United States which does it routinely, attacks enemy air, land, or sea forces thousands of miles away.Other militaries not only lack tanker aircraft but also military sealift, strategic and tactical airlift, global communications, intelligence, reconnaissance, and other essential support capabilities. No military but the US is structured to fight conflicts thousands of miles from its national borders.When considering the nominal amount of aircraft, ships, etc. that might participate in this global conflict it is important to remember that far fewer numbers could ever actually be supported in operations against the US.So even though the US is technically on the defensive it is also the only country with the capability, mentality, and history of expeditionary war.As other nations lack the right logistics systems and force structures most engagements would likely be on US terms.Air Background: The US Air Force was was essentially designed to bomb Europe (and to a lesser degree Japan). Its whole existence is based around the fact that the US does not have military competitors for neighbors.To prove its national utility it had to impact operations in Eurasia. So it developed long range bombers that could reach Europe. It developed a theory of strategic bombing to put them to use. It later operationalized aerial refueling to assist in global power projection through strategic bombing.Over many decades of substantial funding, training, and war it has perfected global, extended military aviation operations. It has moved beyond strategic bombing to developing multirole aircraft, using precision munitions, establishing air superiority, and performing a number of other critical battlefield functions.However, just like with the US Navy no other country has done the same.This isn’t a minor historical point. No major European nation other than Russia even has tactical or strategic aircraft that can reach the US without refueling.No other European nations operate heavy bombers. Many would be stuck doing multiple refuelings of tactical fighter-bomber aircraft just to get into a position to attack the US. France needs US tanker support to bomb Mali which is half the distance it would need to fly to get to the US.Only a few nations possess the aviation industry necessary to create the platforms essential for long distance power projection. Only the US, China, Russia, and European consortiums have this capability.Currently, however, Russia’s military development and procurement is in serious perhaps even terminal decline, China’s is nascent, and Europe’s is a multi-national, dispersed project. They would all be found lacking in a war.Thanks to the Soviet Union’s development of long range bombers during the Cold War the US has also been preparing for extra-hemispheric attacks like this for many decades.A few Mirages or Typhoons is a pinprick compared to the scale of conflict US air defenses prepare for for many years.Few nations have realistically even conceptualized how they might attack the US and no contemporary air forces are structured or optimized for the job.Both Japan and Germany had this problem in WWII. They didn’t fail to attack the US out of a lack of desire. It was a lack of capability. Hitler first wanted a bomber to hit the US but gave up when necessary bases in the Azores were closed off. He later developed his ‘Vengeance’ rocket program with the goal of having later larger future rockets eventually directed at the US.Japan thought of a similar bomber but never went for rockets.Both countries failed.Just as many nations with inadequate navies can be excluded from this global conflict the vast majority of nations would also be excluded from this conflict due to their inability to meaningfully participate in the air war.Countries without the aircraft and ordinance to attack the US would end up just waiting for the US to attack them.Land Background: Ironically the least important element of this conflict would be ground forces. Attacking the US means making it past the Navy and the Air Force before you get to engage the Army or Marines.US ground forces, even discounting reserves, entirely localized in North America would be insanely over-prepared for whatever forces would eventually reach them.As few foreign troops would even manage to land in North America for combat against US ground forces, US ground forces would likely be clamoring for something to do.It is very likely the majority of ground warfare would be in akin to special operations.One primary area of interest would be in appropriating foreign military equipment. Specifically, many countries across the globe possess US-manufactured military equipment to fill crucial functions their industrial base cannot meet.Many of these countries lack the air or sea assets to meaningfully participate in this global conflict. Special operations would therefore bring the fight to them in the hopes of replenishing US capabilities with aircraft or weapons that could be quickly repurposed for US military use.Countries such as New Zealand, Australia, Columbia, Argentina, Portugal, Belgium, Chile, Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Greece, and many others bought highly useful strategic aircraft such as airlift, refueling, and advanced 4th or 5th generation fighters but would have no capacity to actually deploy them. They also bought many bombs, munitions, missiles, and other weapons to serve these platforms.Such nations might be tempted to offer up their resources to attempted coalition operations against the US as they couldn’t attack by themselves.It is highly likely expeditionary forces would be sent out to capture this equipment and put it to US use rather than allow it to sit unused or added to adversary weapons stockpiles. Recent, advanced, and well-maintained aircraft and their munitions would be of early and particular interest.A number of amphibious operations would also be conducted to acquire useful naval equipment in a range of functions, possibly even including elements of foreign commercial fleets..In this sense ground forces would be deployed in an asymmetric manner to support the Sea-Air war effort.It would be used to increase US capabilities, even if many aircraft are only used for parts and not operationalized, while also further eroding the critical foreign strategic capabilities that enable them to target the US.Even fewer nations could credibly be included in this war without the ability to reasonably transport or refuel aircraft or without the high-quality aircraft needed to engage US counterparts.The only relevant part of the ‘World’ in this scenario are the set of countries that could actually attack the United States and the US would work to lower that number throughout the course of the war.Economic and Industrial Background: Only a few years ago the US probably could not have won this conflict for one reason: oil.The US would not have been able to continue fighting a global war before the shale revolution vastly increased US production to the point of functional self-sufficiency in petroleum and natural gas.The US would have lost access to needed imports, would have burned through strategic petroleum reserves, and would then probably have been forced to occupy Western Hemisphere oil production regions such as Alberta or Venezuela.Now it would not need to do any of that. In fact it could even hypothetically flip the position it has taken for the last 45 years.Rather than protect global oil flows the US could actively disrupt global oil flows all around the world. The US now has sufficient insulation from global oil markets that US prices would stabilize while global prices would not.Higher prices would even encourage more shale drilling, thereby boosting overall US output.Strikes on only a few key strategic production and distribution nodes would permanently upend global oil flows and prevent many militaries from fueling their operations.On another level the US would also have to consider how much its active defense posture would target the livelihoods of enemy populations. Strikes on electricity grids, food production areas, transport infrastructure, pipelines, water resources, and other critical facilities could devastate enemy militaries but also millions of non-combatants.For the purposes of this question the US will only respond with limited war rather than a crazy global total war which could lead to tens or even hundreds of millions of dead civilians.Instead the US would only conduct limited strikes on oil and other infrastructure directly connected with facilitating enemy military operations.The US would also likely actively target crucial imports and exports of major combatant nations. Another implication of naval supremacy is that countries with a high percentage of exports relative to GDP and a high dependency on imports for basic societal inputs would suffer tremendously if the US navy disrupted shipping. Countries such as China, Germany, Japan, South Korea, the Netherlands, and others would are particularly vulnerable to such actions.During a war countries often make up for any economic disruptions with industrial mobilization for war but unlike the US these countries do not have large military-industrial bases that can be ramped up for conflict.Nonetheless, the whole global system is oriented around the US and the impact of losing all trade with the world would be massive so going through the full economic implications is probably beyond the scope of the question.We will just assume local, short term shocks to all economies and eventual recoveries at different rates due to varied national economic characteristics.Space/Cyberspace Background: Tactical use of cyberwarfare would be pervasive but elaborating strategic cyberwarfare initiatives against fundamental systems is both akin to total war and also speculative.As for space activities the primary engagements would be attempted anti-satellite actions and both preemptive and retaliatory responses.The US has the largest satellite system and is the nation with satellite systems use most integrated throughout its military combat operations. It therefore has the most to lose. There are maybe 5 countries with credible anti-satellite weapons systems. These capabilities be targeted earlier on during the conflict.Anti-satellite activities and anti-anti-satellite may be kinetic but also electronic. Cyberattacks on ground systems, information flows, or space-based assets would all be used.Today a full-on space conflict is not really in the cards. The more likely scenario is gradual attrition of enemy overhead space assets.Technologies for rapid satellite development and rapid launch are in development and not yet ready for use. They might mature during the course of this sort of conflict but that is still uncertain.The Conflict: The first question is whether there would be any sort of surprise attack on US forward deployed assets in Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia.Attacking forward deployed US naval or air assets would be one of the best opportunities to degrade US strategic capabilities early on and with a tactical advantage.At the same this question brings up the major issue of alliance coordination and cooperation.Which country realistically wants to be the very first to attack the US when it is at the height of its military capabilities?While a global alliance sounds nice most countries are in no position to actually help out other countries in any meaningful way if the US retaliates against them.For example, how could the UK or France help Japan if it decided to attack Yokosuka naval base or Futenma marine base? How could they help it deal with US reprisals?They couldn’t. Only regional neighbors could help out and Japan has antagonistic relations with all of its powerful regional neighbors. Even assuming these enmities were put aside for the duration of the conflict these forces all use different systems and languages. They have no history of military cooperation, no experience with military cooperation, and methods of military cooperation absent what they do with the US.The truth is that there is no such thing as a ‘global alliance’ that does not include the US because there is no other global power but the US.European powers would not send their few, precious expeditionary resources to assist Asian powers because that action would expose them to direct US attacks. Their forces would also be highly vulnerable in transit.At best the global coalition would consist of a series of small, variably coordinated regional alliances attempting to coordinate and network their larger strategic activities.The more likely scenario is a desperate chaos and profound sense of vulnerability among the nations. Few feel they could really hurt the US but all know it could hurt them.Answers that talk about large global coalitions assume the coalition would work like the ‘coalitions’ the US has assembled for signaling purposes to both domestic and foreign audiences in some of its recent conflicts.In all of these ‘coalitions’ the US routinely did 90% of the work.There have been no global coalitions in the history of the world where a unifying nation with a preponderance of power wasn’t coordinating the efforts of others.There would be no such power present in this conflict. This would seriously limit the effectiveness of the coalition.Japan could start off another war with the US by initiating a sneak attack on US forces deployed on its territory but no rational military commander there would want to re-litigate Pearl Harbor.The major populated regions of Japan are all on its eastern coast. There is no nation or ally between this populated coast and the US. Regional allies would all have to place their military assets at risk by moving them east of the Japanese islands in order to help defend Japan.The likelihood of Korea and China doing this is slim. Not even for historical or cultural regions but, alliance or not, it’s uncertain whether it makes sense for them to do so for strategic reasons. They need to defend themselves.Similar decisions about whether host nations want to become Enemy Number One would determine the level of losses for overseas US forces.The best chance of such pre-emptive strikes occurring would be if strikes against all major US overseas forces could be coordinated.Unfortunately, this would require extensive electronic communication to coordinate and the US has the most extensive system of global intelligence surveillance in the world. The conspiracy would inevitably be discovered and disaster avoided.Therefore, while an initial attack could have an impact on the outcome of the conflict it would involve risks for participants, particularly the host nations of US forces.Minimizing the risk of immediate overwhelming retaliatory strikes would require a level of coordination that would be very likely to remove the element of surprise entirely.Due to the lack of major expeditionary resources the initiative in this war would shift to the United States even as the issue of forward deployed troops is playing out.While it is possible to lay out ordered phases for how the US would wage this war, the scale of the conflict means many phases would overlap and things could not possibly be clean cut as contingencies arise. However, the broad outlines are clear.The US would secure sea and air approaches to the US mainland. It would then degrade and destroy the capabilities of the the most threatening nations in terms of their military capacity and relative ability to threaten the US.That means first and foremost France, England, and Japan. All three countries have substantial navies and air forces and their positions on the western edge of Europe and off the eastern coast of Asia respectively make them the countries closest to and thus most able to threaten the US.The US would immediately seek to destroy the naval assets of France, England, and Japan. The US would target the British naval bases at Clyde, Portsmouth, and particularly Devonport, as well as French naval bases at Cherbourg, Ile Longue, and particularly Toulon.The Japanese assets would actually be current US facilities such as Yokosuka and Sasebo.The goal of the attacks would be to destroy major capital ships but more importantly to destroy repair and logistics support infrastructure for naval weapons systems.Each nation only really has one essential facility necessary for their expeditionary navies. If these crucial bases are made inoperable major naval activities would quickly cease.For example, Toulon is the home port of France’s naval expeditionary element and around 70% of the gross tonnage of its entire fleet. There is no meaningful French navy if just this base is destroyed.The US would also conduct an air and missile campaign against the missile production, aircraft production, aircraft repair, and other airpower facilities in Western Europe and Japan.The US would likely mine many areas of the first island chain around China to keep its navy as well as the Korean navy bottled up. The US would likely do the same for the strait of Gibraltar to prevent French, Italian, Turkish, Greek, and Russian forces from entering the Atlantic.Nuclear attack submarines would also patrol near these approaches.The US would also air superiority over minor nations it will be need to overfly to reach major combat zones in Western Europe and the islands of East Asia.At the same time the US would conduct raids on unsuspecting nations with military assets that could replenish its inventory. There would likely be communication disruptions and other electronic warfare methods deployed to prevent nearby, allied neighbor states from interfering with the clandestine missions.A single US carrier battle group has more power than any other navy. By the end of the initial naval phase of this conflict it is very likely that one US carrier battle group would have more power than all other navies comined.At this point it would essentially be a global air war. While US naval superiority is pretty clear the scale of the US airpower advantage versus all other nations is not as well understood.Many countries are justifiably proud of their advanced fighter jets and missiles. The Gripen, Rafale, SU-27 and its derivatives, are all great aircraft. the meteor is a great missile. However, a nice fighter jet with a good missile is only a small element of overall airpower.For a start the US has far more aircraft than any other country as seen in this list from GlobalFirepower. This allows it a greater ability to lose aircraft while sustaining operations. The US also has far more airfields and airbases than any other country.The high numbers of aircraft for nations such as Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, and India are often composed of very old Soviet or US aircraft.The importance of refueling and transport has been mentioned but there are many other critical elements of modern air campaigns that no country but the US has in any significant capacity.Crucially no country on this list except for Israel and China can design and manufacture large, critical, reliable, militarized drones such as very long endurance reconnaissance platforms like the RQ-4 Global Hawk or unmanned combat platforms like the MQ-9 Reaper.The US is now on its third generation strike drone and has started procurement of a maritime HALE drone. It is also developing drone tankers and drone fighters. Unlike with announced European projects these aircraft will actually go into production.By contrast all major European or Asian nations have only purchased a few aircraft from the main suppliers. They have no real programs under development and no militaries designed to coordinate systematically with unmanned systems.The US has dozens of strike and reconnaissance drones whereas almost everyone else in this conflict has only a handful. The few that have a significant number are very poorly positioned to use them against the US.In fact the US Army probably has more combat drones than the major nations of Europe.Combat drones are very useful as relatively cheap, attritable assets able to present a persistent threat to enemies. In a global conflict where supplies of many munition types may run low they are an incredibly flexible alternative to Tomahawk or other more expensive weapons platforms.Reconnaissance drones provide enemy information and situational awareness and can do so in the absence of overhead space assets. This will be invaluable to the US due to the scale of the conflict it will wage. They will help enable the Us to see who it is fighting even as other nations are rendered blind.After bombing airfields in France, England, other parts of Western Europe, and other areas with access to the Atlantic coast, including with cluster munitions in order render them totally inoperable, these unmanned assets may be moved defensible airfields closer to Europe to enable their continuous use in theater.The defense industries of Western European nations would be heavily targeted. Their ability to produce missiles, airframes, and spare parts would be compromised as would their ability to repair, service, and maintain operational aircraft weapons systems.Japan’s industry would also be targeted but the country would likely be mostly combated by trying to starve it of imports (its great and historic fear).The other major threatening industrial base in Europe is in Scandinavia. Depending on the progression of the conflict these would also be targeted by the US would have to be mindful of not losing military assets attacking areas that already lack the ability to threaten the US.For example, Russia, China, and India cannot reasonably threaten the US even though they have substantial militaries. The same is true of the small Scandinavian countries and Israel. They are simply too far away and lack the necessary systems. Their greater threat would be as industrial factories for other nations closer to the US.Naval interdiction, import blockades, and targeted strikes against key industrial nodes would be crucial as the war progressed and more distant nations sought to replace destroyed military-industrial output.Russia, however, has a military-industrial complex in near terminal decline. It cannot produce any of its new weapons systems in meaningful numbers. It cannot fund further weapons systems development especially as it loses export orders to China and other countries. Even today it has no operational strike or reconnaissance drones.Its military has large numbers of old, often obsolete equipment. It has no operational capacity to conduct sustained air operations against a country as far away as the US. It has enough trouble doing that in Ukraine, Georgia, and Syria let alone in the Western Hemisphere. Its greatest threat is its fleet of bombers but these would be annihilated long before they reached the continental US.What Russia could do is lob missiles. This is also about the extent of what China could do as well. However, neither of these present the threat of any sort of major, crippling attack against the US (assuming we are not talking about nuclear missiles).India is simply too isolated and far away to do anything meaningful. It has neither the industrial base nor the weapons to even help others.For the world to actually win against the US, most advanced nations would have to be given time during a years-long conflict that allows them to develop a massive military-industrial base no nation but the US currently possesses.To be clear the US doesn't have this capability just because it is special but because it structured a global system after WWII where most nations rationally decided to let the US assume the huge burden of security and defense. That allowed them to focus on developing their economies. It saved them and gained them friends at little cost but that of possessing vast navy’s or air forces.Germany, for example, is not relevant in this fight because it chronically underfunds its military to better enable other parts of its economy (and also to avoid the ire of its neighbors).While the US would definitely experience problems in this conflict because it has internationalized elements of its industrial base in programs such as the F-35 it also has a much, much larger military-industrial base than other nations.China is rapidly developing its military industrial base but it also has more land neighbors than any other country, substantial maritime conflicts with surrounding countries, and is ringed in by both shallow waters and a chain of inhabited islands across its coast.It simply does not at this moment have the force structure necessary for extended expeditionary war against the US. To be in a position to do so it would first have to resolve its numerous conflicts in its near abroad with force.Once a global offensive to attack the US grinds to a halt, local conflicts would emerge between the various allied nations. Unfortunately, even the NATO nations, who have the longest history of integrated military operations, would struggle mightily to coordinate their efforts without the US.For every other attempted joint operations between countries it would likely be very poor and chaotic.Most countries will quickly give up rather than spend years bankrupting themselves trying to develop an industrial base that could enable assaults against the US thousands of miles away.It is also likely that most countries would go back to engaging in disputes with their more traditional foes…their neighbors.Conflicts are likely to spring up across Europe without the US security overwatch that evaporated after the dissolution of NATO (a direct result of attacking the US).Depending on the scale and intensity of conflicts the US may not even need to conduct as many operations in Western Europe as I’ve suggested but allow conflict within the coalition to slowly dilute war efforts directed at the US.Future: It is quite likely that the lopsided nature of this conflict will get even more extreme over time. The US is the only country that has developed and produced 5th generation aircraft, new aircraft carriers, and is in the process of developing other large new capital ships.Every other nation has missed out on an entire generation of the current weapons systems development cycle. It is hard to ‘skip’ a cycle and move directly to the next one. The technical and operational knowledge developed in the missed cycle is often necessary for the next step. Or it will take longer and cost more to make up that missed development time.While many of these countries are developing very capable missiles and other crucial subsystems they are largely purchasing primary systems such as the F-35 from the US. Over time this makes it highly likely that they will be tied into US military equipment as customers for many decades. This gives them access to great equipment but precludes them from competing with the country that is developing the platforms and their successors.The next generation weapons platforms, not just in the air but in terms of surface and undersea vessels as well, will be optionally manned, autonomous, or remotely operated. The lack of a mature, operational drone industry is going to become a critical lack of capability for many nations in the coming years.The US is developing fleets of systems for air and sea warfare that other countries do not have anywhere near the capability to develop without massive and unlikely increases in military funding.Other countries do not have the capability to build what the US is building now let alone competitors to its upcoming systems.The US is also developing doctrines and force structures to implement these capabilities based on years of prototyping, wargaming, use, and system iteration. This will integrate these new capabilities into its battlefield operations in a way other countries are unlikely to do for many years.Other than China, the only truly advanced strategic capabilities industrial nations are developing will come from purchased US systems or new missile developments.For example, the largest change in European military capabilities through 2030 is almost certainly going to be the introduction of the F-35 rather than any indigenous development.A lot of focus in this answer has been on France as it is a nation with an independent expeditionary capability as well as a strong industrial base. As most large European consortium projects are spearheaded by France, targeting their French operations would degrade capabilities across Europe.Looking into the future, however, France’s relative military threat is increasingly in doubt.It is not purchasing the F-35 and so will not be able to integrate with other European nations using the platform.Its one aircraft carrier, the only other nuclear powered carrier in the world outside the US, is aging with no replacement in sight.Meanwhile the US will be producing over 20 carriers in coming years. Even one new America-class assault ship for the Marine Corps is larger than the de Gaulle. New Ford-class carriers are twice the size and at least a generation ahead in terms of technology.All these carriers will be supplemented by new frigates, destroyers, cruisers, unmanned vessels, maritime drones, electronic warfare aircraft, submarines, unmanned combat air vehicles, maritime patrol drones, space based systems, and a host of improvements that will lead to qualitative as well as quantitative improvements as the Navy refines its future fleet structure and doctrine.If hypersonic and other missiles change the nature of air and sea warfare then it will be the US that develops the manned, unmanned, surface, and under sea arsenal ships and other platforms built to optimize their use.Conclusion: Crazy as it sounds and not even from a ‘rah rah USA’ position, the outcome of this global war would be a US victory.The main reasons why include: insularity of the US in North America, US distance from adversaries, large US expeditionary forces, strong land and sea borders, US possession of needed military resources on the North American continent, lack of adversaries with military capabilities able to overcome the US Navy and Air Force, a lack of industrial nations with militaries designed for expeditionary war against a country like the US, inadequate adversary military-industrial strength to sustain war against the US, conflicts within the coalition of US adversaries, inability of coalition adversaries to coordinate and communicate war efforts, and a US military with vastly more combat training and experience and a familiarity, even comfort, with global, extended combat operations.Ultimately, the most important reason why is probably that the question asks about the result of a defensive war.So long as the US plays a careful form of active defense it is simply too large, distant, and powerful to defeat.On the other hand, the US would have no chance in an offensive war against the whole world.EDIT: Added the picture of Mt. Cheyenne.

The physical building is officially called the Palace of Westminster, although people often call it the 'Houses of Parliament'. Parliament has been meeting in that location since mediaeval times. However, in 1834 the old Palace of Westminster burned down, so a replacement building had to be constructed. It took over 20 years to build and was finished in 1860, so the present-day building you see is only about 150 years old. (Though there are a few surviving pieces of the old building incorporated into its structure, the oldest of which is over 900 years old.)The Palace of Westminster is not generally open to the public — there are metal railings around it — but it's possible for UK residents to ask their own MP for a ticket for an escorted tour, and there are limited places allowed in the Strangers' Gallery to watch debates, that you can queue for.The Chamber of the House of Commons, where MPs meet, make speeches and hold debates, is at the north end of the palace on an upper floor. The room is quite small, 14 by 21 metres, and if all 650 MPs attended at once about a third of them would have to stand.The Chamber of the House of Lords is at the opposite end of the building, and is decorated in red while the Commons has green decorations. The palace also contains about 1100 other rooms on four floors, including offices, committee rooms, libraries and facilities for MPs such as restaurants and bars.'Big Ben' is technically the name of the large (16 ton) bell in the clocktower, but it's popularly applied to the clocktower itself. (The official name of the tower is the Elizabeth Tower, in case that question ever comes up in a trivia quiz.) It's become an iconic symbol of Parliament and London in general.There's a statue of Oliver Cromwell holding a sword standing right outside Parliament, next to the door that the king or queen traditionally uses to enter the building. This is possibly intended as a subtle hint to the monarchs about who has the real power.The People are, under God, the Original of all just Power; [and] the Commons of England, in Parliament assembled, being chosen by, and representing the People, have the Supreme Power in this Nation— Declaration of Parliament, 4 January 1649Parliament began life as the king's council in the Middle Ages. Monarchs would summon the leading nobles and churchmen of the realm to give them advice and act as a sounding board for new legislation. In the 13th century it was decided to invite representatives of the common people as well, who would be elected by their local communities to act as their representatives. (Although in those days, only people who owned a certain value of property could vote.)The elected representatives of the commons sat in a separate meeting room to the lords and bishops, which is how the split into Lords and Commons began.Meeting of the House of Lords in the presence of the king, late 13th centuryEventually, after much argument and several civil wars, Parliament took power away from the king and became the focus of government. Much later, only in the early 20th century, the House of Lords also lost most of its power leaving the Commons alone as the dominant force in government.England, Scotland and Ireland once all had their own separate parliaments. Those of England and Scotland were merged in 1707, and the parliament of Ireland was merged in 1801.House of Commons in sessionThe House of Commons today is made up of 650 Members of Parliament, or MPs. They are elected by simple first-past-the-post elections in local constituencies, each of which has a population in the region of 60-80,000 people.General elections are held every five years. It is possible to force an earlier election if the Commons passes a 'vote of no confidence' in the government. If an MP dies or retires before their full term is over, a by-election is held in their constituency to find a replacement.To stand as an MP, you can be a citizen of any Commonwealth country or the Republic of Ireland, not just a British citizen. You need ten nominations from local residents and pay a £500 deposit, which is returned if you get at least 5% of the votes in your constituency. It is possible to stand as an independent, and many people do as a way of getting publicity, but it is extremely rare to actually win a seat unless you have the backing of one of the major national political parties.House of Lords in sessionThe House of Lords was originally made up of hereditary peers plus Church of England bishops. In 1958 the concept of non-hereditary Life Peers was introduced and gradually extended: currently about 85% of the Lords are life peers. Attempts to reform the Lords and possibly make it elected instead of nominated were begun in the 1990s, but ground to a halt half-finished when nobody could agree on a suitable replacement for the present arrangement.Life peers are appointed by the prime minister (or technically, by the Queen on her prime minister's advice). The leaders of opposition parties may recommend nominees, and there is also a non-partisan Appointments Commission to make recommendations of non-political figures. It's generally accepted that the House of Lords should not be allowed to get too far politically out of balance.The role of the House of Lords nowadays is purely advisory, and so most life peers are appointed from the ranks of older, more experienced public figures. They are paid expenses but do not receive a salary.While the term 'Parliament' refers to the Lords and Commons as an institution, the phrase 'a Parliament' is sometimes used to mean the specific group of MPs elected in a particular general election. We can thus talk about "the 2010 Parliament", "the 2015 Parliament", and so forth. Back in history people occasionally came up with more colourful names such as the Good Parliament of 1376, the Mad Parliament of 1258, the Merciless Parliament of 1387, the Parliament of Dunces of 1404, the Fire and Faggot Parliament of 1413, the Addled Parliament of 1614, the Rump Parliament of 1648 and Barebone's Parliament of 1653.When a general election is called, Parliament is 'dissolved', and does not officially exist until after the election when a new parliament is 'opened'.Parliament's sittings are divided into Sessions, one year each, and usually all business must be concluded before the end of a session. (It can be carried over to the next but this is discouraged.) The working year is broken up by recesses when Parliament does not sit: most notably the Summer Recess from July to September. MPs are expected to spend the recesses working in their constituencies: meeting voters, investigating local issues, making public appearances, etc.After a general election, whichever politician is able to assemble a majority of the MPs in the House of Commons to vote for them is appointed as Prime Minister. Normally this means the leader of the party that won the most seats in the election, though if no party won an overall majority (as happened in 2010) there will need to be behind-the-scenes negotiations between parties to assemble a coalition and agree on a mutually-acceptable leader.Nowadays, a prime minister is always a member of the House of Commons. Back in the days when the House of Lords had equal power to the Commons, prime ministers were often Lords instead. The last of these was the Marquess of Salisbury who was prime minister from 1895 to 1902.There have been 54 prime ministers since Sir Robert Walpole in 1721, who is generally considered to have been the first.A prime minister is formally appointed by being invited to Buckingham Palace and 'asked to form a government' by the Queen. Not long afterwards, Parliament is formally opened in an elaborate ceremony dating back at least 500 years. The monarch attends the House of Lords — by tradition she is not allowed inside the House of Commons — and delivers the Queen's Speech (written for her by the prime minister andhis/her advisors) which sets out the government's legislative programme for the current parliament. After she leaves, the Commons debate the programme and vote on whether to accept it.If a prime minister decides to resign, his or her replacement would be chosen the same way: whichever politician is able to put together a voting majority of MPs in the House of Commons to support their programme. The prime minister is technically only the first among equals of the MPs, not a president, which is why a general election does not need to be held when a prime minister steps down.Theresa May’s first Cabinet meeting as Prime MinisterThe Prime Minister appoints ministers to run the government. He or she can appoint or dismiss them at will: every so often a PM will announce a 'reshuffle' where ministers are moved between jobs, promoted or dismissed depending on their performance and political strength.Ministers must by convention be members of parliament, though in theory a prime minister who wanted to bring in outside talent could simply make someone a life peer to give them a seat in parliament — this has happened a handful of times in the last century or so.Approximately 20 of the most senior ministers are members of the Cabinet. Each cabinet minister heads one of the major departments of government, such as the Treasury, Foreign Office, Health Department, Ministry of Defence, and so on. Most cabinet ministers also have from one to five junior ministers appointed to assist them or run sub-divisions of their departments.The staff of each department is made up of apolitical, professional civil servants: unlike in the United States, even at senior level these are expected to serve all governments equally in a non-partisan manner rather than being replaced whenever a new administration takes over.It is fairly regular for prime ministers to reorganise these departments; a particular responsibility such as pensions, transport or skills training might be moved from one department to another, given separate status as an independent department or moved back under a broader heading.The entire Cabinet meets formally, at least once a week, in the Cabinet Office in 10 Downing Street. It can also form sub-committees to debate specific subjects. By tradition the Cabinet's major decisions are collective and unanimous: a minister who cannot agree with the Cabinet's policy is expected to resign.Strong prime ministers, such as Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair in their heydays, generally dominate cabinet meetings and face little opposition from them, and are accused by opponents of acting in a 'presidential' manner (which is intended as criticism). Prime minsters with a weaker position may be forced to promote their rivals within the party to cabinet positions.A select committee meetingMinisters are accountable for the actions of their departments to Parliament. In practice this means they must attend regularly to answer questions (written or verbal) from the other members of Parliament. Prime Minister's Question Time, which takes place at noon every Wednesday, is the most famous of these, but ministers from every other department must also face similar question times, normally once every one to three weeks depending on the size and importance of the department.In addition, parliament sets up committees to examine particular areas of policy in more depth. There is a Select Committee for each government department, responsible for scrutinising and auditing its work on an ongoing basis. The committee can summon ministers before it to be questioned, examine documentary evidence, and issue recommendations for action which the government is required to give a formal, public response to (though not necessarily accept).Committees can also be set up on an ad hoc basis to investigate a particular area of policy that crosses the boundaries between departments or is of more long-term importance. Due to the nature of the two houses, most Commons committees focus on short-term scrutiny of government policy while Lords committees have broader remits such as 'Science and Technology', 'International Relations' or 'the Constitution'.The people who serve on these committees are backbench members of parliament elected by their fellow-MPs, not appointed by government. The committees contain people of all parties, in rough proportion to the make-up of the House.The day-to-day scrutiny of government action by select committees is probably one of Parliament's most important functions, though it is little-known and overshadowed by the passing of laws, which is what most people think of when Parliament is mentioned.Passing a new law is a complex process which normally takes several months. On average, Parliament passes 30-40 new laws per year.A draft law is known as a bill. Most bills are drawn up by government ministers with the aid of their professional civil servants, in accordance with their party's manifesto and the commitments in the Queen's Speech.Individual MPs can also propose laws, known as 'Private Members' Bills', but it is rare for these to actually become law. Only a limited amount of time is allocated to debating such bills: MPs can put their names down in a lottery and will randomly be allocated a slot in the timetable to bring their proposals forward. Generally only the first five or six on the list each year will have the time to get their bill passed into law. However, anybody proposing a bill is allowed ten minutes to present their case to Parliament (the 'Ten Minute Rule'), and even if there is no hope of getting the bill onto the statute books, this is a useful way to publicise an issue (and get the MP's name in the newspapers). Occasionally the government may decide that a Private Member's Bill is actually a good idea, and will adopt it and allocate it extra time to make sure it passes.A government bill will often go through a period of consultation first. A White Paper is published and interested public and private organisations invited to comment on it.The bill is then put before Parliament for discussion. Most bills are inrtoduced into the House of Commons first, but non-controversial or technical legislation may be put before the Lords first.The Bill is announced in the 'First Reading', and then in the 'Second Reading' a debate, usually lasting a day, is held and a vote taken on whether to approve the general purpose and objectives of the bill.The bill then enters the 'Committee Stage', where a committee of 20-30 MPs is set up to analyse the bill line-by-line, and propose amendments if necessary. The bill with any amendments is then presented back to Parliament as a whole in the Report Stage. This is also the opportunity for MPs who were not on the committee to propose amendments of their own.After the Report Stage, the 'Third Reading' is held. This is normally a brief debate (an hour is the usual time allocated) at which the House will approve the final, amended version of the bill.After the Third Reading, the bill is taken to the Other House (so, to the Lords if it began in the Commons). It then goes through exactly the same procedure: First Reading, Second Reading, Committee Stage, Report Stage and Third Reading. With this done, it is returned to the originating House.(One exception: Money Bills — those dealing with taxation and public spending — cannot be amended or refused by the Lords.)If the Other House made no amendments, the bill is ready to be passed into law. If they did amend it, though, the first House must discuss the changes and vote on whether or not to accept them, reject them or make a counter-proposal.If the amendments are rejected or changed, the bill goes back to the Other House for them to repeat the process. They must both agree before the bill can become law. If the two Houses are strongly in disagreement and stubborn, this can result in the bill going backwards and forwards between them multiple times, a process known informally as ping-pong.This can be resolved one of three ways: either a compromise is finally reached, or the bill is abandoned due to lack of time: or else the Commons invokes the Parliament Act and uses its veto over the Lords. This is the nuclear option, and has only been used seven times in the last hundred years.Once the bill and all its amendments have been approved, it goes to the Queen for the Royal Assent. The usual procedure is that about once a month, Letters Patent are drawn up listing the new laws requiring assent, and the Queen signs the letter personally while the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery attaches the Great Seal. The Speaker then notifies Parliament that the Act has received the royal assent, and it becomes law.The Royal Assent and Great Seal of the Kingdom on Letters Patent referring to an Act of Parliament