All Else Being the Same, a Moral Position in War is Untenable

Firstly, I will note that CON has stated in the comments that "its clear that "morality" is negatively affecting [CON's] military strategy." This is the entire point of this debate, to demonstrate that in war, ceteris paribus, a high-minded moral position serves as a hindrance towards victory.I applaud CON for proffering some novel defenses. I will deconstruct below.MoveFirst and foremost, NationB's initial move is very straightforward:1) We will overcompensate for any potential missile defense by flooding their systems with enough ICBMs to ensure that enough nukes go through to annihilate the capital and every living being in it.2) We will use air transports to paradrop MOPP-geared occupational forces directly into NationA's capital and thus bypass ground-based CBR (chemical/biological/radiation) deterrents.These two simple moves will allow NationB to occupy NationA' capital, thus ending this war.Counter-movesMilitaryM1) Missile Defense a) Silos are embedded with civilians in NationB, so PGS is off the table for NationA.b) If worst comes to worst and missile defense proves completely effective, we will fly enough transports strapped with nuclear devices and human shields to detonate above their capital. Any attempt by NationA to shoot down these transports would violate NationA's moral code.M2) EMP/CyberwarfareI am not aware of any literature on EMPs being used to deter nuclear war. If timing is an issue, NationB will compensate by simply launching immediately, before the EMP ordnance reaches our airspace. We have early warning detection, and so we can launch before their missiles connect. We also have missile defense to deter such an avenue.If NationA tries to use EMPs to render airborne aircraft inoperable, this would constitute a violation of NationA's moral code, as those aircraft would crash and any "human shields" on board would die.M3) MADNationB will not take NationA's MAD threat seriously. It is not credible due to NationA's moral position. NationA cannot harm civilians, thus taking MAD off the table for them. NationA simply does not have a first or second strike nuclear capability due to their moral position.M4) WMDs for area denialAddressed...we will paradrop MOPP-geared soldiers.M5) Ground ForcesWe will primarily rely upon air power and transport.M6) PGMs strikes on air basesWe will scramble and launch before such attacks reach their target. We will both a) intercept delivery vehicles, and b) launch counterstrikes. NationA is defenseless against our manned interceptors, as they cannot shoot them down due to "human shields" being present.M7) Subversion and Appeal to Legalitya) I will first say that I consider subversion to be the biggest challenge for NationB to overcome. There is no question that what NationB has enacted is unpalatable. This only adds urgency for NationB to end the war ASAP. A nuclear strike followed by a paradropped occupation force directly into their capital offers such an end within a day, before any subversive techniques can take effect.b) Appeal to legality is irrelevant - the Constitution has been suspended, and executive orders from the CINC constitute law. The CINC passes laws authorizing use of "human shields". ---Political/Diplomatic- Capital Defiance ActWell, this is interesting. =)While it's clear in round #1 that "NationA's capital is located in the southwesternmost grid of its territory, and NationB's capital is located in the northeasternmost grid of its territory," it's not stipulated that the capital can or cannot relocate. I would then ask why NationA would want to play this kind of game, where not only do they risk their original capital getting nuked, but all other potential cities as well?- Conscription LawsNationA's conscription plans are not relevant to NationB's war strategy, as we simply do not discriminate in who we kill. What is inhibiting NationA's war strategy is NationB's civilian populace, and we plan on leaving them be as civilians for that precise reason.- Diplomatic Recognition for Nation ZThis is a fascinating tactic, and will call into question exactly what NationB would gain if more of NationA became NationZ. Regardless, it does not deter NationB from nuking/occupying NationA's capital.I will also note that if NationZ is not morally inhibited like NationA, that would still prove the central theme of this debate to be sound, that "the first casualty of war will be morality."ConclusionI appreciate the work CON has put into this debate, but I am afraid all it has done is highlight how difficult this war has become for NationA to wage. Most of CON's offensive capability has been rendered inoperable due to liberal use of "human shields" by NationB. Therefore, NationA is now acutely vulnerable to a nuclear first-strike. I will maintain that the only reasonable course of action by NationA is to surrender immediately before NationB launches.