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

PRO/CON agreed to an initial deployment round, which will also give me space to add to CON's thoughts on this debate. ThoughtsOn CON's analysis on Clausewitz, I would first agree that many aspects of this debate are not realistic, and that Clausewitz went through a lot of trouble to ensure he was describing actual, realistic wars. For example, there is no cause given for this war and it has a set objective, a "capture the flag" type scenario, and so the political calculus that Clausewitz considered essential to any war is unknown except for the victory condition. It would be interesting if this debate centered upon the causes of this war, and I would welcome such analysis if CON can glean it from the round #1 rules alone. Also, during Clausewitz's time, wars were long, drawn out affairs that required something close to hand-to-hand combat. Today's modern wars are brief experiences, and with nuclear weapons, nearly instantaneous ones. In this sense, considering that both nations have a MAD capability, what Clausewitz described as "absolute war" is indeed much more relevant to this scenario than the wars the US has fought since WWII. Probably the main, relevant point from Clausewitz that would apply to this debate is whether or not NationA's morality constitutes an advantage or a disadvantage, one that would cause it to wage a war it expects to win, or to surrender a war that it expects to lose. On generalship, I expect our moves to be "if/then" statements as opposed to irrevocable moves that are set in stone after each round. The idea is to see if moves CAN be countered as opposed to whether or not they WILL be countered. Initial DeploymentNationB enacts the following:D1) Due to imminent nuclear attack, we declare martial law. Civilian law no longer applies. .. NationB is now under military jurisdiction. Civilians are ordered not to leave their home cities under any circumstance unless they are part of a military escort. In fact, NationB will tell NationA right now that if doesn't surrender its capital immediately, we will nuke it into oblivion. .. we will kill every single inhabitant of that city, civilian or military. If NationA surrenders, we will stand down. D2) All cities in NationB immediately draft a modest self-defense force. The conscripts are embedded with the civilian populations of their respective cities in such a manner that any attempt to kill them through munitions would result in civilian casualties. Given NationA's moral position, this "human shield" tactic will work. D3) Embed our nuke silos/mobile launchers within all of its cities, so that destroying the silos/mobile launchers will cause civilian casualties, i. e. "human shield". D4) Embed the rest of our military (2 million plus active duty) inside the rest of our cities, again in such a manner that any attempt to kill them with munitions will result in civilian casualties, i. e. "human shield". D5) Weave a civilian presence into every single military unit. .. every single soldier will have a "civilian buddy", i. e. "human shield". Every plane that can house a co-pilot will have a civilian co-pilot, every tank will house a civilian, etc. .. if not enough civilians comply willingly, we will clear out our prison population to do this. .. America currently houses 2.3 million prisoners, which is more than one prisoner per active duty military soldier (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) and is more than enough to carry out this plan fully. D6) Run a domestic propaganda campaign to minimize subversion where NationB's citizens are told that these draconian measures are for the good of the people:a) The conscripts are not expected to ever attack the enemy, they are only there as a last resort if NationA thinks about attacking our cities. b) The civilian volunteers/prisoners are not expected to die, as NationA's moral position precludes them from killing civilians. c) This is the only feasible way to end the war with minimal casualties on BOTH sides. D7) Run minimal patrols (all with civilian escorts) with non-drafted forces from the cities of the bordering grid boxes in order to prevent border crossings. Orders are to shoot on sight. ConclusionGiven NationA's moral position, I think they would be compelled to surrender immediately upon receiving the threat to nuke their capital. NationA cannot allow for any civilians to be killed nor can they kill any civilians, meaning that they'd have to either surrender it or evacuate it immediately. NationA does NOT have a viable nuclear deterrent, since their moral position does not allow them to nuke cities, which is where ALL of NationB's forces and nukes reside. Our units and cities are safe from NationA aggression due to the liberal use of human shields. We expect little to no offensive action from NationA, as our precautions have precluded such a possibility. Once we occupy their capital, we win.