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

Allow me now to offer my take on PRO's bold letter points as I now attempt to prove why I believe Nation A has won this war.First, the small stuff:I agree to all except for #3Mass conscription does in fact reduce the risk of civilian casualties. It also offers a bold counter -when combined with the Liberation Act- to work around human-shields. Mass conscription exploits the fact that "civilian" is a legal and not a moral term.NationA does NOT have a viable MAD strategy Actually we do - its called Nation Z. And though Nation Z might appear as completely fabricated with no real-world meaning, one may find an actual real-life example in the Japanese Self-Defense Forces. Japan (like Nation A) fights with a moral rule set in that it is constitutionally forbidden from ever again possesing a large military. This moral position however, is made possible by a USA (Nation Z) nuclear umbrella. The Constitution has been suspended All the more reason why Nation B's policies are unsustainable in a country where sovereignty rests with the people. Pro may forcibly shut down his democratic system, but he can never erase that foundation; Only a popular revolution or extreme national crisis can do that. Thus far PRO hasn't proved he has either. Martial law ... destroys every guarantee of the ConstitutionBut is only sustainable by proving extreme exisitianal threats to the consent (or compliance) of the govern. Which was my point of citing the Posse Comitatus - which stipulated only through an act of congress can military force usually be used for police action. In contrast, PRO has attempted to declare martial law through decree alone, and all without a convincing mandate that would realistically persuade the country to follow his lead. Very revealingly, this war/scenario had lacked a starting rationale.the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails.An opinion. But If you belong to the Von Kreig school of warfare, we can believe war is the extension of politics by other means.it (military) is allowed to govern by martial rule I agree. PRO's laws do not prevent him from declaring martial law. The problem here is that PRO has never proved that he had the political capital to get away with martial law. As I have attempted to argue since my closing remarks in R3, Nation B has never provided a convincing justification to its people that can sustain its wartime policies. This is where a moral argument becomes a decisive advantage. We are at war, to be precise nuclear war.Nuclear warfare has never occurred in our history. Nobody knows for sure what will happen - it's all still theory. However, though I believe PRO is right to presume that there is no "judicial review process" involved in the instantaneous decision to use nuclear weapons, he is wrong to believe that there is no arbitration. The fame two-man rule on the use of nuclear weapons proves me to be correct -http://en.wikipedia.org...-. where my biggest gripe with Nation B's military strategy is that I don't believe PRO has ever proved that his country has the will to fight. PRO must prove to us why a rational sentient would turn the nuclear keys for him. We are thus fully legally and morally justified in enacting martial law.It is entirely revealing to the meaning of the resolution (morality is untenable) that PRO has had to morally justify his actions in order to wage this war.NationB aims to exploit the central weakness in NationA's national security, that being its moral position, Here PRO adopts a fake moral clause as a military strategy, proving that morality offers a real military advantage.our generously compensated civilians,.. in what have named "Operation: Angels in our Midst."^^And there it is in bold lettering! ;)All else being the same, War without morality (or political interference) is impossible. Absolute war is impossible.All else being the same, the first thing we must adopt is morality (or a clause) to hardened our resolve.All along Nation B had never proved (and still hasn't proved) it had the will to fight this war in the first place. Morally inclined or not, why would someone willingly strap a nuclear bomb to their backs or consent to be a human shield? At least muslim jihadists justify this through religious fervor, Nation B has nothing. This war began without any rationale whatsoever, yet Nation A was able to invent a political calculus due to the threat of nuclear oblivion and the aggressive stance PRO took towards invading our country. In contrast, we have bankrupted Nation B's will to fight by using political coercion (formal cease-fire, Liberation Acts) and have taken advantage of Nation B policies that are not sustainable in democratic countries or rationally inclined beings. The only means left for PRO to wage this war is to fabricate lies or use force against his population- which will not be sustainable in the long run. Morality has made war difficult for me, but for PRO, the lack of has made it impossible.