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

Apparently, to CON, MAD and nuclear warfare does not provide enough justification for mobilization to warActually, nuclear weapons and MAD have historically been used to deter war. For instance, why did the US and USSR never declare war during the Cold War?CON thinks that NationB's populace does not care for its own livesActually I think they do. Which is why I see no reason to believe why they would consent to human shields, martial law, or kamikaze raids with nuclear armed transports.Threat of losing a nuclear war is more than enough justification for NationB to enact martial lawTwo problems here:1) CON has never threatened to initiate a nuclear war; only to retaliate against it. 2) Nation B can no longer guarantee the survival of its people in a nuclear exchange due to the possibility of MAD, which was made possible by Nation Z's nuclear umbrella, and CON's threat to resort to MAD anyway.CON does not contest that NationA is still capable of genocide even with their moral position. Actually I implied that I did. Which is why I said PRO's adopted moral argument was a "fake" one.CON's statement is contradictory...a "fake moral clause" is not a moral clause.Which is why Nation B doesn't have one.why would NationB care about a reduction in NationA civilian casualties?They don't. Nation A does. Chances of civilian deaths are statistically lower if most or all of the population is enlisted in the military.CON clarifies what NationZ would look like...it's a carbon copy of NationB. Hardly. Nation Z was founded by using democratic methods, the consent of Congress, and the actual moral & security reasoning that it was absolutely necessary in order to defend the country of Nation A and save the lives of its citizens (hence a collective security agreement). In contrast, Nation B's govt has ruled through decree, suspended the constitution, freed criminals, and has forced ordinary people into human shields in order to fight an offensive war.NationZ also apparently has ALL of NationA's nuclear arsenalI actually only gave them 50% (see R2). Enough for a MAD deterrent. What matters is that we are legally justified in enacting martial law.No because Nation B lacks the political capital to back it up.Clausewitz was clear that war can be separated from morality/political influenceYet he considered that a "logical fantasy" because those who fight will always have political motivations http://en.wikipedia.org...this scenario is also not realistic, and so such assertions citing lack of realism have no relevance to this debate.Actually it does. If absolute war is not possible in real life, and still not provable even in a fantasy scenario, what does that say then about our theory of war that says it must be fought without moral restraint?allowing for NationA to commit genocidal atrocitiesThis makes no sense at all. And is why I said only "lies and force" against his population could save PRO now.Here's the UN definition of Genocide: http://www.un.org..."any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethical, racial orreligious, group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."Whereas none of the legislative laws & military tactics of Nation A were ever forced - everything was voted on by emergency sessions of Congress. At no point in this scenario, did CON ever threaten "to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethical, racial or religious, group." In fact, the debate rules forbade me from even the possibility of doing so. Every action done by CON was an attempt to save civilian lives. The only questionable tactics CON ever presented was an all-out draft and the possibility of temporary detaining civilians in the event they could not flee the country. This was an attempt to save civilians by changing their legal definitions into something else. The legality of temporary detention can be found in FDR's internment of Japanese citizens.In contrast, PRO has ruled through decree and martial law, threaten the people of Nation A with nuclear annihilation, and forced his civilian population into human shields. CON for his part, formally offered a cease-fire. Thus, if anyone is to be convicted of genocide and instigating violence, its the tyrannical government of Nation B.Nation B has never proved the will to fight or that it could sustain its policies in a democratic country. PRO has no nuclear option due to MAD; made possible by Nation Z and CON's reserved ability to "break the rules" in order to prove that Nation B could not win this war militarily. I believe Nation A has won this conflict.