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

Final Rebuttal1) Throughout this debate, CON has repeatedly argued from an exceptionally inane and obviously false stance, that to CON, nuclear war does not constitute extenuating circumstances. I quote him several times below:"Only a... extreme national crisis can [suspend the Constitution]. Thus far PRO hasn't proved he has either.""PRO has never proved that he had the political capital to get away with martial law....Nation B has never provided a convincing justification to its people that can sustain its wartime policies.""I don't believe PRO has ever proved that his country has the will to fight.""All along Nation B had never proved (and still hasn't proved) it had the will to fight this war in the first place."Apparently, to CON, MAD and nuclear warfare does not provide enough justification for mobilization to war; CON thinks that NationB's populace does not care for its own lives. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to even entertain such a notion. Threat of losing a nuclear war is more than enough justification for NationB to enact martial law and to organize our polity to defend against this threat. Furthermore, CON does not contest that NationA is still capable of genocide even with their moral position. It's imperative for NationB's survival to win this war and thereby prevent NationA from committing such acts.2) CON asserts that "Mass conscription does in fact reduce the risk of civilian casualties," but why would NationB care about a reduction in NationA civilian casualties? We do not possess NationA's moral straitjacket position...we only care about ending this war with as few NationB casualties as possible.3) CON: "Actually we do [possess a MAD capability] - its called Nation Z."Here CON clarifies what NationZ would look like...it's a carbon copy of NationB. I call BS on NationA's supposed "ally" NationZ, because this "ally" possesses the same value system of NationB, not NationA - NationZ has completely renounced NationA's moral position. I thereby deem NationZ a splinter faction in NationA's failed political structure, a rebellious faction that has completely rejected NationA's politics and has embraced NationB's culture and way of life, one that does not adhere to NationA's moral straitjacket. Furthermore, NationZ also apparently has ALL of NationA's nuclear arsenal, implying that any and all means of self-defense also were "transferred" to NationZ, thereby leaving NationA completely defenseless. This makes sense, after all, what need would a society that shuns killing have with an organization (the military) that trains to kill?With our new, amoral ally, NationZ, we call upon NationA's surrender. If they don't, we will occupy their defenseless capital and win this war, regardless of their dissent. 4) PRO: "We are thus fully legally and morally justified in enacting martial law."CON: "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."OK, I will recant the underlined, that was an overzealous rebuttal to a statement that CON made that apparently was designed to entrap PRO, and it worked. What matters is that we are legally justified in enacting martial law. 5) CON: "Here PRO adopts a fake moral clause as a military strategy, proving that morality offers a real military advantage."CON's statement is contradictory...a "fake moral clause" is not a moral clause.6) CON: "All else being the same, War without morality (or political interference) is impossible. ""Absolute war is impossible."With respect to CON's above allusions to Clausewitz, he was clear that war can be separated from morality/political influence, and each can be analyzed separately. While Clausewitz did not deem it realistic to do so, this scenario is also not realistic, and so such assertions citing lack of realism have no relevance to this debate. Concluding RemarksI thank Jingle_Bombs for engaging in this challenging debate, good game. Regardless of what you, the reader, think of the outcome of this debate, I want to note some observations:1) The specific moral position outlined in this debate essentially robbed NationA's ability to prosecute a war, while also allowing for NationA to commit genocidal atrocities, making NationA a threat regardless of their inability to wage war. CON had to think up some very creative scenarios (subversion, justification, and "NationZ") to try to mitigate the effects of this morality's debilitating effects upon the act of warfare, whereas NationB stuck with a rather straightforward nuclear strategy throughout this exercise.2) I agree with CON that the lack of knowledge of exactly what caused this war makes the scenario hard to parse in regards to motivation for both sides.3) REMINDER: This is a no scoring debate, and please post comments to this forum: http://www.debate.org...Thank you for reading this debate. =)