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

NationA has not done a thing to prepare for this war, even though we are already in a state of war. In fact, given perfect ISR, that NationA has not announced the presence of a single soldier would imply that he has disbanded his military. This is probably an oversight due to lack of clarity in the rules, I should have added a stipulation that anything not declared is removed from the scenario.MovesGiven that NationA has not announced any military presence, we will operate under the assumption that there is no military presence in the capital and immediately send a transport that will airdrop an occupational force.If it becomes clear that NationA has indeed garrisoned his capital, we will withdraw the transport and follow through on our nuclear threat. We will take out any known orbital missile defense platforms with anti-satellite weapons and flood any ground-based systems in play with enough missiles to ensure nuclear-capable ICBMs make it through. Missile defense is still unproven technology and is mainly a deterrent against rogue states, not Armageddon arsenals like what we will unleash, so I don't foresee any scenario where NationA can prevent us from nuking their capital. We will use enough nukes to annihilate it. We will then coordinate other transports to airdrop the radiation-shielded occupational forces into the capital. This will run concomitant to air sorties of bomber and fighter runs to destroy any remaining forces in the capital (locating them is not a problem, we have perfect ISR) as well as shoot down any possible incoming air support. These bombers and fighters will be immune from enemy retaliation, as they will all have civilians inside the planes. If NationA holes up in deep bunkers, we have bombs that can disconnect these bunkers from the city if not outright destroy them. Once we occupy the capital with at least one APC and enemy forces in the capital are annihilated, we win the scenario. We expect zero casualties.We will primarily rely upon the air force, because unlike ground troops, if NationA tries to cripple aircraft instead of destroying them, those aircraft will crash, making NationA culpable for civilian deaths, thus breaking their moral code and thus leading to CON forfeiting this game. Regardless, we will begin a ground campaign that will create a path to NationA's capital. Due to NationA's moral position and the high probability that any defensive action on NationA's part will risk killing NationB civilians, we expect little to no resistance.---If NationA surrenders, we will call off the nuclear strike. We will have won this war without sustaining any casualties, and will have won it without spilling any blood.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.Why NationB Must Prosecute This WarThere is a question as to whether or not this war should even continue. While victory and defeat are the most straightforward outcomes, a possible scenario is an immediate cease-fire reverting to pre-war conditions. This is not feasible for at least three reasons:1) Both nations are already at war, and given what we know from Round #1, both nations have no qualms about killing each others' soldiers and occupying each others' cities. Both nations are thus bona-fide threats to each other. 2) This war has a debilitating effect on the economy, as mobilization, city defense, and drafts are very expensive. It would be far better to preclude the possibility of war in the future than to return to the pre-war status quo that allowed for this war to come into being. 3) The victor can dictate any terms to the loser, so it becomes imperative that each nation prevent defeat in the face of an existential, nuclear-armed threat. It also heavily incentivizes both nations to win this war as opposed to a return to a pre-war status-quo. NationB's victory conditions will preclude the possibility that NationA can ever rise again in armed conflict against NationB, something that NationB cannot guarantee if we revert to the pre-war status-quo.This reasoning is valid regardless of who started the war.ConclusionI should have clarified in the first round the importance of the initial deployment...as it is, NationA is wholly unprepared for this conflict. We expect an easy victory and have taken precautions to ensure such an outcome.This war is not in our interests to pursue indefinitely...it must end, and it is in our interests to prevent another war. The best way to do this is to win the war and dictate terms to NationA. The worst way to do this is to capitulate. Any pre-war status quo cease-fire opens up the possibility of a future war just as debilitating as this one where we are given the same choice to make...best to make that choice now by winning the war.