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

BackgroundMany people are of the opinion that there is such a thing as a "just war" or a war where a nation's moral fibre remains intact. What this debate is meant to demonstrate is either:1) The cost of moral fibre2) That if we were to ever fight an enemy whose tactical and strategic position was equal to ours, the first casualty of war will be morality. This debate is impossible to accept. If you would like to argue CON, please PM me or leave a comment. If you wish to leave an opinion about which position you found to be more convincing (i. e. an RFD), offer constructive criticism, and/or simply discuss the matter, there is a forum topic set up for this specific purpose here:. http://www.debate.org...ResolutionAll Else Being the Same, a Moral Position in War is UntenableDefinitions"All Else Being the Same" - for the purposes of this debate, both PRO/CON will operate under a hypothetical international environment where there are exactly two political actors with the exact same circumstances save morality: a) Both "nations" will consist of a 4x4 square grid with one city of the exact same size and population in the center of each grid box. Each grid box has a length of 500 miles. One nation lies on the west (NationA), and the other in the east (NationB). Both nations share a 2,000 mile border along the entirety of one side of their grid - NationA's border lies on the eastern side of its grid, and NationB's border lies on the western side of its grid. No nation can exit its borders except through their shared border (i. e. only the 32 boxes of this grid constitute valid territory)b) Both "nations" will be able to operate and support a civilian population and a military force exactly equivalent to current US numbers and capability as defined by wikipedia:. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...Population: 320 million (so, 20 million civilians per city)Fit for military service (male and female): 120 millionCivilians will be defined as non-military personnel that have not been drafted. Nukes are in play. As there are no significant bodies of water, there are no navies. c) For the purposes of this debate, both nations have perfect ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) and are able to locate every military unit and every civilian at all times for both sides. Therefore, neither side can say "I didn't know! " if civilians die. d) The victory condition constitutes being the first nation to capture the enemy capital city - conditions for capture will entail occupying the capital with at least one military unit (one soldier would suffice) while the enemy has either surrendered or has been annihilated, annihilation consisting of the total lack of friendly military units in the city. Occupation is defined as enemy military units existing within the city borders. NationA's capital is located in the southwesternmost grid of its territory, and NationB's capital is located in the northeasternmost grid of its territory. The victor can dictate any terms to the loser. "Moral Position" - NationA has openly declared and will adopt the following moral position - i) NationA will not under any circumstance kill any civilian on either side. ii) NationA will not allow for any civilian to be killed as long as #i is not violated (i. e. , NationA cannot kill any civilian even if by doing so it saves NationA citizens' lives)"War" - both sides are in a state of warfare, i. e. armed conflict. Only a victory by either side will cease this war. "Untenable" - not capable of being defended against attack or criticismRules - Both PRO/CON must adhere to the above definitions. - NationA CANNOT break its moral code under any circumstance. - In order for CON to win, CON must prove that NationA can win this war. - In order for PRO to win, PRO must prove that NationA cannot win this war. - Burden of proof is thus shared, although I acknowledge that PRO has prima facie higher burden. - "Acts of God" (i. e. serendipitous happenstance) are not allowed. .. only the movements and actions of troops and civilians will determine the outcome of this war. - This debate is a "no scoring" debate with the exception of conduct - forfeits, flaming, seriously sidetracking the debate, plagiarism, and cheating the character limit are some examples . Again, if you wish to leave an opinion about which position you found to be more convincing (i. e. an RFD), offer constructive criticism, and/or simply discuss the matter, there is a forum topic set up for this specific purpose here:. http://www.debate.org...5