But the comment suggests that some of the vectors of attack were essentially impossible. One could dream up several possible ways to attack a superior force but that doesn't mean they would all actually work.
Well, if we're allowed to use methods that are essentially impossible; then in my fabricated arsenal for our simulation I have a weapon that destroys all resources of the opposing force and places all their personnel in a location of my choosing with the push of a big, red button.
After all, who cares if our simulation attempts to simulate realistic conditions?
Regardless of who controlled the simulation, if it aims to simulate reality then you simply cannot use unrealistic tactics as that destroys the purpose of the simulation. The blame belongs to the person who was in control of the simulation and didn't enforce basic rules established by reality. If we're not enforcing reality in this type of simulation then the outcome of said simulation is pointless and indicates nothing about military readiness nor doctrine.
Use of nuclear weapons would not be considered cheating in this case simply because they exist. The discussion about nuclear weapons was whether they would prove to be a deterrence or not, not whether they could be used.
And since you left out the second part of my fabricated weapon spec, I have to point out I wasn't speaking of nuclear weapons as they don't magically relocate the enemy personnel to a location of my choosing. But you knew that right?
