[nemo44x]

> It's not always -- usually? almost never? -- a matter of one side eliminating or crushing the other to the point of abject subjugation.

If you decide they're going to live then yes. You need to show them that if they can't or won't unconditionally surrender and change their ways then they will in fact be abjectly subjugated and their lives will be miserable. Eventually enough of them will agree that it's not worth it. That was more or less the the USA approach with Japan in WW2. The thought being that they will fight to the death if they feel there's any sliver of hope. So nukes were dropped which showed there was not and that it wasn't worth fighting anymore.

The other option is to just slaughter them. This has been used more frequently throughout history.

[saalweachter]

While the Potsdam Declaration called upon Japan to surrender unconditionally, it did, in fact, lay out the conditions for the surrender, including that the armed forces of Japan would be permitted to disarm and return home, they would retain sovereignty of their four principal islands, and that the Japanese people would not be enslaved or destroyed as a nation.

After the atomic bombings -- and the Soviet advance -- Japan accepted these conditions, unconditionally, instead of holding out for better terms, like retaining conquered territory.

(Edit: Now, if you want unconditional surrender, the German Instrument of Surrender, now there's an unconditional surrender.)