A Just society would never deliberately initiate war

This is quite ridiculous to decide in the refutation of my point that 'it must happen in history'. The proposition is 'A just society would never initiate war'. That statement has no bearing on history, it doesn't attempt even a historical context. If the proposition was ' A just society HAS never initiated a war, then the setting would be historical. That is not the proposition though. The proposition completely complies with hypothetical which are not contradictory with reality. When I say reality I mean a hypothesis that does not say 'no one died because magic formulas were invented'. No it gives a plausible hypothesis with events taken from a historical perspective. I even made it clear that I could defend the Iraq war but since this was not a historical debate, I didn't need to do that and opted for an easier and far more agreeable hypothesis. No I do not accept that rules are made up halfway through a debate and for that reason my point stands firm and is not refuted by this objection. Now pro's first points were regarding environmental disasters. I agree war causes environmental disasters but in light on my hypothesis, a nuclear attack which can wipe out 75% of the human population would cause far more irreversible damage to almost the entire planet, killing humans,plants and animals on a whole scale. Leaving entire continents void and uninhabitable. Now in my situation there is no option for peace. Peace will lead to wholesale destruction. With limited options trust upon our just state, the action of least suffering and promise of hope for the survival of innocent people is a pre-emptive war. Assertion 5 simply highlights this again, and like I stated above with limited choices war is the most humane. I agree with assertion 1, war kills innocent people. For our just state this would not be an action they would ever attempt. The whole scale killing of people. In my hypothetical I stated pre-emptive war would lower the suffering. My hypothetical leaves two options, allow the 'Evil' nation to massacre and destroy the earth or engage in war and end the suffering and at least attempt to preserve secular ideologies of peace and freedom. The second option is so necessary that I would argue it merely highlights the importance of freedom and safety that the just state wants to preserve, even extending it to the many innocent people of our 'evil' nation which it wants to liberate and help. For pros third point regarding poverty. Whole scale poverty of a nation under rule of a government willing to massacre and enslave its population is far worse than temporary war. If this nation is allowed to continue poverty of a whole scale will continue. Economic issues are not morally justified approaches to whether wars should be started. This pre-emptive war will allow the infrastructure of our 'evil nation' is grow, with no burden or fear of government style robbery and extortion of profit to fund military items. Pro's last point was 'genocide is like a declaration of war'. Well being 'like' something is not actually being something. You can't officially declare a war against a people like countries can, these are two separate things. I think I have detailed my refutations to reflect on my hypothesis and all options including the objections against war that con has made do not make a strong case against war in this particular circumstance.