A Just society would never deliberately initiate war

I will first give my remaining assertions then I will refute:Assertion 5: - Nuclear warfareThere are several bad effects of nuclear warfare. Nuclear warfare is something that a normal war can escalate to. Nuclear war is very dangerous and has very destructive consequences. A recent scientific study entitled “The environmental consequences of nuclear war” by Owen Toon, Alan Robock, and Richard Turco has “found out that a war fought with the deployed U. S. and Russian nuclear arsenals would leave Earth virtually uninhabitable. In fact, NASA computer models have shown that even a "successful" first strike by Washington or Moscow would inflict catastrophic environmental damage that would make agriculture impossible and cause mass starvation. Similarly, in the January Scientific American, Alan Robock and Brian Toon, the foremost experts on the climatic impact of nuclear war, warn that the environmental consequences of a "regional" nuclear war would cause a global famine that could kill one billion people. Their article, "Local Nuclear War: Global Suffering," predicts that the detonation of 100 15-kiloton nuclear weapons in Indian and Pakistani megacities would create urban firestorms that would loft 5 million tons of thick, black smoke above cloud level. (This smoke would engulf the entire planet within 10 days. ) Because the smoke couldn't be rained out, it would remain in the stratosphere for at least a decade and have profoundly disruptive effects. Specifically, the smoke layer would block sunlight, heat the upper atmosphere, and cause massive destruction of protective stratospheric ozone. A 2008 study calculated ozone losses (after the described conflict) of 25-45 percent above mid-latitudes and 50-70 percent above northern high latitudes persisting for five years, with substantial losses continuing for another five years. Such severe ozone depletion would allow intense levels of harmful ultraviolet light to reach Earth's surface--even with the stratospheric smoke layer in place. ” My evidence is an article on www. thebulliten. org titled “The Climatic Consequences of Nuclear warfare. ” A JUST society would never do this to humanity and the earth. Assertion 6- War is Pointless There is only one reason for initiating war and that is for one’s gain. Sure, societies can engage war for self-defense but initiating war causes much destruction. “… there is absolutely no point to war itself. War only exists because of the devastation it could effect, and the expectation of economic loss such a threat entails provided you are attacked. Armies exist solely for strategic reasons, in order to raise the cost of starting a war; as a strategic entry deterrent to the market of military action. Tactics never enter the picture: while the goal may be humane and sheer tactical reasoning might suggest something should be spared in the time of war, the overall picture is still perfectly merciless. Were war to come, it should come in all its brutality, and that brutality should be known to everybody well in advance…When we talk about national defense people usually assume that we’re aiming at being prepared to keep an enemy away, win the war and go about our businessafterwards. But this is not the real implication. In this game, we only win if we don’t end up playing at all. We only win if nobody actually attacks. The game is won solely by raising the credible anticipated cost of an attack. In this, casualties, rules of war, international conventions, collateral damage, what have you, are all completely irrelevantz90;” . http://decoy.iki.fi...Refutation:My refutation to my opponent's story is that (a) it has to have happened in history or else con could just make us assume that society A is just and make society X do inhumane things that are beyond evil and (b) genocide is like a declaration of war against a particular group(s). I have proven my point in a simple and efficient manner. Vote Pro! I look forward to the opposition's response.