A Just Society Sould Never Deliberately Initiate War

I will launch right into the debate. The order is AC, NC, as that seems to be the way we're structuring the debate. PRO/AC: Definitions: Extend my definition of deliberate. As for the definition of a JS, we have at least agreed that it is (1) not totalitarian, and (2) respecting of people's human rights. Con cites Switzerland as an example of a nation that is non-interventionist while still being just. But my last sentence was not saying that a nation had to be interventionist, merely I was arguing that it should not bear any biased or malice against other states or other peoples. Simply because a nation empathizes with others does not mean that it will act on its empathy. Thus, you can keep this last point. Obs. 1 - Con tries to use the North Korea example to disprove that war is necessarily widespread. Yet, Con is forgetting that the Korean war was initially widespread, and it is no longer a "war," whatever technicalities one might cite. It's a state of peace, that is ripe with tension that occasionally boils over into sporadic violence. That isn't war as it is understood in the round. A good counter example might be Rwanda and the Congo. Rwandan troops recently crossed into Congolese lands to pursue rebel groups. The incursion was temporary, and, while extremely annoyed at the Rwandans, the Congolese do not consider themselves at war with Rwanda. A few shots fired does not add up to war until a significant group of troops has been mustered and deployed. Obs. 2 - Con says my definition is informal, yet it comes from Black's Law--a very formal dictionary. This dictionary DENOTES its meaning as "very rare." Moreover, my examples stand--Con never stated why, in those examples, never did not mean what I claimed it to mean. Extend the examples. In doing so, you must also extend my definition. Sub-point A: Con argues that MAD will prevent total war; yet, this only works when both countries have WMDs. We don't go to war with Russia because of MAD, but yet, we can go to war in Iraq or Afghanistan, despite Russian objections, because those targets lack nukes. Also keep in mind that not all WMDs deter. Biological and Chemical weapons, which Saddam did have, didn't deter us from going into Iraq. And, the success you give regarding South Africa and so on, are instances of effective diplomacy, which is an alternative to war. Finally, clearly sanctions do not always deter WMD use--look at the Assad regime in Syria. Thus, it is vital to take a more pacifistic approach to avoid the arms race to begin with. Sub-point B: My concern here is that initiations of war spur cycles of violence. Schuman argued that initiating war results in a push back that just creates cyclical violence. For example, the U.S. campaigns in Afghanistan boosted terrorist recruitment leading to increased terrorism. The U.S. countered with its war on terror, and now the militants are pushing back, as can be evidence by Al-Shabab's actions in Kenya. Another good example would be WWI leading to WWII leading to the cold war, and so on. Sub-point C: Con never contests the fact that intelligence is usually poor. Extend this argument. All Con does argue is that "usually fails" does not translate to "very rarely succeeds." Even if it doesn't, "usually fails" gets me part of the way there. Sub-point D: Con basically concedes my point when he agrees that our actions "annoy" other nations. Insofar as we build animosity with important global partners, we make it harder to achieve our diplomatic and economic agenda. Therefore, even if a lack of communication does not always lead to violence, it has other detrimental impacts to us. Con also makes this argument about humanitarian interventions, but gives no example to warrant his claim. A counterexample would be Libya, where we "annoyed" the Russians to no end in our humanitarian endeavors. Sub-point E: I admit that this point is a permutation of Con. But, that doesn't mean this argument is not important. These alternative, in my world, are the only options that should be used. My argument here was meant to show that these alternatives are effective enough that we don't actually need to keep war in our back pocket to use. Con never disputes the efficacy of any of these alternatives--extend my arguments. CON/NC OV: I concede my overview, though, even without it, I can still take out the NC. Obs. 1 - I already addressed this Obs. 1 and 2 - We basically agree here P1: It is not prudent to use options that almost always backfire and fail. That's like saying, if my keys and my knife can't open my car door, I'll have to try and use some cesium to blow it off. Sure, the cesium might blow the door off your car so you could get in. But then again, the cesium might also kill you. It's not prudent to keep options like that in anyone's tool kit, even as a last resort. P2: Con still has not given me the link to the Canterbury evidence, so I cannot evaluate its validity. As for the Western and Goldstein, Con concedes that it's old, but he tries to downplay some of my criticism by adding that old does not mean bad. Sure, old does not mean bad. But W&G are drawing their conclusions from examples, and when those examples no longer apply (tech has improved, geopolitics has changed, etc.) then the evidence should be thrown out. P3: Homeland and military security are not the same thing. Homeland is more so border security, not an internal military build up, like in North Korea. So, I can promote one, while lessening the other without any inherent contradiction. As for leaving a nation vulnerable, the resolution only prevents JS from INIATING WAR. If attacked, they can still engage in self-defense. Moreover, you dropped Alexandra's argument that states that have established cultures of peaceful resistance are likely to deter violent invasions, because invaders don't want to contend with the hindrances and inconveniences of a disobedient populace. Look at Gandhi's movement in India, for instance. P4: Oftentimes you don't always have a choice--sometimes a call has to be made because you cannot afford to try to exhaust all alternative first. If you have finite resources and can only afford to do one: (1) war or (2) diplomacy, then you are making a tradeoff. And, with the massive costs of war, the most pragmatic route is to choose the alternative. P5: I already discussed this point in my observational analysis. I look forward to hearing/reading my opponent's responses. Thanks!