A Just society would never deliberately initiate war

As this is my opening statement, I am not going to address my opponents points, as we have agreed to this earlier. Firstly I will simply clarify the proposition and a few definitions so hopefully we will not lock into a semantics style debate in which no ground can be made. A just society would never deliberately initiate war. My first point is that a just society must be clarified to an acceptable level if we shall progress the argument either way. Now in this debate there must be a moral statement to which this society can either meet or fail to meet. Now if the just society is by its own merits independently just, then we have a standard of ethical living which a society should emulate. This society should follow accordingly to independent moral codes or actions which can be deemed 'good' or 'just and fair'. I would reject and I feel my opponent would agree if the 'just' state began committing actions of terrible and horrible levels of suffering, the definition of 'just' or moral 'good' would not be redefined to suit the new actions of the 'just' state, instead the state would be unjust/tyrannical/attempting to inflict maximum pain on its people. What I am trying to layout is an objective standard by which the just society lives by. The plausible argument. My opponent realises that this debate is not a debate on historicity of war and if there has been a just war. No this argument is 'if' a just society can ever initiate a war. So plausible hypothesis is accepted are just as valid as if I defended for example the war in Iraq as being a case of a just society initiating a war. It logically follows that the war in itself must be 'just' in its aims or the just state would fail to meet its standard of good, which I have outlined. My argument is from a viewpoint of naturalism. Meaning I do not believe in the just war theories of religion, or God inspired wars, these to me are not convincing examples of a just war initiated by a just state. The deliberate imitating of war by our just state, must in my mind be an act of total willingness and sacrifice to defend and protect innocent lives. There must be accurate and convincing evidence for the war to be initiated. I do not accept that if a single innocent life is lost the war becomes void of being 'just' or the state loses its title of 'just'. We are dealing with physical events among apes, the concept of just must for any sake of argument be achievable and not a concept of perfection which is lost, even if the actions were done in the spirit of aid and helping the oppressed. This would be a concept which is unworkable, and since the concept is a working one in the proposition I believe my statement is fair and works exactly within the parameters of our discussion. Sketching a plausible situation for initiating a just war. If we consider the earth in present form, with our 'just' state located in the northern hemisphere. This just state is dedicated to equality, freedom of speech and expression and freedom of thought. It emulates the works of men and women who strived to provide equality among its inhabitants. It is the epitome of a secular state. It is not alone, there are plenty of these states. Now our state as we both agree is 'just'. It is just for the reasons I related in my first paragraph. Let us assume the evil state, is a recession hit theocracy. A theocracy based on an ideology preaching open hatred and violence towards certain specific minorities. This state cannot start a war with our just state unless it directly attacks our state. This state is run by an unelected party. This state contains 20 million people. For our argument the ideology of our state is ' X ' In our evil state we have: 7 million Jews. 3 million black people. 1.5 million handicapped and mentally disabled. 6 million followers of X. 2.5 million other. 6 weeks after negotiations break down, the militarily backed government reveals two aims. 1. Massacre of all handicapped/Jewish and black people, it claims that the purity of all of the adherents of X must be kept. It details its plans but keeps them a secret from the entire world. 2. It then claims that once the purity of X is achieved then all must be preserved for future generations, with that it attempts to build nuclear weapons, for the express purpose of use and not strategic placement. Our just state is aware of two factors . - A man-made famine has been introduced for purely ideological reasons in slums across our evil state. -All democratic/peacekeeping and charity work is strictly forbidden and crossing over or transporting or attempting to smuggle out any citizens is strictly forbidden by the government. Four months after news leaks of the apparent plans by our Evil state. Our just state in co-operation with numerous other states, begins infiltration missions to secure Intel on our evil state. It wants to be completely clear on what is being claimed and if these claims are true. After 3 weeks of Intel and information gathering, our just state along with neighbouring states produces clear evidence of these facts. .Concentration camps, including labour camps and murder yards have been constructed. .Files and documents detailing the governments involvement and with the help of the military the execution of at least 11.5 million people. Deliberate attempts to massacre innocent people. .Two nuclear facilities with over 6 nuclear and biological weapons which have the ability to wipe out over 75% of the earth's current population. Evidence of biological weapons being used on small towns and slums is recorded. .Small death squads/skirmish troops and artillery have been bombing a diplomatic city with no relation to our 'just' state. This is not an official war as the diplomatic city has not announced or asked for help. So our 'just' state is a predicament. It could either refuse to initiate the war at all costs, and state that it would not be morally justified to remove this dictatorship and try prevent the massacre of men, women and children. This would lead to the death of 11.5 million people in the space of 2 months. Followed by nuclear bombings of neighbouring countries surrounding the country, and to some extent itself, as the ideology believes itself to be a win-win situation. Our 'just' state could instead, initiate the war meaning in the loss of many men and women on the frontline but in doing so, it would fight for the liberation and self determination of a small country terrorised by genocidial maniacs. Not to mention preserving the safety of the entire human population. In my hypothesis the most reasoned and morally justified action would be intervention and removal of this state, preserving the states right to exist, claim to natural resources and most importantly protecting the lives of innocent people.