The destruction of Alderaan was justified

In his first contention, my opponent argues on the basis on Kant's Kingdom of Ends. My opponent contrasts this utopian idea of a kingdom where everyone is in harmony, because people are the end, with the Empire, where people are the means. He argues the Empire's destruction of Alderaan was wrong because it was part of an interrogation tactic. To quote him:"Here during the attack and destruction of Alderaan, the discussion and interrogation was over the location of the rebels. In which not only was the planet destroyed, but billions of innocent people were slaughtered who had done nothing to become involved in the Galactic War. What is the message the Galactic Empire has sent out after this destruction? That of murdering people of an innocent planet to interrogate one person. Keep in mind that after the Empire discovered the rebel base on Hoth that the invasion may have only dislodged the Rebels, but had not crushed the rebellion. "This is a flawed argument on two levels. The first, of course, is that such a Kingdom is impossible. Governments exist to facilitate the needs of their citizenry - not all citizens can be satisfied all the time, however. This is why, regardless of if government is a democracy or an Empire, decisions will not please everyone. The people of Alderaan, in this case, were not a means. Their fate was already decided before Princess Leia was brought to Grand Moff Tarkin's room. She was, after all, interrogated by the Empire prior to the destruction, and revealed nothing. Tarkin only implied that Alderaan would not be destroyed if she revealed the location - moreover, Leia revealed a false location. Alderaan was not destroyed as a negotiation tactic - it was destroyed because it was a haven for rebels, was possibly the place the stolen plans for the Death Star would be delivered to - plans that could cause the Death Star, the tool for galactic peace, to be destroyed. Alderaan facilitated its destruction by providing material aid to the rebels. The fact Alderaan wasn't destroyed as a negotiation tactic makes the second half of his argument moot. In his second contention, my opponent argues on the Veil of Ignorance. He says "since your enemy gets to select your place in society which means that the place your enemy would select is on Alderaan when the Death Star destroyed the planet. We can also see that this is a completely violation of the Equality Principle as it shows that there is no equality of the people in this situation. With everything kept in mind the opportunities and liberty for all is shifted all across the board where the people of Alderaan are slaughtered senselessly and have none". I disagree. While the death of the Alderaanians was unfortunate, it was not senseless. It was a broad-picture, greater-good decision, like nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Did people die? Yes. Did it end the war? Yes. He also says "It is more likely than not that if Princess Leia even stated the true whereabouts of the Rebel army then the planet would still be destroyed. This is also an obvious violation of the Difference Principle as it does not benefit the people on Alderaan which are the least advantage in this situation. Thus making this situation both unjustifiable and unethical". I disagree. Alderaan would have been destroyed regardless of if she revealed the location of the rebel base, because the Empire had no idea if the plans were at the base or on Alderaan. Alderaan's destruction was a direct result of its leadership's decision to harbor terrorists; if they didn't steal the plans, it would still exist. Keep in mind that the Death Star was not supposed to operate willy-nilly - the goal was peace through strength, not through action. The Empire's hand was forced by Alderaan's decision. My opponent's third argument is the Ethic of Care. He argues that "we must care for our future generations and care for the world, galaxy in the case of Star Wars, for our future generations". This argument actually supports my case. Why? Well, as I established earlier, the Empire was substantially better than the Republic, and the destruction of the Death Star posed the risk of launching a galactic civil war that would kill many more people than on Alderaan. To give an example, in Star Wars: The Force Awakens, we learn a new group has arisen to replace the Empire: the First Order. This powerful group is a substantially worse than the Empire - it kidnaps people from birth to become soldiers, slaughters innocent civilians for no reason, and creates a superweapon not with the intention to end war, but instead to start it and destroy the entire New Republic. If the Empire were still around, there would be no First Order. The Republic the Rebels wanted to create? Thoroughly ineffective. Their entire navy was based on one planet and destroyed instantly. Oops. The Death Star actually helps cause the Ethic of Care - by aiming to end war, it saves lives. By ensuring peace, justice, and order, it ensures future generations live in a safe, secure galaxy. By ensuring the continuation of the Empire, it ensures the continuation of peace and order. As a side note: the character my opponent mentions, Tenn Graneet, is not from the movies - thus, it is not canon per the terms of this debate. It is not even canon even in terms of the broader non-film canon - he was a character under the old Star Wars EU, which is no longer canon. Judges should, accordingly, disregard this portion.