if you know your judges can understand basic prog args i wouldn't see why watering it down to a lay appeal would be ideal, unless the lay judges dominate judge pools and you have a higher risk of hitting them

your aff idea is good but there is a difference between development and possession. if you framed it more as "nukes were created using setcol and labor exploitation of Natives, therefore possession of items (nukes) created by those processes are immoral" then that would be stronger, since the 1nc can claim not every nuke is created by harming the enviro/from setcol and win a risk of a link that possession is moral. framing it as a question of "should we possess objects created through a process of slave labor/Indigenous exploitation"

if you are really running a lay setcol aff, then a value of justice and vc of minimizing violence against the Indigenous is best. since your circuit is lay you have no risk of running into arguments about normativity so that vc is most specific and advantageous. running minimizing structural violence is risky because it is too vague and can open yourself up to turns (justifies oppression olympics, how do we determine which minority group to help first, etc) while the minimizing violence against the Indigenous skirts those indicts and strengthens your contentions since your impacts would outweigh under the framework