It is a good day for justice because I believe that a balance has to be struck which hasn't necessarily been correctly done in the past.
However, considering airworthiness as an example, having recently worked on an aircraft engineering authority I know that the engineers work hard to ensure that all known risks are documented and prioritised accordingly. But ultimately, the airworthiness risk alone is not the deciding factor, the cost of implementing the corrective action, coupled with the risk, is what is used to make the decision. As much as we would like to have the best available equipment, all aircraft risks mitigated etc, it can never happen without a bottomless pit of money. How many RAF aircraft fly with no Acceptable Deffered Faults or Limitations?
Am I condoning the behaviour of our government/ military bosses over every issue affecting defence? Of course not, but a balance of risk/ cost will always drive the decisions made.