WEBF - you really do deserve an award for keeping this topic going far longer than would otherwise be the case and, like many others I suspect, I've had enough!
Some of your "arguments" are so fundamentally flawed and show a complete lack of knowledge not just of the art of the possible, but of the very subject matter that you profess to care so much about.
UK Harrier ops are history, therefore so is a carrier based strike capability. IMO it's gone for good, as our previous on resurrecting "lapsed" platforms/capabilities is not great is it? And, in case you've forgotten, we're broke and likely to remain so for about the next 10 years (at least).
Now let me think, in ~2015 what big ticket "lapsed", but due to be re-introduced, capability is a dead cert for being quietly dropped? Yep, you got it, the Carriers
And no, for the record, I don't agree with the decision to retire Harrier BUT NEITHER DO I AGREE with the decisions to scrap Nimrod, reduce GR4 FE&R, bin tranche 3b typhoon, prematurely retire C130J, cut the order for A400M, "privatise" AAR/AT, dispose of Leuchars, Lyneham, etc, etc.....
And this is the point you don't get WEBF, IF we'd kept JFH then something else would have had to go in it's place (it's all about immediate and near term cash savings remember), so what would you have sacrificed, more subs, frigates, GR4 in it's entirety? There's no easy answer and nothing you've said in the last XX pages has convinced me otherwise.
Sorry!