Tourist,
I disagree that because it comes from politicians it is not necessarily OK. Not always the best decision or for the best reasons, often, but always OK- it has to be unless it is clearly illegal. That's the basis on which the UK military runs. The logical extension of it not being OK is the ability to pick and choose which wars we fight or which Ministers we obey. That's a different debate to airworthiness.
In the bad old days before Flight Safety, the RN were losing so many men and aircraft in preventable accidents that something had to be done. It was done by a programme called 'We have a Problem' aimed at finding and fixing the various causes of accidents. Many were part of what we call the airworthiness process now. Not often in Design or Construction, but certainly in modifications, maintenance and operational practice.
Fortunately the FAA was operating at sea so, as you say, they were not spearing into civilians, but others (John Derry in the DH110 and others at different air displays) did.
I don't disagree with your premise that in wartime anything that should fly (and any aircrew who might be declared fit enough to fly it) are an asset we should get airborne if needed. I have signed off repairs to aircraft that should have gone to fourth line, but Fleetlands were not where the aircraft was and the aircraft was needed for operations. Similar authority to decide on the fitness to fly of an aircraft is (or was) vested in all RN AEO's. However, fitness to fly operationally is not airworthiness.
I also agree there are two elements of a risk assessment, but in assessing likelihood it is essential to remember that whether you have won millions on the lottery or not, the likelihood of winning them in this week's draw is just the same as it was last week and the same as it has been since the lottery started. Not having had an accident is just the same.
N