Sorry Creamy, you are a bright bloke - far smarter than me.
However, the core argument goes to the justification for change.
It's not incumbent on the military to justify what exists. It's incumbent on the protagonists for 'reform' to back change based on solid argument - risk analysis and cost/benefit.
Just stating that there's too much R in comparison to other places is nothing more than opinion. And 'opinion' gave us the 'airspace reform' disasters that go back years.
By all means, push for change, but back it up with solid analysis and present that analysis in support of your 'opinion.'
Opinion alone just doesn't cut it - facts-based risk analysis and cost/benefit are required if we are going to have change that can be justified and accepted. Nothing more, nothing less.
Opinion has been the mother of strife as regards airspace management in this country.