Good point on cost-benefit, Bloggs.
When I was still in the game, I advised the incoming GM of the OAR that the only way he was going to resist unrelenting pressure from 'Mr I Want' was to have an ironclad defence when it came to stuff like Senate Estimates. From my perspective, it was bloody obvious that some of these gormless politicians were being fed their lines.
I told the guy that no one would be able to take him down if his basis for justifying/rejecting airspace change was underpinned by two fundamentals - cost-benefit and risk analysis - and that he held firm in that respect. Logical, really. I'm sure you will agree!
That said, on the subject of Unicom, I reckon that a fair argument could be put for its introduction. Costs would be minimal, but benefits would need to be quantified formally, as opposed to 'I believe.'
Secondly, those proposing change, in my opinion, should be the ones to put their case forward with solid cost-benefit and risk analyses. There are some decent consultants around (I'm not one of them; I'm permanently retired) that could put together a credible argument for Unicom and submit same to the OAR. But it must be a formal submission with the 'i's dotted and the t's crossed. 'I want,' or 'I believe' is just not good enough.
Finally, Sunfish appears to me to have taken on the mantle of the 'wise philosopher.' Unfortunately, IMHO, he fails philosophy 101 in respect of the military having a 'unique mindset,' and blows his argument out of the water with that sweeping generalisation in one fell-swoop.
You see, Sunny, all arguments are based on underlying assumptions; otherwise it would not be an argument, it would be fact. If an underlying assumption is flawed, then the argument falls in a heap. I won't rehash what you've said previously; it's on the record. But check out the 'Church,' as one example, for some of those flaws you subscribe to the military as being 'unique.' Your underlying assumption is flawed. Consequently your argument don't amount to a hill a beans.