Nothing you said addresses the concern that the people pushing lightening network the hardest are religiously opposed to raising the block size which will make it impossible to deploy lightening on a world wide scale because there won't be enough on chain transaction space to open up these lightening channels.
In addition to this, as I said, the fact that Lightning Network is a protocol that allows cross-blockchain transactions between any two chains supporting Lightning Network means that if, as you say, Bitcoin has severe problems, everyone will just jump ship to another currency, as there will be far fewer switching costs.
It's nonsensical, because you might as well just design an entirely new protocol and token network (which is essnetialy what the lightning network is, and there's no reason to tie it to an existing cryptocoin ledger unless you're trying to improve the antiquated design which coincidently you have coin units in).
If you can successfully build a Lightning Network like system without a blockchain, please do.
The issue, if anything, is exactly the opposite - that there'll be little incentive to mine without enough transactions on the chain, and the security of the network will come crashing down.
Lightning Network also provides for decentralised, trustless currency exchanges - so the inflexibility of one blockchain will finally not matter much. You could pay someone in bitcoin and the other person could receive litecoin as easily as you can do similar things with a credit card today.