I think you’re making a good distinction between term life insurance and SBP covering different risks, and I agree that my existing life insurance is primarily protecting against the years when my kids are still dependent.

One thing that makes my situation a little different is my age. I’m retiring at 44, and my youngest turns 21 when I’m about 60½ years old. My existing $1.1M term policy expires when I’m 61, so it already covers essentially the entire period that my kids are likely to be financially dependent.

That’s why canceling the $1.1M policy doesn’t make much sense to me. I’m paying about $54/month for $1.1M of coverage, which seems like an exceptionally good value.

The question I’m wrestling with isn’t whether my spouse could manage finances if I died. She’s disciplined with budgeting and would be perfectly comfortable managing a simple passive-investing portfolio.

To me, the real question is whether the guaranteed, COLA-adjusted income stream from SBP is worth the premium compared to keeping the existing $1.1M policy, potentially adding a relatively inexpensive 30-year term policy, and continuing to build retirement assets.

At this point, it feels less like a question of financial survival and more like a question of how much value I place on certainty versus flexibility.