Why's in Bond: Why not destroy the ATAC earlier and why not assault St. Cyril's by air?

Just two logic questions that occurred to me while re-watching again.

First-why not destroy the ATAC immediately? Would that not make more logical sense? There was no directive to retrieve it intact for any information that we were aware of. Then you wouldn't have Bond seeming stupid by essentially handing it over to Kristatos. One would have thought that you could take the vital parts out or at least something to keep it from operating...

Second-why a surprise final assault via mountaineering to get to the over-tedious basket route? Why not assault from the air via helicopters...like OHMSS or DAF etc. It isn't as if they're in enemy territory and don't have the full weight of the British forces behind them in this time of crisis...but fisticuffs! And John Glen's jump scare infatuation via birds yet again!

I know we're not supposed to nitpick but sometimes one can't help it. Of course I give up questioning the logic of OP.

1. I figure that the best case scenario for Blighty was to get the machine back and put it to good use. I presume they aren't cheap, so Bond's decision to destroy it was a last resort.

2. I don't think the UK would have jurisdiction to use its forces within Greek territory. As for Colombo's men... well, perhaps none of them had a pilot's licence. Short answer: rock climbing made for a tenser and superior scene and the chopper assault on a mountain base was already done, as mentioned, in OHMSS.

I would add that the requirements of successful drama often defy logic.

What CJB said.

The villains also said that bad whether was the only thing that would make General Gogol late.  So maybe Bond and Columbo, didn't think they do an aerial assault because of the bad whether, even though Gogol made it through?

But as far as MI6 not having jurisdiction, this ATAC is so import to them, that I thought they would exceed jurisdiction on an aerial assault if they could.