Basis (or Excuses?) for Upgrading from Nikon D90

So the rumor is true after all! The successor of the Nikon D300 DX is finally coming! Frankly, I am quite ready to upgrade my body, making the Nikon D90 as a backup camera of mine, but what exactly is the justification?

Here's what I believe warrants an upgrade (if you can convince yourself with a valid claim)

1. 51-point AF engine (for sports or fast action capture)
   
2. Weather sealing (not that you will dump it in the bathtub to proof a point)
   
3. Magnesium Alloy framework (are we doubling it as our home hammer?)
   
4. Heavier (for stable handling or a better workout?)
   
5. 1005 pixel RGB sensor (against 420 found in Nikon D90)
   
6. 1/8000 second second speed (for lightning chasers?)
   
7. 6-8fps (Hmm...sports photography anyone?)
   
8. Higher Pixel count - maybe around 15-18 MP (are we printing floor-standing posters?)
   
9. Pro-looking body size (Ego kicking in? Or a dose of inferiority complex?)
   
10. 14-bit A/D pixel conversion (good one! To give 16,384 color toning range per pixel)
    
11. Multi-stage 16-bit image processing (further cut noise distortion. Good one too)
    
12. More buttons to press (ease of setting camera functions)
    

This is also assumed that what's on Nikon D90 (especially video recording) is also brought into the new DX leader body (Nikon D400 if that's what it will be called)