Given mainland Australia has not been at risk of attack since World War II, talk of squandering billions of dollars on ballistic missile defences that may not work and on nuclear submarines we could never maintain ourselves is absurd.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
It is also, given our most recent defence white paper was only released in February 2016, dangerously close to making, or at least shaping, policy on the run.
Both thought bubbles, the former from the unlikely pairing of Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull and the other from the fertile brain of Tony Abbott, could actually make a bad situation on the Korean peninsula worse if they were allowed to gain traction.
Our Chinese trading partners, the world's best hope in bringing the crazy man in charge of North Korea to heel, would regard either acquisition as a massive over-reaction to the very low level risk Kim-Jong-un might get up one morning and attack Darwin.
They would, with considerable justification, suggest both acquisitions were aimed against them despite a complete absence of hostile actions on their part.
Given history is replete with examples of arms races ending badly, this is hardly the way to enhance regional security.
While the current white paper does make mention of ballistic missile defence this was very much in the context, as Mr Turnbull acknowledged on the weekend, of protecting military forces in the field.
This would most likely involve upgrading the Aegis combat systems being fitted to the RAN's three Hobart-class destroyers to incorporate an anti-ballistic missile capability. Given interceptor rockets costs well over $31 million and a single missile test would cost almost $150 million the jury is still out on this one.
Such a system could not defend Darwin against a nuclear-tipped, long range ballistic missile fired from either the North Korean mainland or one of the rogue state's Sinpo class submarines.
Mr Turnbull was responding to a call by former Labor PM, Kevin Rudd, for Australia to start "analysing ballistic missile defence needs, available technologies and possible deployment feasibility for northern Australia" in the wake of last week's North Korean missile test.
Mr Rudd, despite rejecting the need for such a shield while in office, is now sufficiently alerted and alarmed by the fact Kim Jong-un's minions have been able to build a big rocket that did not crash on take-off or explode in mid-flight to change his position.
Mr Turnbull, caught on the back foot by this, responded by cautiously indicating the Government was keeping its options open. He clarified this by stating the exorbitantly expensive THAAD kinetic kill defence system already deployed in South Korea was not suitable for us.
Australia's proper role is, as Greens Senator Scott Ludlam has said, to work through diplomatic channels to de-escalate the crisis. Such a policy stands a much better chance of working and is also a lot cheaper.
