Some would certainly argue that the agreement between the three countries to create a "networked system of air missile and defence architecture" will, if anything, escalate already existing tensions.

China, as always the elephant in the room in these sorts of discussions, has long maintained that the Western democracies are opposed to its rise and are pursuing a policy of encirclement.

Strategic alliances and agreements including AUKUS, the Quad, "five eyes" and even the venerable ANZUS pact - from which New Zealand has long since distanced itself - are seen as threats to Chinese sovereignty in what it considers its own backyard.

This week's missile announcement coincided with talk of Japan being invited to participate in Pillar II of the AUKUS alliance and recent moves to strengthen defence ties between Australia and the Philippines, another close neighbour of Beijing with concerns about the emerging superpower's activities in the South China Sea.

While regional fears about where China's attempt to establish a hegemony in the Indo-Pacific may lead are fair and reasonable, Western governments, including our own, need to be mindful of the risk of creating self-fulfilling prophecies.

Those who support a revolving door of "freedom of navigation" exercises in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea rarely acknowledge that China is one of the world's great trading nations.

It is arguably more dependent on keeping the sea lanes open than any other country in the region or even the world.

While the reinvigoration of the Quad and the first incarnation of AUKUS alliance were appropriate responses to China's "wolf warrior" diplomacy - which saw it try to intimidate Australia and other near neighbours - continuous escalation is not in anybody's interest.

This is one reason why some in the US, including Republican Senate Foreign Relations Committee member Jim Risch, are urging the US government to make haste slowly.

He noted that the Australian and British legal and regulatory systems had still not been "certified" as required under US AUKUS legislation.

"The Biden administration has to get the basics of AUKUS right before it extends the pact to other partners," he said.

An obvious question is what happens if or when Japan is admitted as a "Pillar II" member of the alliance? Would India be next? And what about South Korea, the Philippines or even Taiwan?

It would be prudent to not even go there. It would just be pouring petrol on the coals of a smoking fire.

Bringing Japan into AUKUS would also be considered highly provocative by Beijing for obvious historical reasons. The Sino-Japanese war, which raged from 1937 to 1945, resulted in 20 million Chinese deaths and laid waste to half the country.

And it would not be lost on the current Chinese leadership that both the UK and the US energetically participated in the exploitation of China when that country was the sick man of Asia.

Students of history would be well aware of how the emergence of a complex web of alliances in the early 20^th century contributed to World War I.

It would be tragic if, in the search for the illusion of security, the West makes the same mistake. It would be more sensible to engage more closely with China.