The decision to go nuclear and proceed arm in arm into the void with our American and British co-nuclears has been lauded as a master stroke of diplomatic genius on the part of Scott Morrison.
We're asked to ignore the cost and the train wreck that is now our relations with France and the EU, and the damage to our reputation as unreliable partners who welch on a deal.
This has been sold as the move of a chess grand master playing with the "big boys" at last on the global stage.
But Morrison's machinations remind me of a quote by Eugene McCarthy about the futility of politics played at the highest level: "Being in politics is like being a football coach. You have to be smart enough to understand the game, and dumb enough to think it's important."
Should the international machinations underway result in actual conflict, do we seriously believe that the politicians will be in control of the situation?
Do we seriously believe that the next war will be fought "on the ground" with our own versions of John Wayne and Tom Hanks taking it to the Chinese in conventional set-piece battles?
Do we seriously contemplate a real-war situation where, when one side starts to lose, they won't resort to the nuclear (bombs not subs) option?
Since the nuke announcement we have been bombarded with a plethora of so-called experts opining that the nuke purchase changes the strategic situation; that Australia can now take its place as a fully-fledged partner to the big boys; that the nuke subs will give us the extra grunt needed to allow us to play our part.
It's as if the reality of the nuclear age hadn't occurred - the reality of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, of the Cuban Missile Crisis, of Stanislav Petrov's refusing to launch a nuclear missiles in response to what turned out to be a false alarm of an American attack on Russia.
It's as if the so-called experts are time-warped in some Biggles-inspired fantasy land of heroes and villains and "fighting to preserve our freedom".
This black and white world of "goodies and baddies" ignores the complexity of the realpolitik of global strategic interactions.
This black and white world of "goodies and baddies" ignores the complexity of the realpolitik of global strategic interactions.
The world isn't black and white.
For every Hong Kong repression of voters there are numerous US states' voter suppression laws. For every Tibet there is an Iran, a Nicaragua, an Afghanistan.
Utopia is an ABC program set in a fictional government department that "manufactures" good news for the government. One episode explores a meeting of defence personnel to evaluate Australia's reliance upon a "strong naval presence". Rob Sitch, the convenor, canvasses why Australia needs a such a strong naval presence. The assembled generals and bureaucrats chorus back: to protect our trade routes. To which Sitch asks: to protect them from whom? The assembled experts demur. Sitch suggests: to protect our trade routes from China?; prompting the question: who is our largest trading partner?
Eventually there is consensus that this is China. Sitch then articulates the absolute ludicrous nature of this strategic approach: so we're building up our navy to protect our trade with China FROM attacks by China - we are buying nuclear submarines to defend ourselves in a war with our largest trading partner that would in all certainty destroy our trade with that partner which provides the basis for the country's current and future prosperity (my head spins as well).
Australia's most strategic port in terms of its location is Darwin, the port closest to Asia.
In any conflict Darwin would provide significant logistical infrastructure for any war (Japan knew this in 1942).
I'm not sure how to break this to people, but the Northern Territory government leased the Darwin port to the Chinese in 2015, a lease approved by the Australian government (The NSW Government sold the Newcastle port to the Chinese but that's another matter).
So at the port where we would be most likely to launch attacks on China (stay with me here), we would need to get permission of the Chinese owners to use their facilities.
Any war with China will not involve conventional forces moving backwards and forwards on maps.
It will be a nuclear holocaust where as John Kennedy put it: "any possible fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouths".
Or as the greatest satirist of the 20th century, Tom Lehrer, put it, in a song about a pilot writing to his mum in the next war: "I'll look for you when the war is over - an hour and a half from now"
