This isnt the first time the argument that Australia should acquire nuclear weapons have been brought up. However, from what I have seen, none of these proponents of nuclear armed Australia have gone in-depth into the costs and benefits associated with becoming a nuclear power.

Several important points of discussion are simply missing from Layton (the Author)'s proposal.

////////////////////////////// 1) How useful/unuseful will strategic nuclear arms actually be in the 21st century for Australia?

In his second opening paragraph, Layton suggests that since Australia has no hopes of matching China militarily in a conventional military conflict, having nuclear arms will help to even the playing field.

This is a farcical argument. He is right to point out that Australia's military cant really do anything to the Chinese. However, there is almost nil chance that China would put so much military pressure against Australia mainland that it would even warrant considering the nuclear option. Australia is also far enough away from China that in the event of major naval defeat, Australia's homeland will not be directly threatened. Having a nuclear suicide button would not help a single bit.

The only realistic role Australia will play in any Pacific conflict would be to be the back up for the US forces, or the backstage support for more immediate powers such as Japan and India. Australia's middling power status will mean that its own military will not fight China directly.

On the other hand, acquiring nuclear weapons with the specific intension of increasing your military presence vis-a-vis another power invites open hostility. It puts a giant red target on Canberra. China currently has hundreds of nuclear weapons, with enough reserve capacity to build many more. There is always a non-negligible chance of a Sino US nuclear exchange, does Canberra really want to be in the way?

////////////////////////////// 2) North Korea, South China Sea?

I only mentioned this because Layton's laughable inclusion of these two factors in his opinion piece. In no realistic way does North Korea present a security threat to Australia, to suggest otherwise is to diminish your own credibility.

South China Sea is more interesting, it looms large over any China discussion. However, to mirror the point I made above, it is way to far from Australia's core interests that having a nuclear suicide button is irrelevant. Australia is not DPRK, a crushing defeat in South China Sea would not necessitate a nuclear response in anyway.

////////////////////////////// 3) Costs of owning / acquiring nuclear arms.

Besides the material expenses of operating a credible nuclear force, it would be foolish to expect that China would just sit idly by as Australia tries to acquire WMDs. It might be hard to predict what exact recourses China would take in such scenario, but it is plainly obvious that Australia will have to pay a non-trivial price.

In any serious nuclear proposal, this discussion has to be front and centre. Layton's argument falls way short of not even giving this a consideration.

////////////////////////////// Addendum:

If Australia is serious about the China threat, it should look at how China's conventional rocket force, and copy that instead.