Manufacturing self-reliance sounds great for security. A weaker economy doesn’t

This article challenges the strategic policy consensus that Australia should pursue manufacturing self-reliance and domestic technology development for security. By arguing that global trade and imported innovation deliver greater economic resilience (and thus stronger security) than protectionist decoupling, it directly contests Pillar 3 (Industrial Base) and Pillar 5 (Decoupling) strategies that dominate Australian national security doctrine. The debate matters because if the economic case against manufacturing self-reliance is sound, Australia's planned industrial buildout may reduce fiscal capacity (Pillar 2) without delivering the intended security dividend, weakening the overall preparedness programme.