There is a grave danger the world will underplay the risks posed by North Korea's astonishing, bellicose rhetoric and threats of the past week.
Pyongyang has threatened to launch nuclear strikes against the US, to attack US and South Korean targets in South Korea, declared that it is "at war" with South Korea and is now threatening to close the joint industrial zone it runs with the south in Kaesong, which nets the impoverished North $US2 billion ($1.9bn) a year in hard currency.
Foreign Minister Bob Carr is right to say that North Korea "continues to pose a genuine threat to the safety of millions of people in our region".
But in their reluctance to reward the brinkmanship of North Korea's bizarre dictator, Kim Jong-un, too many are playing down the real danger of his recent threats.
They argue that these are just the latest example of Kim's posturing designed to grab attention and secure concessions from Washington and Seoul.
This analysis is altogether too sanguine.
Until recently, Western intelligence was unanimous in the view that Kim is unchallenged at the apex of North Korean power.
Each of his provocations was seen as further solidifying his position with the North Korean military and perhaps being a precursor to negotiations and more reasonable behaviour in the future.
This analysis no longer stands up.
The extreme nature of Kim's threats, and the damage he does to his own regime by provoking tougher UN sanctions and now possibly the loss of billions of dollars through the Kaesong project, suggest something else.
Kim's actions undoubtedly have a domestic as well as international audience.
In truth, Western intelligence knows almost nothing about the internal workings of the North Korean leadership.
There are no Western agents in Pyongyang - though intelligence agencies sometimes try to recruit senior North Koreans when they travel - and very little useful electronic eavesdropping.
There is every chance that Kim's extreme actions are the external manifestation of instability, if not conflict, within the North's leadership.
This would make the situation much more unpredictable and dangerous.
Senator Carr announced over the weekend that Australia was considering extra sanctions on top of the UN.
It is believed that one option under consideration is for these to go to financial transactions in which the Pyongyang leadership has a direct interest.
The latest round of UN sanctions included racing cars and luxury yachts, in an attempt to target the North's leadership personally.
Too many Western analysts take comfort in the supposition Kim's government in Pyongyang is a "rational actor" and would not undertake actions which would attract severe retaliation.
This underestimates how many wars start through miscalculation. Rational actors can miscalculate gravely.
Iraq's Saddam Hussein was a rational actor; he is now dead and his regime destroyed. North Korea possesses at least half a dozen nuclear weapons.
While it could not put them on missiles and hit the US mainland, it could use them on the Korean peninsula.
Western policy now relies on the damage Pyongyang is doing to Beijing, not just reputational damage but in provoking South Korea and Japan to greater military preparedness and closer alliance with the US. The hope is that Beijing will exert maximum pressure on the North to calm down.
But the dynamics are intensely dangerous. If the North Koreans sink another South Korean naval vessel, as they sank the Cheonan in 2010, could the South refrain from retaliation? If there was a shooting conflict on the Korean peninsula, could the Chinese stand aloof?
Senator Carr supported the US pledge of military support to South Korea.
This demonstrates how Pyongyang's actions reinforce the collective security alliances Beijing formally opposes.
This is much more dangerous than just another round of hostile rhetoric.