While Latham has refused to give immediate endorsement to an Australian role in the US program pending future discussions, party sources say he favours participation because it would give the country a seat at the table when crucial decisions were being made.
Apart from that, Latham has pledged to maintain defense ties with the US despite calling US President George W Bush "the most dangerous US president in history."
Canberra defense analyst Geoffrey Barker said the missile defense system was technically speculative and strategically momentous.
"It is especially likely to have repercussions in our region, where China, our most important emerging trading partner, is deeply skeptical.
"It overturns three decades of thinking on nuclear containment based on the deterrent of mutually assured destruction and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. It also promises to be prohibitively costly, with a down payment of $50 billion over the next five years, though Australia's contribution will be small."
And the doubts keep mounting up, like the costs. In September the US General Accounting Office noted that only two of ten technologies vital to the success of the missile shield are proven.
The American Physical Society, representing eminent physicists and engineers linked to the defense establishment, had declared that a crucial part of the missile shield -- stopping a missile during the rocket boost phase -- might never work.
However, defense sources in Canberra say the initial system looks promising, being based on Aegis class destroyers firing SM-3 interceptor rockets toward rising hostile missiles, and ground-based Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missiles mopping up those that made it closer to their targets.
Unfortunately, promising doesn't mean foolproof or terrorist-proof.
None of the analysts briefing the Australian media could explain how the missile defense system would stop the personal delivery of a nuclear or biological weapon via a briefcase.
RSS