Here are my thoughts: I think the burden is on the author - any author - to establish that their arguments are worth responding to, rather than on me to prove

Here are my thoughts: I think the burden is on the author - any author - to establish that their arguments are worth responding to, rather than on me to prove that they are not. There are far too many authors and arguments to give them all credence by default. Readership is not a good signal - plenty of absolute nonsense has far more readership than the War Nerd. > you will not even attempt Even if Dolan's arguments are worth addressing, it's not my job to personally address every argument. I think I added something valuable to the discussion; other people can contribute too. > Going ad hominem just gives credence to his unspoken assertion that the US military is an old-boys club clinging to their preconceived notions That assumes that I'm representing that old boys' club, and I'm certainly not a member. They wouldn't let me into the foyer unless I was delivering dinner, nor do I desire to join. I could get into Dolan's club, however, if I wanted to. > in the absence of an actual war to fight The U.S. military is fighting wars and has been continuously for almost 16 years, the longest such period in the nation's history, I think. The wars have transformed their approach so much that there is a major concern that all they know how to do is fight counter-insurgencies and not high-end near-peers (e.g., China and Russia). As they shift back to the latter, everything is being re-examined in light of AI and the wide availability of precision munitions (e.g., rockets accurate enough to reliably hit a ship) along with the accompanying sensor networks, which used to be a U.S. monopoly.