It’s no surprise that Russian attack submarines are trying to trail British ballistic-missile submarines, as the Telegraph reports. But the reference to 1987 is informative. In the annals of the Cold War, 1987 was the last year the Soviet Navy maintained the very active global [...]]]> At the end of August, the Royal Navy gave the UK Telegraph a rare glimpse of what’s going on today in the arcane world of the submariner, under the Northern Atlantic’s restless surface. The report includes the nugget that “British submariners … are experiencing the highest number of ‘contacts’ with Russian submarines since 1987.”

It’s no surprise that Russian attack submarines are trying to trail British ballistic-missile submarines, as the Telegraph reports. But the reference to 1987 is informative. In the annals of the Cold War, 1987 was the last year the Soviet Navy maintained the very active global profile it assumed in the early 1970s. The Royal Navy’s disclosures last month indicate that the reversal of a two-decade trend is gathering steam — and more so than was evident when Russian submarines were reported off the U.S. east coast a year ago.

The Royal Navy had 38 submarines in 1987, compared with its 12 today. The U.S. force of attack submarines — “hunter-killer” submarines — has declined in the same period, from 98 to 53, with a target number of 48 being argued by budget cutters. But numbers are only one aspect of the issue. Equally important, as suggested by the Royal Navy’s recent encounters with Russian submarines, is how our would-be rivals are behaving on the seas.

In that regard, China’s profile constitutes a steadily expanding challenge, particularly to regional stability in the Far East. Tuesday morning, a Chinese fishing vessel was challenged by the Japanese coast guard in the waters of the Senkaku Islands, a chain disputed by Beijing and Tokyo. The Chinese vessel proceeded to collide with not one but two Japanese patrol ships — something that, given the Japanese military’s exemplary tradition of seamanship, had to be deliberate and was probably sanctioned by authorities in China.

-Contentions

I remember being told, some years after having left the USAF, that the US didn’t have the simple number of troops on the ground to repeat an operation the size of Desert Storm. Given the number of articles I’m seeing on the current size of the US Military, I’m beginning to wonder. And given the number of stories I’m seeing with discussions about further reductions in the size of the military, if we’re not there yet, we will be soon.

What’s disturbing is the number of signs and indicators lining up in a more “world war” fashion. Russia and China are being more aggressive. Every country we could rely on as an ally is weak (except Israel, the one ally we apparently don’t want). We have a weak economy, tending towards a depression. We have a Democratic President who just wants to play golf and hide in his hole of self pity. We have a weakening social base, a culture that’s in the toilet, an extremely weak church, and enemy monuments being built on our own land.

When the “most powerful country in the world,” shows this many signs of weakness, there will be someone, someplace, willing to take advantage of that weakness. And that doesn’t mean a slowly fading America, for America’s enemies will never leave it at that. What it really means is war. And probably a big one, unfortunately.

Just something to brighten your morning coffee.

He is our modern culture, in a nutshell. Our culture [...]]]> We’ve all met that guy, right? The guy who wears biker clothes, and has tattoos all over his body, and has a scowl on his face? The guy who has a death’s head patch on his back, the bandanna of cuss words tied around his head, and the chains hanging from his waste? And yet, when he opens his mouth, he says, “please,” and “thank you?” He might go out in the back woods and do things you don’t want to think about, but at least doesn’t smoke cigarettes.

He is our modern culture, in a nutshell. Our culture has essentially decided that evil really doesn’t matter —rather, evil doesn’t exist— other than the evil of being “mean.” Our lives are confined to simple slogans, like “Life is Good,” a mealy mouthed happiness. We decry the ’50s for their “on the surface sugar niceness,” combined with underlying “fear of the other,” racism, and sexism, but we’ve gone one better than the ’50s. We now actually honor evil, but in a very nice way.

Here is the point at which the church has failed. We have bought the lie that being nice is a fundamental value, and it’s killing our children’s faith.

Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it. -Proverbs 22:6

A great thought, to be certain, but doesn’t it apply to teaching our children the wrong way to go as well as the right way? Isn’t the actual road on which we set our children important, and not just that we’re teaching them to take a road? It all reminds me of someone else I knew in a time far gone. She would spend days in angst over whether to “be an artist,” or to “be a teacher.” I would always point out that you can’t be an artist without something to say. She would always reject the notion; “art is about the image, not the message.” The emptiness of the image is a message in itself, no?

What are our parenting goals? Do we simply want kids who don’t drink, don’t smoke, don’t sleep around and are polite to adults? Do we simply seek to help our kids become safe, nice people or do we want them to become Jesus followers who are completely sold out to whatever that means for them? Do we want our children to grow up to live the westernized middle class dream or are we prepared to risk them becoming what God requires of them? Are we helping our children understand gain an eternal perspective on life? -Beyond Belief

Having rejected the harsh legalism of fundamentalism, we now turn to the soft legalism society offers instead. We didn’t like the old legalistic message, so we’ve turned to a legalism of image, rather than a legalism of message. A soft legalism of “being nice,” as “being Christian.” We’ve built a church where it’s impolite to say parents ought not send their children to public schools (“you don’t know their circumstances, and public schools are free, after all). We’ve built a church where it’s impolite to say that we need doctrine (“it’s so hard to learn, and if God really wants me to know it, he’ll just inject it into my head anyway”).

We’ve built a church on politeness, and we’re shocked —shocked I tell you— to find that politeness doesn’t offer anything in which people can actually believe.