During the height of the Cuban missile crisis the Russian government sent a Foxtrot-class, diesel electric submarine designated B-59 on an escort mission to guard construction supplies on their way to Cuba. Once the supplies were delivered they were to patrol the waters around Cuba and await further orders. Not long after arriving, B-59 was detected by US ships who tried to track it down and identify it.

The submarine, running deep without radio contact, couldn’t discuss the situation with Moscow and eventually the US ships started dropping “signaling depth charges.” These are charges with smaller explosives used for training. The US Navy was using these charges to try to signal to B-59 that they should surface.

The crew of B-59 assumed that they were regular depth charges, and that they were under attack. To the captain of the submarine this meant that World War III has started. And they had a trump card that the Americans weren’t aware of — a T-5 nuclear torpedo with a roughly 5 kiloton yield (about the same as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima). The captain ordered the torpedo loaded and a nearby aircraft carrier targeted. The political officer agreed.

But, unlike every other Soviet sub in the region, this sub had one extra passenger, Vasily Arkhipov, Chief of Staff of the Brigade. This rank meant that he also had to agree to the launch, and, well, he didn’t. A heated argument ensued with the captain and the political officer pushing for launching the nuclear torpedo.

Akhipov held firm and convinced the other two that, instead of launching, they should surface the ship and communicate with the Americans (it helped that their air conditioning failed and conditions inside the sub were getting dangerous). They surfaced. The Americans surrounded and flew over the sub but didn’t attempt to board. After contacting Moscow they received orders to return to the USSR.

None of this came to light until 2002, when retired Commander Orlov gave an interview and revealed how close we had come to a nuclear attack on an american carrier group and, most likely, World War III — only to be stopped by Arkhipov’s insistence that they not fire on the enemy. Unfortunately, Arkhipov wasn’t around to receive the praise he deserved — he died from kidney cancer in 1998, likely related to exposure to intense radiation aboard the nuclear sub K-19 four decades prior.

Which begs the question — was Vasily Arkhipov an enemy of the United States? He served in the soviet military. He wore the uniform of people we considered an enemy. He even served aboard an enemy ship, and had served with enough distinction to attain a relatively high rank. In fact, to many members of the USSR he was a hero for the actions he took aboard the ill-fated K-19 nuclear sub. If anyone were an enemy of the United States surely it would be this man.

But given his actions — given that he saved the lives of US Navy personnel directly, and countless others indirectly (as well as those in his own nation) we could also argue that he wasn’t an enemy. We could make a decent argument that he was a friend to the United States.

I don’t know for sure, but I think that’s because the word “enemy” itself is a little ambiguous. What is an enemy? The word itself comes from Latin and literally means “not friend” but today we use it in a more vehement way. Often when people say someone is an “enemy of the people” what they mean is “This person or organization is a threat that should be eliminated.” Being an “enemy” means you are a rival combatant. It means lethal force is justified.

Ironically, Vasily Arkhipov was the textbook definition of an “enemy” and yet, if lethal force had been used against him before this day — if his voice hadn’t been on that ship urging moderation — what would have happened?

In the end we weren’t enemies with Vasily Arkhipov. We just disagreed.

We’re not enemies, we just disagree

Arthur Brooks’s “Love Your Enemies” claims to have the solution to the “culture of contempt” that permeates the United States today. And he does have some good ideas, but the title … he makes a wrong step immediately with the title of the book, and never quite recovers.

I understand the reason for titling the book thus. Brooks is conservative and, ultimately, I think this book is probably aimed more at conservatives so it makes sense to use a biblical quote as a title. Ideally it would remind people of what Jesus said about loving your enemies.

But it still seems like it’s reinforcing an untruth by simply stating it. “Love Your Enemies” implies that we are enemies, and that we must struggle to love each other.

The problem is we are NOT enemies. That very idea — that we are, in fact, enemies, is the root cause of so much of the divisiveness we see today. We aren’t enemies! We just disagree! And though he does get to that point eventually, the damage is already done. He starts off by casting us as enemies when we’re not, and since some politicians are constantly stating that we ARE enemies, it just solidifies that idea. Gives it weight it doesn’t deserve.

A few truths

I may be naive, but I think these things are generally (although not universally) true:

• Most people try to do what they believe is right, or at least what is justified.
• People can justify many things that they probably shouldn’t.
• Physical distance between people creates psychological distance, making their problems seem remote, ephemeral or unreal.
• Much of our interaction is now mediated through the internet, and the internet is an amazing device at creating physical and psychological distance between people.
• Modern media is not designed to inform, it is designed to entertain in order to maximize attention and thus ad revenue (and by modern media I mean anything from TV to TikTok)
• The most engaging content is general the most polarizing

How many of these statements do you agree with? I actually once wrote a blog post going in depth into the truth of these statements one by one (plus a few more) but it was so, so long and I decided it wasn’t worth the effort. But I will say I am quite certain these statements are true.

If you find yourself going “Well yeah, people like ME try to do what’s right, but those OTHER GUYS are just evil and/or stupid and/or whatever else” then congratulations, you are part of the problem.

The other guys are also trying to do what they think is right. They may be misguided. They may not have their facts straight. But most of them are probably trying to do what they think is right, even if you don’t agree with them.

The Poison

But that doesn’t excuse everything. There is one attitude, one political tactic, that should be rejected outright. That is the attitude that the “other side” here in American politics is the enemy.

Any politician who tells you that the other side is “the enemy” should be ignored. This attitude is poison — it is dehumanizing and it leads not only to the government grinding to a standstill, but to the real threat of political violence. Because if the other side is “the enemy” then they can’t be reasoned with. They can’t be convinced. And they certainly can’t be trusted. An enemy can only be dealt with in one way — they must be eliminated.

And a society cannot function like that.

No matter how much you disagree with someone across the metaphorical aisle from you, think for a second of Vasily Arkhipov. A man who was taught from a young age that the “west” was the enemy that would stop at nothing to destroy the soviet way of life. And yet … when faced with “the enemy” he didn’t treat them like an enemy. He treated them like people who deserved to live just as much as he did. And his one quiet, unheralded action saved the world.

And maybe that’s all it takes to save the world. Recognizing that “the enemy” isn’t an enemy at all. You just disagree.