site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11hr ago (text post)   571 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for October 16, 2026

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The new nerd-sniping question is circulating on Twitter. Who would win in a war: 1939 Europe or 2026 Africa? As usual, both camps are 100% their side would win.

My bet is on 1939 Europe. As the Russo-Ukrainian and the US-Iran wars show, ammunition stockpiles run out in a couple of weeks. Africans won't have missiles for their fighter jets and shells for their MBTs, while Europeans will be cranking out bombs and strategic bombers to turn Cairo into Dresden. When German subs destroy whatever boats Africans have, French and British navies will perform naval landings, their troops armed with reverse-engineered AKs.

I think it is pretty clearly Europe, but it's a slow grind rather than a continental blitzkrieg. The pro-Africa arguments seem to be imagining some kind of pitched battle where all the personnel of each side line up and attack until one side is eliminated, which, even allowing for general African incompetence, is not going to go Europe's way. But that's the least interesting interpretation of the question. The moment one side has to mount an amphibious ground assault, well, Europe is the only one that can manage that, so then the question is how long it takes 1939 Europe's best and brightest to reverse-engineer enough 2026 tech to catch up, and there's no particular time-pressure for Europe here: they're getting stronger every day, while every African sortie depletes munitions they'll never be able to replenish.

I think Europe's only Achilles' heel is if the campaign turns into another Scramble for Africa and the various powers begin to compete amongst themselves. Even if the rules forbid explicit internecine conflict (as otherwise I think the invasion of Poland and France are simply delayed and we return to approximately the original timeline) unless they also compel absolute cooperation, Europe's greatest enemy will -- as usual -- be other Europeans.

I think Europe's only Achilles' heel is if the campaign turns into another Scramble for Africa and the various powers begin to compete amongst themselves. Even if the rules forbid explicit internecine conflict (as otherwise I think the invasion of Poland and France are simply delayed and we return to approximately the original timeline) unless they also compel absolute cooperation, Europe's greatest enemy will -- as usual -- be other Europeans.

That's the unstated assumption that makes this such a good scissor statement.

Europe's disunity at the time was such that within five years of 1939 they would be collectively incapable of wiping their own asses without American support.

Africa's disunity now makes the idea of a cross-continental campaign rather unrealistic.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats