site banner
PaperclipPerfector  12hr ago (text post)   629 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’ve been thinking about posting this one but haven’t because yes it’s kind of racists so too much for main thread but too cultural war for fun thread. To clarify the question is Europe without US but with Russia. Assumption wise is its win or die. So Europe would get all the Jews who left who ended up inventing nuclear bombs. But Africa gets S Africa which I’m fairly certain in an Africa versus Europe war S Africa and there ability to build the bomb people all side with Europe.

In conventional war I am going with Europe but it would mostly be a Cold War for a long time. I’ve seen two things to convince me of this:

  1. The high tech planes Africa has mostly don’t have range to bomb prime Europe
  2. There are like 6 landing crafts in Africa so the early tank advantages means they can’t land the US tanks they have in Europe

Other issues are like Africa only supplies 2/3 of their food supply I’ve seen so internal riots on food are an issue.

So either it’s a race to nukes or neither side has the ability to invade the other early. And eventually Europe catches up on tech and crushes Africa.

Maybe Europe can win quicker with meat assaults against modern tech if they are willing to take massive casualties. Or 30 special ops guys can cause internal coups once food supplies run out.

The initial rounds I think are mostly both sides being better at defense.

That’s my logic.

The high tech planes Africa has mostly don’t have range to bomb prime Europe

Algeria has air-to-air refueling. Tangier is 1500 miles from Berlin, which is within ferry range of Algerian strike aircraft, so it's very likely they could refuel over France and strike anywhere in Germany or England.

I think the actual problems are:

  • Not knowing what exactly to target in 1939 Europe (this problem cuts both ways, of course!)
  • Not being able to run enough strike aircraft to materially disrupt industrial supply chains, and
  • Russia (assuming they are included)

The African win condition is to shock Europe into surrendering quickly and/or do enough material disruption to buy time to get their own industry spun up. I think they would have a hard time actually doing anything besides temporarily setting back European industrial might with their current aircraft inventories, but I do think they could pretty much knock out European naval power.

Using Bing AI summaries as a reference, Africa currently has something in the ballpark of 4000 military aircraft, including helicopters and transports. Europe had ~933 naval vessels.

Is 1-2 "modern" (I assume a fair bit of that stuff is decades old tech) aircraft reasonably sufficient to take out a WW2 era ship?

Helicopters at least would be extremely vulnerable to even 1939-era AA guns.

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