Bunker

Bunker (pronounced buhng-ker)

(1) A large bin or receptacle; a fixed chest or box.

(2) In military use, historically a fortification set mostly below the surface of the ground with overhead protection provided by logs and earth or by concrete and fitted with above-ground embrasures through which guns may be fired.

(3) A fortification set mostly below the surface of the ground and used for a variety of purposes.

(4) In golf, an obstacle, classically a sand trap but sometimes a mound of dirt, constituting a hazard.

(5) In nautical use, to provide fuel for a vessel.

(6) In nautical use, to convey bulk cargo (except grain) from a vessel to an adjacent storehouse.

(7) In golf, to hit a ball into a bunker.

(8) To equip with or as if with bunkers.

(9) In military use, to place personnel or materiel in a bunker or bunkers (sometimes as “bunker down”).

1755–1760: From the Scottish bonkar (box, chest (also “seat” (in the sense of “bench”) of obscure origin but etymologists conclude the use related to furniture hints at a relationship with banker (bench).  Alternatively, it may be from a Scandinavian source such as the Old Swedish bunke (boards used to protect the cargo of a ship).  The meaning “receptacle for coal aboard a ship” was in use by at least 1839 (coal-burning steamships coming into general use in the 1820s).  The use to describe the obstacles on golf courses is documented from 1824 (probably from the extended sense “earthen seat” which dates from 1805) but perhaps surprisingly, the familiar sense from military use (dug-out fortification) seems not to have appeared before World War I (1914-1918) although the structures so described had for millennia existed.  “Bunkermate” was army slang for the individual with whom one shares a bunker while the now obsolete “bunkerman” (“bunkermen” the plural”) referred to someone (often the man in charge) who worked at an industrial coal storage bunker.  Bunker & bunkerage is a noun, bunkering is a noun & verb, bunkered is a verb and bunkerish, bunkeresque, bunkerless & bunkerlike are adjectives; the noun plural is bunkers.

Just as ships called “coalers” were used to transport coal to and from shore-based “coal stations”, it was “oilers” which took oil to storage tanks or out to sea to refuel ships (a common naval procedure) and these STS (ship-to-ship) transfers were called “bunkering” as the black stuff was pumped, bunker-to-bunker.  That the coal used by steamships was stored on-board in compartments called “coal bunkers” led ultimately to another derived term: “bunker oil”.  When in the late nineteenth century ships began the transition from being fuelled by coal to burning oil, the receptacles of course became “oil bunkers” (among sailors nearly always clipped to “bunker”) and as refining processes evolved, the fuel specifically produced for oceangoing ships came to be called “bunker oil”.

Bunker oil is “dirty stuff”, a highly viscous, heavy fuel oil which is essentially the residue of crude oil refining; it’s that which remains after the more refined and volatile products (gasoline (petrol), kerosene, diesel etc) have been extracted.  Until late in the twentieth century, the orthodox view of economists was its use in big ships was a good thing because it was a product for which industry had little other use and, as essentially a by-product, it was relatively cheap.  It came in three flavours: (1) Bunker A: Light fuel oil (similar to a heavy diesel), (2) Bunker B: An oil of intermediate viscosity used in engines larger than marine diesels but smaller than those used in the big ships and (3) Bunker C: Heavy fuel oil used in container ships and such which use VLD (very large displacement), slow running engines with a huge reciprocating mass.  Because of its composition, Bucker C especially produced much pollution and although much of this happened at sea (unseen by most but with obvious implications), when ships reached harbor to dock, all the smoke and soot became obvious.  Over the years, the worst of the pollution from the burning of bunker oil greatly has been reduced (the work underway even before the Greta Thunberg (b 2003) era), sometimes by the simple expedient of spraying a mist of water through the smoke.

Floor-plans of the upper (Vorbunker) and lower (Führerbunker) levels of the structure now commonly referred to collectively as the Führerbunker.

History’s most infamous bunker remains the Berlin Führerbunker in which Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) spent much of the last few months of his life.  In the architectural sense there were a number of Führerbunkers built, one at each of the semi-permanent Führerhauptquartiere (Führer Headquarters) created for the German military campaigns and several others built where required but it’s the one in Berlin which is remembered as “the Führerbunker”.  Before 1944 when the intensification of the air raids by the RAF (Royal Air Force) and USAAF (US Army Air Force) the term Führerbunker seems rarely to have been used other than by the architects and others involved in their construction and it wasn’t a designation like Führerhauptquartiere which the military and other institutions of state shifted between locations (rather as “Air Force One” is attached not to a specific airframe but whatever aircraft in which the US president is travelling).  In subsequent historical writing, the term Führerbunker tends often to be applied to the whole, two-level complex in Berlin and although it was only the lower layer which officially was designated as that, for most purposes the distinction is not significant.  In military documents, after January, 1945 the Führerbunker was referred to as Führerhauptquartiere.

Führerbunker tourist information board, Berlin, Germany.

Only an information board at the intersection of den Ministergärten and Gertrud-Kolmar-Straße, erected by the German Goverment in 2006 prior to that year's FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association (International Federation of Association Football)) World Cup now marks the place on Berlin's Wilhelmstrasse 77 where once the Führerbunker was located.  The Soviet occupation forces razed the new Reich Chancellery and demolished all the bunker's above-ground structures but the subsequent GDR (Deutsche Demokratische Republik (German Democratic Republic; the old East Germany) 1949-1990) abandoned attempts completely to destroy what lay beneath.  Until after the fall of the Berlin Wall (1961-1989) the site remained unused and neglected, “re-discovered” only during excavations by property developers, the government insisting on the destruction on whatever was uncovered and, sensitive still to the spectre of “Neo-Nazi shrines”, for years the bunker’s location was never divulged, even as unremarkable buildings (an unfortunate aspect of post-unification Berlin) began to appear on the site.  Most of what would have covered the Führerbunker’s footprint is now a supermarket car park.

The first part of the complex to be built was the Vorbunker (upper bunker or forward bunker), an underground facility of reinforced concrete intended only as a temporary air-raid shelter for Hitler and his entourage in the old Reich Chancellery.  Substantially completed during 1936-1937, it was until 1943 listed in documents as the Luftschutzbunker der Reichskanzlei (Reich Chancellery Air-Raid Shelter), the Vorbunker label applied only in 1944 when the lower level (the Führerbunker proper) was appended.  In mid January, 1945, Hitler moved into the Führerbunker and, as the military situation deteriorated, his appearances above ground became less frequent until by late March he rarely saw the sky,  Finally, on 30 April, he committed suicide.

Bunker Busters

Northrop Grumman publicity shot of B2-Spirit from below, showing the twin bomb-bay doors through which the GBU-57 are released.

Awful as they are, there's an undeniable beauty in the engineering of some weapons and it's unfortunate humankind never collectively has resolved exclusively to devote such ingenuity to stuff other than us blowing up each other.

The use in June 2025 by the USAF (US Air Force) of fourteen of its Boeing GBU-57 (Guided Bomb Unit-57) Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOP) bombs against underground targets in Iran (twelve on the Fordow Uranium Enrichment Plant and two on the Natanz nuclear facility) meant “Bunker Buster” hit the headlines.  Carried by the Northrop B-2 Spirit heavy bomber (built between 1989-2000), the GBU-57 is a 14,000 kg (30,000 lb) bomb with a casing designed to withstand the stress of penetrating through layers of reinforced concrete or thick rock.  “Bunker buster” bombs have been around for a while, the ancestors of today’s devices first built for the German military early in World War II (1939-1945) and the principle remains unchanged to this day: up-scaled armor-piercing shells.  The initial purpose was to produce a weapon with a casing strong enough to withstand the forces imposed when impacting reinforced concrete structures, the idea simple in that what was needed was a delivery system which could “bust through” whatever protective layers surrounded a target, allowing the explosive charge to do damage where needed rtaher than wastefully being expended on an outer skin.  The German weapons proved effective but inevitably triggered an “arms race” in that as the war progressed, the concrete layers became thicker, walls over 2 metres (6.6 feet) and ceilings of 5 (16) being constructed by 1943.  Technological development continued and the idea extended to rocket propelled bombs optimized both for armor-piercing and aerodynamic efficiency, velocity a significant “mass multiplier” which made the weapons still more effective.

USAF test-flight footage of Northrop B2-Spirit dropping two GBU-57 "Bunker Buster" bombs.

Concurrent with this, the British developed the first true “bunker busters”, building on the idea of the naval torpedo, one aspect of which was in exploding a short distance from its target, it was highly damaging because it was able to take advantage of one of the properties of water (quite strange stuff according to those who study it) which is it doesn’t compress.  What that meant was it was often the “shock wave” of the water rather than the blast itself which could breach a hull, the same principle used for the famous “bouncing bombs” used for the RAF’s “Dambuster” (Operation Chastise, 17 May 1943) raids on German dams.  Because of the way water behaved, it wasn’t necessary to score the “direct hit” which had been the ideal in the early days of aerial warfare.

RAF Bomber Command archive photograph of Avro Lancaster (built between 1941-1946) in flight with Grand Slam mounted (left) and a comparison of the Tallboy & Grand Slam (right), illustrating how the latter was in most respects a scaled-up version of the former.  To carry the big Grand Slams, 32 “B1 Special” Lancasters were in 1945 built with up-rated Rolls-Royce Merlin V12 engines, the removal of the bomb doors (the Grand Slam carried externally, its dimensions exceeding internal capacity), deleted front and mid-upper gun turrets, no radar equipment and a strengthened undercarriage.  Such was the concern with weight (especially for take-off) that just about anything non-essential was removed from the B1 Specials, even three of the four fire axes and its crew door ladder.  In the US, Boeing went through a similar exercise to produce the run of “Silverplate” B-29 Superfortresses able to carry the first A-bombs used in August, 1945. 

Best known of the British devices were the so called “earthquake bombs”, the Tallboy (12,000 lb; 5.4 ton) & Grand Slam (22,000 lb, 10 ton) which, despite the impressive bulk, were classified by the War Office as “medium capacity”.  The terms “Medium Capacity” (MC) & “High Capacity” referenced not the gross weight or physical dimensions but ratio of explosive filler to the total weight of the construction (ie how much was explosive compared to the casing and ancillary components).  Because both had thick casings to ensure penetration deep into hardened targets (bunkers and other structures encased in rock or reinforced concrete) before exploding, the internal dimensions accordingly were reduced compared with the ratio typical of contemporary ordinance.  A High Capacity (HC) bomb (a typical “general-purpose” bomb) had a thinner casing and a much higher proportion of explosive (sometimes over 70% of total weight).  These were intended for area bombing (known also as “carpet bombing”) and caused wide blast damage whereas the Tallboy & Grand Slam were penetrative with casings optimized for aerodynamic efficiency, their supersonic travel working as a mass-multiplier.  The Tallboy’s 5,200 lb (2.3 ton) explosive load was some 43% of its gross weight while the Grand Slam’s 9,100 lb (4 ton) absorbed 41%; this may be compared with the “big” 4000 lb (1.8 ton) HC “Blockbuster” which allocated 75% of the gross weight to its 3000 LB (1.4 ton) charge.  Like many things in engineering (not just in military matters) the ratio represented a trade-off, the MC design prioritizing penetrative power and structural destruction over blast radius.  The novelty of the Tallboy & Grand Slam was that as earthquake bombs, their destructive potential was able to be unleashed not necessarily by achieving a direct hit on a target but by entering the ground nearby, the explosion (1) creating an underground cavity (a camouflet) and (2) transmitting a shock-wave through the target’s foundations, leading to the structure collapsing into the newly created lacuna. 

The etymology of camouflet has an interesting history in both French and military mining.  Originally it meant “a whiff of smoke in the face (from a fire or pipe) and in figurative use it was a reference to a snub or slight insult (something unpleasant delivered directly to someone) and although the origin is murky and it may have been related to the earlier French verb camoufler (to disguise; to mask) which evolved also into “camouflage”.  In the specialized military jargon of siege warfare or mining (sapping), over the seventeen and nineteenth centuries “camouflet” referred to “an underground explosion that does not break the surface, but collapses enemy tunnels or fortifications by creating a subterranean void or shockwave”.  The use of this tactic is best remembered from the use on the Western Front in World War I, some of the huge craters now tourist attractions.

Under watchful eyes: Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (b 1939; Supreme Leader, Islamic Republic of Iran since 1989) delivering a speech, sitting in front of the official portrait of the republic’s ever-unsmiling founder, Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (1900-1989; Supreme Leader, Islamic Republic of Iran, 1979-1989).  Ayatollah Khamenei seemed in 1989 an improbable choice as Supreme Leader because others were better credentialed but though cautious and uncharismatic, he has proved a great survivor in a troubled region.

Since aerial bombing began to be used as a strategic weapon, of great interest has been the debate over the BDA (battle damage assessment) and this issue emerged almost as soon as the bunker buster attack on Iran was announced, focused on the extent to which the MOPs had damaged the targets, the deepest of which were concealed deep inside a mountain.  BDA is a constantly evolving science and while satellites have made analysis of surface damage highly refined, it’s more difficult to understand what has happened deep underground.  Indeed, it wasn’t until the USSBS (United States Strategic Bombing Survey) teams toured Germany and Japan in 1945-1946, conducting interviews, economic analysis and site surveys that a useful (and substantially accurate) understanding emerged of the effectiveness of bombing although what technological advances have allowed for those with the resources is the so-called “panacea targets” (ie critical infrastructure and such once dismissed by planners because the required precision was for many reasons rarely attainable) can now accurately be targeted, the USAF able to drop a bomb within a few feet of the aiming point.  As the phrase is used by the military, the Fordow Uranium Enrichment Plant is as classic “panacea target” but whether even a technically successful strike will achieve the desired political outcome remains to be seen.

Mr Trump, in a moment of exasperation, posted on Truth Social of Iran & Israel: “We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the fuck they're doing."  Actually, both know exactly WTF they're doing; it's just Mr Trump (and many others) would prefer they didn't do it.

Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025) claimed “total obliteration” of the targets while Grand Ayatollah Khamenei admitted only there had been “some damage” and which is closer to the truth should one day be revealed.  Even modelling of the effects has probably been inconclusive because the deeper one goes underground, the greater the number of variables in the natural structure and the nature of the internal built environment will also influence blast behaviour.  All experts seem to agree much damage will have been done but what can’t yet be determined is what has been suffered by the facilities which sit as deep as 80 m (260 feet) inside the mountain although, as the name implies, “bunker busters” are designed for buried targets and it’s not always required for blast directly to reach target.  Because the shock-wave can travel through earth & rock, the effect is something like that of an earthquake and if the structure sufficiently is affected, it may be the area can be rendered geologically too unstable again to be used for its original purpose.

Within minutes of the bombing having been announced, legal academics were being interviewed (though not by Fox News) to explain why the attacks were unlawful under international law and in a sign of the times, the White House didn't bother to discuss fine legal points like the distinction between "preventive & pre-emptive strikes", preferring (like Fox News) to focus on the damage done.  However, whatever the murkiness surrounding the BDA, many analysts have concluded that even if before the attacks the Iranian authorities had not approved the creation of a nuclear weapon, this attack will have persuaded them one is essential for “regime survival”, thus the interest in both Tel Aviv and (despite denials) Washington DC in “regime change”.  The consensus seems to be Grand Ayatollah Khamenei had, prior to the strike, not ordered the creation of a nuclear weapon but that all energies were directed towards completing the preliminary steps, thus the enriching of uranium to ten times the level required for use in power generation; the ayatollah liked to keep his options open.  So, the fear of some is the attacks, even if they have (by weeks, months or years) delayed the Islamic Republic’s work on nuclear development, may prove counter-productive in that they convince the ayatollah to concur with the reasoning of every state which since 1945 has adopted an independent nuclear deterrent (IND).  That reasoning was not complex and hasn’t changed since first a prehistoric man picked up a stout stick to wave as a pre-lingual message to potential adversaries, warning them there would be consequences for aggression.  Although a theocracy, those who command power in the Islamic Republic are part of an opaque political institution and in the struggle which has for sometime been conducted in anticipation of the death of the aged (and reportedly ailing) Supreme Leader, the matter of “an Iranian IND” is one of the central dynamics.  Many will be following what unfolds in Tehran and the observers will not be only in Tel Aviv and Washington DC because in the region and beyond, few things focus the mind like the thought of ayatollahs with A-Bombs.

Of the word "bust"

The Great Bust: The Depression of the Thirties (1962) by Jack Lang (left), highly qualified porn star Busty Buffy (b 1996, who has never been accused of misleading advertising, centre) and The people's champion, Mr Lang, bust of Jack Lang, painted cast plaster by an unknown artist, circa 1927, National Portrait Gallery, Canberra, Australia.  Remembered for a few things, Jack Lang (1876–1975; premier of the Australian state of New South Wales (NSW) 1925-1927 & 1930-1932) remains best known for having in 1932 been the first head of a government in the British Empire to have been sacked by the Crown since William IV (1765–1837; King of the UK 1830-1837) in 1834 dismissed Lord Melbourne (1779–1848; prime minister of the UK 1834 & 1835-1841).

Those learning English must think it at least careless things can both be (1) “razed to the ground” (totally to destroy something (typically a structure), usually by demolition or incineration) and (2) “raised to the sky” (physically lifted upwards).  The etymologies of “raze” and “raise” differ but they’re pronounced the same so it’s fortunate the spellings vary but in other troublesome examples of unrelated meanings, spelling and pronunciation can align, as in “bust”.  When used in ways most directly related to human anatomy: (1) “a sculptural portrayal of a person's head and shoulders” & (2) “the circumference of a woman's chest around her breasts” there is an etymological link but these uses wholly are unconnected with bust’s other senses.

Bust of Lindsay Lohan in white marble by Stable Diffusion.  Sculptures of just the neck and head came also to be called “busts”, the emphasis on the technique rather than the original definition.

Bust in the sense of “a sculpture of upper torso and head” dates from the 1690s and was from the sixteenth century French buste, from the Italian busto (upper body; torso), from the Latin bustum (funeral monument, tomb (although the original sense was “funeral pyre, place where corpses are burned”)) and it may have emerged (as a shortened form) from ambustum, neuter of ambustus (burned around), past participle of amburere (burn around, scorch), the construct being ambi- (around) + urere (to burn),  The alternative etymology traces a link to the Old Latin boro, the early form of the Classical Latin uro (to burn) and it’s though the development in Italian was influenced by the Etruscan custom of keeping the ashes of the dead in an urn shaped like the person when alive.  Thus the use, common by the 1720s of bust (a clipping from the French buste) being “a carving of the “trunk of the human body from the chest up”.  From this came the meaning “dimension of the bosom; the measurement around a woman's body at the level of her breasts” and that evolved on the basis of a comparison with the sculptures, the base of which was described as the “bust-line”, the term still used in dress-making (and for other comparative purposes as one of the three “vital statistics” by which women are judged (bust, waist, hips), each circumference having an “ideal range”).  It’s not known when “bust” and “bust-line” came into oral use among dress-makers and related professions but it’s documented since the 1880s.  Derived forms (sometimes hyphenated) include busty (tending to bustiness, thus Busty Buffy's choice of stage-name), overbust & underbust (technical terms in women's fashion referencing specific measurements) and bustier (a tight-fitting women's top which covers (most or all of) the bust.

The other senses of bust (as a noun, verb & adjective) are diverse (and sometimes diametric opposites and include: “to break or fail”; “to be caught doing something unlawful / illicit / disgusting etc”; “to debunk”; “dramatically or unexpectedly to succeed”; “to go broke”; “to break in” (horses, girlfriends etc): “to assault”; the downward portion of an economic cycle (ie “boom & bust”); “the act of effecting an arrest” and “someone (especially in professional sport) who failed to perform to expectation”.  That’s quite a range and that has meant the creation of dozens of idiomatic forms, the best known of which include: “boom & bust”, “busted flush”, “dambuster”, “bunker buster”,  “busted arse country”, “drug bust”, “cloud bust”, belly-busting, bust one's ass (or butt), bust a gut, bust a move, bust a nut, bust-down, bust loose, bust off, bust one's balls, bust-out, sod buster, bust the dust, myth-busting and trend-busting.  In the sense of “breaking through”, bust was from the Middle English busten, a variant of bursten & bresten (to burst) and may be compared with the Low German basten & barsten (to burst).  Bust in the sense of “break”, “smash”, “fail”, “arrest” et al was a creation of mid-nineteenth century US English and is of uncertain inspiration but most etymologists seem to concur it was likely a modification of “burst” effected with a phonetic alteration but it’s not impossible it came directly as an imperfect echoic of Germanic speech.  The apparent contradiction of bust meaning both “fail” and “dramatically succeed” happened because the former was an allusion to “being busted” (ie broken) while the latter meaning used the notion of “busting through”.

Spade & Splayd

Spade (pronounced speyd)

(1) A garden or farming tool for digging, having an iron blade adapted for pressing into the ground with the foot and a long handle commonly with a grip or crosspiece at the top, and with the blade usually narrower and flatter than that of a shovel.

(2) Some implement, piece, or part resembling this.

(3) A heavy metallic projection on the bottom of a gun trail, designed to dig into the earth to restrict backward movement of the carriage during recoil.

(4) To dig, cut, or remove with a spade.

(5) In four-suit card-games, a black figure shaped like an inverted heart and with a short stem at the cusp opposite the point; a card of the suit bearing such figures.

(6) In slang, a disparaging and offensive term for a person with black skin (based on the spade in packs of cards) (obsolete).

(7) In nautical use, a type of oar blade that is comparatively broad and short (as opposed to a spoon).

(8) A cutting tool for stripping the blubber from a whale or skin from a carcass.

(9) As “in spades”, a term synonymous with the idiomatic “laying it on with a trowel” to indicate something done to excess or in an emphatic way.

(10) As “to call a spade a spade”, to be candid; to speak plainly without resort to euphemisms.

(11) As “to do the spadework” to be thorough in preparation.

(12) A hart or stag three years old (rare).

(13) A castrated man or animal (archaic).

Pre-900: From the Middle English noun spade, from the Old English spada, spade & spadu.  It was cognate with the the Proto-Germanic spadǭ, spadô & spadō, the Dutch spade, the Old Frisian spada, the Old Saxon spado, the Old High German spato, the German Spaten, the Old Norse spathi (spade), the Hunsrik Spaad and the Ancient Greek spáthē (blade; broad, flat piece of wood).  The ultimate source was the primitive Indo-European spe-dh-, from which the Ancient Greek gained σπάθη (spáthē) (blade), Hittite išpatar (spear), Persian سپار‎ (sopār) (plow), Northern Luri ئەسپار‎ (aspār) (diging) and Central Kurdish ئەسپەر‎ (esper) & ئەسپەرە‎ (espere) (cross-piece on shaft of spade to take pressure of foot).  More recent descendants include the Scottish Gaelic spaid and the Fiji Hindi sipi.  Spade & spading are nouns & verbs, spader & spadeful are nouns, spaded is a verb and spadable & spadelike are adjectives; the noun plural is spades.

Pentagon-authorized playing cards, 2003.

The use on playing cards dates from 1590–1600, from the Italian, plural of spada the meaning of which was originally “sword”, from the Latin spatha, from the Greek spáthē.  Historically, the ace of spades was the highest card in the deck and, dating from the reign of James I (James Stuart, 1566–1625; James VI of Scotland 1567-1925 &  James I of England and Ireland 1603-1625), the law required the ace of spades to bear the insignia of the printing house.  This was to ensure the stamp duty was paid and the method to certify its payment on playing cards was a physical stamp on the highest card of the deck.  Beginning in the seventeenth century, card manufacturers started putting their identification marks on the ace of spades and it was soon an industry tradition, maintained even when the tax was no longer payable, the intricate designs now serving to protect them from illegal copying.  The ace of spades has a (somewhat dubiously gained) reputation as the death card but its become part of the folk lore attached to various organized crime operations and has been used by some militaries in psychological warfare, the US army ordering bulk supplies of ace of spades cards to scatter around although the belief the Viet Cong soldiers feared the card appears to have been untrue.

Lindsay Lohan's Royal Routine in spades in The Parent Trap (1998).

The Pentagon however still liked the imagery.  In the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, thousands of packs of cards were issued, all decorated with pictures of the Iraqi regime's most wanted figures.  The dubious honor of being the ace of spades was of course granted to President Saddam Hussein (1937–2006; president of Iraq 1979-2003) but, unfortunately, the regime's final official spokesman, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf (b 1940), despite his memorable war-time press conferences (as a result of which he was dubbed "Comical Ali" (a dark allusion to Ali Hassan al-Majid al-Tikriti (1941-2010, an Iraqi military officer who became notorious for his use of chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians) or "Baghdad Bob" by the press corps) which made him the country's second best known figure, didn't rate a card.  The Pentagon deemed him not worth even a two of clubs, an act of some ingratitude in the circumstances.

Dating from the 1520s, the spatula, now familiar as a kitchen tool used to scrape the contents of bowls, was derived from the early fifteenth century medical instrument, from the Latin spatula (broad piece), diminutive of spatha (broad, flat tool or weapon) from the Ancient Greek spathe (broad flat blade (used by weavers); the erroneous form spattular appeared circa 1600.

Mid-twentieth century silver-plated cake server by Viners of Sheffield (left) & early twentieth century Danish silver-plated cake spades (right).

The cake spade was a curious alternative to the cake (or pie) server, the latter a utensil styled to conform to the size and shape of the typical domestic slice of cake or pie.  Where the cake spade differed was in the use of a regular or irregular trapezoid shape which, although it would make it difficult to maneuver something cut in the traditional, elongated triangle used with circular cakes or pies, offered advantages in stability for anything served is a squarer form including desirable stuff like lasagna: horses for courses.

Drain spade with comfort step and D-grip with fibreglass handle; available at Walmart.

Although a proliferation of modern hybrid designs for home gardeners has a little blurred the distinction, traditionally, a spade differs from a two-handed shovel mostly in the form and thickness of the blade.  The phase “to call a spade a spade" (using blunt language, call things by right names and avoid euphemisms) dates from the 1540s and was a translation of a Greek proverb (which was known to the Greek satirist and rhetorician Lucian of Samosata (Λουκιανός ό Σαμοσατεύς; circa 125-Circa 185) ten skaphen skaphen legein (to call a bowl a bowl) but Dutch Catholic theologian Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus (Erasmus of Rotterdam; 1466–1536) mis-translated, confusing the Greek skaphe (trough, bowl) for a derivative of the stem of skaptein (to dig) and the mistake has forever stuck, possibly because, at least in English, it better conveys the meaning.

Laying it on with a trowel

The trowel used by Queen Victoria when laying the foundation stone of the new buildings at the Victoria and Albert Museum, 17 May 1899, an act she managed to perform without leaving the comfort of her carriage.  A trowel is a kind of small hand-held spade, used in gardening and to apply the mortar in brick-laying.  The ornamental trowel was rendered in silver and enamel by the silversmith Nelson Dawson (1859-1941) and his wife Edith (1862-1928).

The phrase “in spades” (a suggestion of abundance) appeared first as recently as 1929 in a short story by US journalist and author Damon Runyon (1880-1946), a reference to the desirably of having many of the suit in bridge, spades the highest-ranking suit.  A similar phrase is that reported by the poet Matthew Arnold (1822-1888) and attributed to Benjamin Disraeli (1804–1881; UK prime- minister 1868 & 1874-1880) who, when discussing the techniques he adopted during his audiences with Queen Victoria (1819–1901; Queen of the UK 1837-1901), advised “everyone likes flattery and when you come to royalty, you should lay it on with a trowel”.

Although Disraeli joined the Church of England at the age of twelve, he was born Jewish and one who clearly understood the value of laying flattery on “with a trowel” was Benjamin Netanyahu (b 1949; Israeli prime minister 1996-1999, 2009-2021 and since 2022) who, while doubtless noting the “No Kings” protest movement in the US, decided that for these purposes Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025) should be treated like royalty.  Shortly after it was in June 2025 announced the US military had (with the now famous “bunker-buster” bombs) attacked Iranian nuclear processing facilities which the ayatollahs had concealed deep inside a convenient mountain, Mr Netanyahu appeared at the lectern, metaphorical trowel in hand:

Benjamin Netanyahu (left) & Donald Trump (right).

“Congratulations President Trump, your bold decision to target Iran's nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history.  Israel has done truly amazing things. But in tonight's action against Iran's nuclear facilities, America has been truly unsurpassed.  It has done what no other country on earth could do. History will record that President Trump acted to deny the world's most dangerous regime, the world's most dangerous weapons.  His leadership today has created a pivot of history that can help lead the Middle East and beyond to a future of prosperity and peace.  President Trump and I often say 'peace through strength'.  First comes strength, then comes peace.  And tonight President Trump and the United States acted with a lot of strength.  President Trump, I thank you.  The people of Israel thank you.  The forces of civilization thank you.  God bless America.  God bless Israel and may God bless our unshakeable alliance, our unbreakable faith.”

Disraeli himself can scarcely ever have been as effusive in his praise of his Queen (although on occasion he was known to go on bended knee to kiss the hand) and were Mr Netanyahu able to grant Mr Trump an imperial title (as Disraeli in 1876 conferred on Victoria by making her “Empress of India”), surely he would.  In paying due tribute, the Israeli prime minister set the mark but in a post-operation press briefing conducted with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (US Air Force (USAF) General Dan Caine (b 1968)) Pete Hegseth (b 1980; US secretary of defense since 2025) rose to the occasion:

Donald Trump (left) & Pete Hegseth (right).

“For the entirety of his time in office, President Trump has consistently stated, for over 10 years, that Iran must not get a nuclear weapon, full stop.  Thanks to President Trump's bold and visionary leadership and his commitment to peace through strength, Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated.  Many presidents have dreamed of delivering the final blow to Iran's nuclear program, and none could, until President Trump.  The operation President Trump planned was bold and it was brilliant, showing the world that American deterrence is back.  When this President speaks, the world should listen and the U.S. Military, we can back it up.  The most powerful military the world has ever known.  No other country on planet Earth could have conducted the operation that the chairman is going to outline this morning.  Not even close.  Just like Soleimani found out in the first term Iran found out when POTUS says 60 days that he seeks peace and negotiation, he means 60 days of peace and negotiation otherwise that nuclear program, that nuclear capability, will not exist.  He meant it.  This is not the previous administration.  President Trump said, no nukes. He seeks peace, and Iran should take that path.  He sent out a Truth last night, saying this: any retaliation by Iran against the United States of America will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed tonight, signed the President of the United States, Donald J Trump.  Iran would be smart to heed those words. He said it before, and he means it.  I want to give congratulations to our commander in chief. It was an honor to watch him lead last night and throughout and to our great American warriors on this successful operation. God bless our troops. God bless America, and we give glory to God for his providence and continue to ask for his protection.”

Donald Trump (left) and Mark Rutte.

Not wanting the White House to think NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) couldn’t handle a trowel as well as Tel Aviv and the Pentagon, Mark Rutte (b 1967; prime minister of the Netherlands 2010-2024, secretary general of NATO since 2024) took the opportunity presented by Mr Trump’s impending arrival at the 2025 NATO Summit Defence Industry Forum to send the president a message congratulating him on the apparent success of the USAF’s strikes on Iran:

“Mr President, dear Donald, congratulations and thank you for your decisive action in Iran, that was truly extraordinary, and something no one else dared to do. It makes us all safer.  You are flying into another big success in The Hague this evening.  It was not easy but we’ve got them all signed onto 5 percent!  Donald, you have driven us to a really, really important moment for America and Europe, and the world.  You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done.  Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win.  Safe travels and see you at His Majesty’s dinner!”

Mike Huckabee (left) and Donald Trump (right).

One who had his own way of sending the message was Mike Huckabee (b 1955; Baptist preacher, Republican governor of Arkansas 1996-2007, US ambassador to Israel since 2025) who earlier had told Mr Trump that while doubtlessly he was hearing advice from many sources telling him what to do about Iran: “There is only one voice that matters, HIS voice.  I believe you will hear from heaven and that voice is far more important than mine or ANYONE else’s.”  The president clearly liked the thought of God as his advisor and re-posted the message on his Truth Social platform.  Despite his critics alleging he thinks himself as above God, it’s probably more accurate to suggest Mr Trump regards Him as an equal.

Splayd (pronounced splade)

An eating utensil combining the functions of spoon, knife and fork.

1943: A constructed brand name which was not a conventionally blended word but one with a pronunciation intended to remind the speaker of the devices functional elements (spoon & blade) with the hint of "splay" (to slant, slope or spread outwards) to allude to the shape of the tines.  While the shape of the splayd was at the time unusual, the idea of utensils which combined the knife, fork & spoon had been around for generations and during World War II (1939-1945), allied soldiers enviously would admire the "light-weight and brilliantly simple" one issued to the German army.  Splayd is a noun; the noun plural is splayds.

The splayd was created by William McArthur of Sydney, Australia, with production licensed to several manufacturers, the best known of which was Viners of Sheffield.  Although several variations of the spork (a utensil combining the functionality of spoon and fork) already existed, the splayd’s innovation was the refinement of two outer fork tines, each having a hard, flat edge, suitable for cutting through soft food and they tended to have a geometric rather than a rounded bowl (usually with two longitudinal folds in the metal).  Mrs McArthur used and sold splayds in her Martha Washington Café in Sydney's Martin Place between 1943-1967 and in 1960 sold the manufacturing rights to the Stokes company which instituted some minor changes to the design, making them more easily mass-produced.

Set of six splayds plated in 24 carat gold; most splayds were rendered in 18-8 stainless steel although, especially in England, silver plate items appeared in smaller volumes.

Among some of the middle class seeking to add a layer of something to their dinner parties, splades were often seen and during their heyday in the 1950s & 1960s.  They were also a popular wedding gift and one unintended benefit was their usefulness in aged care and medical rehabilitation facilities, their use recommended for those with feeding difficulties following or during treatment of the arm.  A range was manufactured with the Selectagrip system which featured customizable handles to assist people who had difficulties gripping or manipulating standard utensils.

Effectuate

Effectuate (pronounced ih-fek-choo-yet)

To bring about; give effect to; cause to happen; accomplish; carry out (a wish, order, plan etc).

1570–1580: From the Medieval Latin effectuatus (brought to pass), the past participle of the Renaissance Latin effectuare, the construct being effectu- (stem of effectus (effect) + -atus.  It’s assumed the Medieval Latin was influenced by the Middle French effectuer.  The Latin suffix -ātus was from the Proto-Italic -ātos, from the primitive Indo-European -ehtos.  It’s regarded as a "pseudo-participle" and perhaps related to –tus although though similar formations in other Indo-European languages indicate it was distinct from it already in early Indo-European times.  It was cognate with the Proto-Slavic –atъ and the Proto-Germanic -ōdaz (the English form being -ed (having).  The feminine form was –āta, the neuter –ātum and it was used to form adjectives from nouns indicating the possession of a thing or a quality.  In biology, the noun effector (plural effectors) describes (1) any muscle, organ etc. that can respond to a stimulus from a nerve, (2) the part of a nerve that carries a stimulus to a muscle etc or (3) any small molecule that effects the function of an enzyme by binding to an allosteric site (all some sort of actuator).  Effectuate & effectuating are verbs, effectuator is a noun, effectuation is a noun and effectuated is a verb & adjective; the noun plural is effectuators.

In his A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926), Henry Fowler (1858–1933) summed up the cluster of “effect” words with his usual efficiency: Historically, effective, effectual, efficacious & efficient all meant “having an effect, but use varied with both different applications and some often disregarded shades of meaning.  Effective means “having a definite or desired effect, existing in fact rather than theoretically, coming into operation”.  Efficacious should be applied only to things and has long been popular in medicine (treatments, drug regimes etc) and means “certain to have or usually having the desired effect”.  Efficient applies to agents or their actions or to instruments etc, meaning “capable of producing the desired effect, not incompetent or unequal to a task.  Effectual applies to actions apart from the agent and means not falling short of the complete effect aimed at while effective applies to the thing done (or its doer as such) and means having a high degree of effect. 

Something is effectual if the intended result is produced and there’re are degrees of effectiveness, the comparative being “more effectual”, the superlative “most effectual”, and as early as the early sixteenth century the most formal (and still popular) way of expressing that was to suggest something has been efficacious (the comparative “more efficacious”, the superlative “most efficacious”).  Historically, efficacious was a synonym of effective but the latter has been co-opted for many purposes so efficacious gained a career as a “decorative word” of the “dinner party” type.  The act referenced is one of “effectuation” (the act of effectuating) and the antonym is inefficacious.  One who effects the effectuation is an effectuator.  So, effectuate means “to cause something to happen" or “to bring about an effect” and it entered English in the early 1600s with a formal or legal tone, something retained to this day; the legal connection is the distinction between “facilitate” (make it possible for something to be effectuated) and effectuate (do something which has earlier been facilitated).  It’s a useful distinction for lawyers to draw and something like the way cosmologists differentiate between a “point in time” and a “point in space”, something which apparently becomes of increasing significance the further one travels (in theory) from Earth.  To most of us that’s the difference between “when” and “where” but cosmologists understand there’s some overlap between the two.

Google ngram: Effectuate's pattern of use, 1800-2022.  Never a word in common use, it has never gone away and has apparently low been a favorite in essays by students of law and political science.

Because of the way Google harvests data for their ngrams, they’re not literally a tracking of the use of a word in society but can be usefully indicative of certain trends, (although one is never quite sure which trend(s)), especially over decades.  As a record of actual aggregate use, ngrams are not wholly reliable because: (1) the sub-set of texts Google uses is slanted towards the scientific & academic and (2) the technical limitations imposed by the use of OCR (optical character recognition) when handling older texts of sometime dubious legibility (a process AI should improve).  Where numbers bounce around, this may reflect either: (1) peaks and troughs in use for some reason or (2) some quirk in the data harvested.

Karoline Leavitt, the White House, 2025.

Definitely on planet Earth (though sometimes accused of existing in a parallel reality of “alternative facts”), the White House recently introduced many to the word “effectuate”, Karoline Leavitt (b 1997; White House press secretary since 2025) explaining that while the USSC (US Supreme Court) had ruled it was the administration's responsibility to “facilitate the return” of a migrant mistakenly sent to a prison in El Salvador, but “not to effectuate the return.”  That is a reasonable interpretation of the practicalities and not mere legal sophistry because while the court’s unanimous ruling means is the administration has to “make possible” the return of the party. It seems not to impose an obligation actually to make the travel arrangements.

However, this exchange between the two “co-equal” branches of government is merely emblematic of a fundamental dispute in which the Trump administration does not wish to acknowledge the courts may intervene in its efforts to effectuate, on a truly grand scale, mass deportation.  At this stage the White House seems to have decided not to engage in outright defiance and pursue instead strategy of “paralysis by analysis”.  The Supreme Court upheld an order from the US District requiring the DoJ (Department of Justice) to submit plans “to facilitate and effectuate” the return but the DoJ asked the hearing be delayed so it might “evaluate” the USSC’s ruling.  After further extensions of the deadline were granted, the DoJ asserted the court had set an “impractical” deadline and had provided “insufficient” time for plans to be drawn up, adding the department didn’t fully understand the order, given the court had not clarified what it means to “facilitate” or “effectuate” the return.  The USSC refrained from suggesting the DoJ’s lawyers consult a dictionary and instructed the District Court to issue a clarification of “the intended scope of the term ‘effectuate’” but did confirm the order to “facilitate” the return was valid.

There is nothing new in tensions between an administration wanting to do things (often stuff claimed to enjoy an electoral mandate) and courts which insist things, however popular, must be effectuated in accord with the constitution and as long ago as 2019 Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025) had discussed Article II (The Executive) of the constitution, claiming it meant “…I have the right to do whatever I want as president.”  Ominous as that may sound, especially in the light of the USSC’s extraordinary 2024 ruling in the matter of presidential immunity from prosecution, it seems still not quite at the point either of that asserted by Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974 and a trained lawyer) who held “if the president does it, it can’t be illegal” or the state of law in the Third Reich (1933-1945) which by 1943 (at the latest) had degenerated to the point where law had become “what the Führer says it is”.

In democratic societies, respect for the rule of law and constitutions are important and there have been many states in which orders from courts habitually are defied or simply ignored.  The respect is vital because in terms of enforcement of will the difference between the executive and judicial institutions truly is striking; one side with police forces, an army, navy & air force and the other with word processors and shelves of books containing statutes and precedents.  In terms of raw power therefore, all the courts have is moral authority and the expectation others will respect the law while, if so minded, an executive can be of the “…and how many divisions has he got?” school.

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.

That school of thought has often been ascribed to Andrew Jackson (1767–1845; US president 1829-1837) who is reputed to have said of a judgment by the chief justice (John Marshall (1755–1835; chief justice of the US 1801-1835) with which he disagreed: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”  The “quotation” was not revealed until some two decades after Jackson’s death when it appeared in Horace Greeley’s (1811–1872) The American Conflict: A History of the Great Rebellion in the United States of America, 1860–1864 (in two volumes, 1864 & 1866) and most think it apocryphal.  Greeley was usually informative and often entertaining and while that exact sentence may never has passed the president’s lips, historians generally agree it was an accurate paraphrase of the sentiments he at the time expressed to many and, had the court requested the assistance of the executive in enforcing the order, it’s not certain Jackson would have followed constitutional precedent and complied.  As things turned out, no request was ever issued so there never was a “constitutional crisis” but the matter does emphasize how vital it is for the executive (which alone possesses the means of force) to respect the role of the courts which have only a moral authority.