Unrestricted

Unrestricted (pronounced uhn-ri-strik-tid)

(1) Not restricted or confined.

(2) In the classification of documents, having no security classification.

1766: The construct was un-+ restrict + -ed.  The un- prefix was from the Middle English un-, from the Old English un-, from the Proto-West Germanic un-, from the Proto-Germanic un-, from the primitive Indo-European n̥-.  It was cognate with the Scots un- & on-, the North Frisian ün-, the Saterland Frisian uun-, the West Frisian ûn- &  on-, the Dutch on-, the Low German un- & on-, the German un-, the Danish u-, the Swedish o-, the Norwegian u- and the Icelandic ó-.  It was (distantly) related to the Latin in- and the Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-), source of the English a-, the Modern Greek α- (a-) and the Sanskrit अ- (a-).  The verb restrict was in use by at least the 1530s in the sense of “to limit, bound, confine (someone or something), prevent from passing a certain limit in any kind of action” and was from the Latin restrictus, past participle of restringere (bind fast, restrain) and perfect passive participle of restringō (draw back tightly; restrain, restrict), the construct being re- (back, again) + stringō (press, tighten, compress); as an adjective, it was a doublet of ristretto. By the eighteenth century, the word had come to be regarded as a Scotticism but the infection spread quickly to Standard English.  As the past-participle adjective from restrict (in the sense of “limited, confined”), restricted has become associated with the classification of government documents, in the sense of “not for public release”, use seems not to have been routine until 1944 when a system of classification was codified by the US government.  Prior to that, although restrictions of distribution were common, concepts such as “Restricted to [names or designations]”, “Secret”, “Top Secret” etc were used but there was no standardization within departments or even between branches of the military.  When used as a suffix to form possessional adjectives from nouns, -ed was from the Middle English -ed, from the Old English -od (the adjectival suffix), from the Proto-Germanic -ōdaz, from the primitive Indo-European -ehtos.  It was cognate with the Latin -ātus. 

Glory road: A “Derestricted” sign in Australia's Northern Territory from the days of “no speed limits”.

In use, the older adjectival use was simply “restrict” and although “unrestricted” would seem an absolute (ie something either is restricted or it is not), dictionaries confirm the comparative is “more unrestricted” and the superlative “most unrestricted” although at least one style guide notes those forms can be regarded in a similar way as “very unique” (ie technically incorrect but widely used and well-understood.  The related adverb “restrictedly” was and remains rare.  In the US, well into the twentieth century, the appearance of the word “restricted” in advertisements, signage and such was verbal shorthand for (depending on context and location): “No Jews”, “No coloreds” etc.  Although the words “unrestricted” & “derestricted” describe similar states, different histories are implied and that’s a product of the ways in which the absence of restrictions came about.  Unrestricted means literally “no restrictions” (access to something or somewhere; rights to engage in trade etc).  “Derestricted” means that previously restrictions must have been imposed but those have since been removed.  The use applies to document classifications and in the now rare cases of roads with no speed limits (although some of those were something of a linguistic outlier because in many cases they never had any restrictions to be derestricted.  For obvious reasons, in English, “unrestricted” is the more commonly used form.  Unrestricted, unrestrictive & unrestrictable are adjectives, unrestrictedness is a noun and unrestrictedly is an adverb.

1978 Mercedes-Benz 450 SEL 6.9 on the Northern Territory's derestricted roads.  Although the factory only ever claimed 225 km/h (140 mph), top speed of UK-delivered “Euro spec” 6.9 (ie one not fitted with the power-sapping anti-emission devices fitted to those built for sale in the US or Australia) turned out to be a verified 237 km/h (147 mph) which reflected the experience of European testers who achieved 238 km/h (148 mph) on the German Autobahns.  Unexceptional now, in such pace was in the 1970s a reasonable achievement for a heavy cruiser with pre-modern aerodynamics; at high-speed, the fuel consumption was awe inspiring.    

Idealistic lawyers (they do exist) and others have for centuries argued it is the existence of and adherence to laws which makes possible civilized societies, the alternative often expressed as “the law of the jungle”, best understood in the vernacular “kill or be killed” world in which life of man was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”, memorably described in Leviathan (1651) by the very clever and deliciously wicked English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679).  However, what the lawyers, at least privately, acknowledge is the extent of adherence to laws closely is tied to (1) their enforcement and (2) a layered system of punishments for transgressions.  In domestic legal systems, this is comprehended as the apparatus extending from receiving a fine for overstaying one’s time at a parking meter to being hanged for murder; the existence of laws does not prevent crime but the perception of the chance of detection and the subsequent penalty for many operates as a deterrent and the debates about relationship between certain penalties and their deterrent effect continue.

Mahan's The Influence of Sea Power upon History 1660-1783.  In the last decade of the nineteenth century, probably no book was more read in palaces, chancelleries & admiralties.

In war, although usually the opposing sides have geo-political objectives, for those doing the fighting, historically the business was about killing each other and in practice that of course quickly and understandably came to imply “by whatever means possible” but for many centuries there have been conventions which form of “rules of war”, the most celebrated the various chivalric codes (codified during of the Middle Ages) which sought to regulate the behaviour of soldiers, particularly towards civilians.  However, as US Navy Captain Alfred Mahan (1840–1914) pointed out in the epoch-making The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660–1783 (1890), it’s impossible by mere agreement to outlaw the use of a militarily effective weapon so is it any more plausible for a statute, treaty or agreement to limit “mission creep” in the methods?  Whatever knightly codes may have existed, there seems little doubt that on the battlefield (or the towns subject to rape & pillage) habits do tend towards “unrestricted warfare”, military historians and legal theorists often pondering whether in “existential conflicts”, law reasonably can be expected to retain its intended force.

In what was a rhetorical flourish rather than a substantive legal point, in the dock before the IMT (International Military Tribunal) which in 1945-1946 sat in Nuremberg to try 22 of the surviving senior Nazis, Hermann Göring (1893–1946; leading Nazi 1922-1945, Hitler's designated successor & Reichsmarschall 1940-1945) claimed to be quoting Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) in citing: “In the struggle for life and death there is in the end no legality.”  Like William Shakespeare (1564–1616), a few phrases have been attributed to Churchill on the basis of “sounding Churchillian” and although there’s nothing in the record to support the case those exact words ever passed his lips, Göring’s paraphrase was not unreasonable.  After the fall of France in 1940, Churchill did make clear his view “there could be no justice if, in a mortal struggle, the aggressor tramples humanity while those resisting remain bound by violated conventions” by which he meant if the Nazis ignored international law, it was an absurdity for the Allies fully to remain constrained by it while fighting for their very survival.  Churchill was not advocating the rejection of established law as a principle; he was saying when a state faces the prospect of destruction at the hand of an enemy ignoring the accepted rules of war, strict legalism must not be allowed to prevent an effective defence.  That wasn’t a novel idea Churchill formed upon assuming the premiership.  Months earlier, when serving as First Lord of the Admiralty (minister for the navy), he’d discussed whether the UK should regard itself still restricted by the legal conventions Germany’s forces were ignoring: “The Germans have torn up the conventions and the usages of war.  We cannot allow ourselves to be bound by rules which the enemy does not observe if by doing so we place our country in mortal danger.”  While not exactly the words used by Göring in the dock, he captured the spirit of Churchill’s meaning.

Lindsay Lohan on the cover of Vogue Arabia, March 2026.  Among the topics raised in discussion about her not uneventful life was “…coming of age in the spotlight in a time of unrestricted paparazzi access and near-constant tabloid scrutiny.”

Of course on 15 March 1946, borrowing the thoughts of “…one of our greatest, most important, and toughest opponents…” to support his argument modern, industrial, total war had rendered irrelevant traditional legal restraints, he was still harbouring the (faint) hope he might escape the noose and thus has a good motive in seeking to undermine the moral authority of the tribunal by suggesting even Churchill had acknowledged that in existential war, legal rules collapse.  This was not the construction of legal theory in the abstract, just as Churchill was explaining the pragmatic nature of military necessity because as he pointed out: “without victory there is no survival” and were the UK unilaterally to obey the rules while its opponents did not, the nation might lose the war.  Neither man ever sought to maintain that in war laws vanish, only that as demanded in extraordinary and reprehensible circumstances, they may need to be ignored.  Essentially, Churchill was asserting he wasn’t prepared to behave with the propriety of Caesar’s wife while Göring cavorted with Caesar’s whores; with that the Reichmarshall gleefully would have agreed and although his hopes the tribunal might find his paraphrased defence exculpatory were by then faint indeed, he still had an eye on the figure he hoped to cut in the history books.  

The doctrine of military necessity of course dates from the first time some prehistoric character picked up a stick or rock to gain tactical advantage in an argument and despite the various codes of warfare promulgated over millennia by philosophers, priests and politicians, that doctrine survived into the age of musketry and later, atomic bombs.  It’s the Prussian general and military theorist Carl von Clausewitz (1780–1831) who often is quoted because, with his commendable economy of phrase, succinctly he explained why necessity so often prevails over legality in existential war.  In On War (1832), he observed “War is an act of force, and there is no logical limit to the application of that force” and, anticipating the idealists, added: “Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed… Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy.”  What Clausewitz called Kriegsräson (necessity in war) meant in practice was (1) war has an inherent tendency toward escalation, because each side must use whatever means are necessary to defeat the other and (2) “arms races” will tend to ensue.

Imperial Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg in field uniform including the famous Prussian Pickelhaube (spiked helmet, the construct being Pickel (pimple, pickaxe) +‎ Haube (hood, cap)), Berlin, 1915.  Even when serving as chancellor (prime minister) von Bethmann Hollweg sometimes wore military uniform; Germans adore uniforms (note the jackboots).

Later in the century, German military jurists expressed this logic through the principle Kriegsräson geht vor Kriegsmanier (military necessity overrides the customary rules of war) by which they meant the laws and customs of war could be followed only to the extent adherence did not impose an unacceptable military cost; if survival (and in practice: “immediate advantage”) demanded those rules be violated, necessity prevails.  What was at the time the most outrageous admission of the application of the doctrine came in 1914 after Germany violated Belgium’s neutrality and was delivered by Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg (1856–1921) who between 1909-1917 served as one of a series of inadequate replacements of Otto von Bismarck (1815-1989; chancellor of the German Empire (the “Second Reich”) 1871-1890); imperial chancellor of the German Empire 1909-1917).  In what must remain among the more ill-advised statements delivered by a politician, von Bethmann Hollweg on 4 August 1914 stood in the Reichstag (lower house of the imperial parliament) and explained to assembled members the German war-plan required the army marching Belgium to attack France and that Germany being a signatory to the Treaty of London (1839) which guaranteed Belgium’s neutrality had been rendered irrelevant by military necessity, the always quoted passage being: “We are violating international law, but necessity knows no law.”  Not all historians agree Realpolitik held a greater fascination for Germans than others but for students of the art, the chancellor’s speech appears in just about every text-book on the subject.  Warming to his theme, when the British ambassador to Germany protested the violation, von Bethmann Hollweg responded it would be an absurdity were Britain to go to war “just for a scrap of paper” (that scrap being the treaty the Germans had in 1839 signed as co-guarantors of Belgian neutrality).  That cynical turn of phrase was echoed a generation later when, under cross-examination in the dock at Nuremberg, Göring almost gloatingly admitted he and the other leading Nazis had regarded the many treaties they’d signed as “just so much toilet paper.”

Like many a defendant, the defrocked Reichmarshall was at times evasive or dissembling but on the matter of the regime’s attitude to treaties, he was truthful.  A highlight of the 50^th birthday celebration for Joachim von Ribbentrop (1893–1946; Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nazi Germany 1938-1945) had been the presentation to the minister of a diamond-studded casket containing facsimiles of all the treaties he had signed during (his admittedly busy if not productive) tenure.  When one of his aides remarked that there were only “a few treaties we had not broken”, Ribbentrop was briefly uncertain how to react until he saw “…Hitler’s eyes filled with tears of laughter.”  It was said to be a good party which must have been welcome because by 1943 there wasn't much to celebrate in Berlin.  Like Göring, Ribbentrop, was convicted on all four counts (planning aggressive war, waging aggressive war, war crimes & crimes against humanity) and sentenced to be hanged; his life did end on the gallows, unlike Göring who, in circumstances never explained, cheated the hangman by taking poison.

Periscope cam: Footage of USN submarine strike on the Iranian Navy’s frigate IRIS Dena (released by the Pentagon (unclassified)).

One of the intriguing legal matters explored before the IMT was the matter of the lawfulness of “unrestricted submarine warfare” and those discussions were recalled when, early in March, 2026, the Pentagon announced a USN (US Navy) submarine had torpedoed and sunk the Iranian Navy’s IRIS Dena (a Moudge-class frigate) with the loss of more than half the ship’s compliment of 130-odd.  Pete Hegseth (b 1980; US Secretary of Defense (and War) since 2025) described the act as one of “quiet death” although that was a reference to the torpedo’s stealthy approach rather than the explosions which doomed ship and crew.  It was the USN’s first sinking of an enemy warship by torpedo since World War II (1939-1945) and because (1) the US and Iran undeniably are in a “state of armed conflict” (any legal distinction between that and “war” as traditionally defined ceasing decades earlier much to matter), (2) the Dena was a warship and (3) the action took place in international waters, the attack doubtlessly was within the rules of war and the reaction of Tehran in branding it an “atrocity at sea” was a political rather than legal claim.

Defendants in the dock, Nuremberg, 1946.  All were guilty of something and a dozen were sentenced to be hanged (including one in absentia) but the IMT acquitted three who subsequently were prosecuted by German courts.

What however remains of interest is the recent change in tactics by the US which now uses military-level missiles to target and sink what appear to be civilian vessels from Central America, the White House claiming the boats are being used to smuggle narcotics.  When considering the lawfulness of “unrestricted submarine warfare”, the IMT in 1946 held that while international law did limit the conduct of navies in their interactions with non-military (ie merchant craft, fishing boats etc) vessels, because the British merchantmen were from the beginning of the war armed and captains had been ordered by the Admiralty to if possible ram U-boats, they were not entitled to the warning provisions of the protocol.  Beyond that, with reference to the failure on the part of German U-boat (submarine) commanders to rescue their shipwrecked victims, the tribunal observed:

“The evidence further shows that the rescue provisions [of the Protocol] were not carried out and that the defendant [Großadmiral Karl Dönitz (1891–1980; head of the German Navy 1943-1945, German head of state 1945)] ordered that they not be carried out.  The argument of the defense is that the security of the submarine is, as the first rule of the sea, paramount to rescue and that the development of aircraft made rescue impossible.  This may be so, but the Protocol is explicit.  If the commander cannot rescue, then under its terms he cannot sink a merchant vessel and should allow it to pass harmless before his periscope.  These orders, then, prove Doenitz is guilty of a violation of the Protocol.”  Had the judgement at that point ended the legal position would have been clear in that having at least tacitly conceded the defense’s point that rescue was no longer practicable in light of the limitations of the submarine and modern technological developments, the use of submarines as commerce destroyers would have been deemed against international law.  However Doenitz’s counsel introduced evidence (including affidavits from Allied admirals) that the USN & Royal Navy had from the outbreak of hostilities also practiced the “unrestricted submarine warfare” of which the Germans were being accused and this was not a classic Tu quoque gambit (in international law, a justification of action based on an assertion that the act with which the accused is charged was also committed by the accusing parties.  It was from the Latin Tū quoque (translated literally as “thou also” and latterly as “you also”; the translation in the vernacular is something like “you did it too”, thus the legal slang “youtooism” & “whataboutyouism”)).  What counsel argued was that in practicing “unrestricted submarine warfare”, all navies were acting in accordance with international law because such law makes sense only if it is cognizant of the prevailing circumstances (ie reality).  The IMT’s judgement in the Doenitz case was difficult to read (it was only later it was revealed to have been written by a judge who voted for his acquittal) but what it said was (1) the defendant had violated the protocols which were the rules of international law as they at the time stood but (2) the nature of total war had so changed the reality of war at sea that those protocols were no longer law, rendered obsolete and thus defunct.  That was as close as the tribunal came to allowing a tu quoque defense.

Unclassified footage released by the Pentagon of one of dozens of strikes on alleged “narco-terrorist” boats by US Southern Command.  The video included a message from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth: “TO ALL NARCO-TERRORISTS WHO THREATEN OUT HOMELAND - IF YOU WANT TO STAY ALIVE, STOP TRAFFICKING DRUGS.”  As far as is known, in all cases of these strikes, all on board the boats were killed.

So, while the US military (and for this purpose that includes the Coast Guard, National Guard etc) have a free hand to attack on the high seas warships of a hostile combatant, does the doctrine of “unrestricted warfare” extend to civilian vessels allegedly being used for unlawful activities?  Legal scholars have explored this novel development (something genuinely new and introduced during the second administration of Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025)) and the consensus seems to be sinking manned civilian vessel with missiles as an instance in peacetime law enforcement is of dubious legality unless strict conditions are met.  The first thing to consider is whether it’s a matter of (1) peacetime law enforcement in international waters (something governed by the UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea)), customary international law and any bilateral interdiction agreements and thus a criminal matter rather than an act of war or (2) armed conflict at sea (and thus coming under the laws of naval warfare) which depends of a “state of armed conflict” existing between sovereign states.

However, whichever is held to be operative, as a general principle, civilian vessels are protected from missile attacks and enjoy freedom of navigation (certainly on the high seas); forces from warships may board, inspect, and arrest, but not arbitrarily destroy and under the UNCLOS there are explicit provisions under which a warship can stop a vessel suspected of statelessness or certain crimes but use of force must be necessary and proportionate.  Conceptionally, the notion of “proportionality” is little different from what is the domestic law of many states concerning matters such as self-defense: (1) there is no reasonable alternative and (2) force must not exceed what is needed to achieve a lawful objective.  Because these are events happening “on the water” there are also “graduations” in the use of force which are unique to the nautical environment including signals and warnings, maneuvering to compel a stop, warning shots (the classic “shot across the bows”) and disabling fire.  When civilian vessels are involved, historically, only in extremis (presenting a clear & present threat) would lethal force be deemed appropriate.  In other words, using missiles, without warning, to sink a civilian vessel would, in the context of law enforcement, be thought “disproportionate” especially if the crew’s lives are put at serious risk (inherent in missile attacks).  That’s all based on the precept that whether on land or at sea, states are expected to respect the right to life under international human rights law.  Because the adoption of this technique was so sudden, legal theorists are still working through the implications but it would appear an extension of the concept of “unrestricted warfare” beyond military targets.

Troop

Troop (pronounced troop)

(1) An assemblage of persons or things; company; band.

(2) A great number or multitude.

(3) In historic military use, (usually) an armored cavalry, cavalry or artillery battery consisting of two or more platoons and a headquarters group.

(4) As troops, a body of soldiers, police etc.

(5) A unit of Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts usually having a maximum of 32 members under the guidance of an adult leader.

(6) A herd, flock or swarm of some living creatures.

(7) A band or troupe of actors (archaic).

(8) In British military use, to carry (the flag or colours) in a ceremonial way before troops.  The correct term is "Trooping the colour", not the oft-heard "Trooping of the colours" and the ceremonial event is conducted also by military formations in countries with military traditions influenced by the British (usually dating from some association with the old British Empire).  

(9) To assemble or form into a troop or troops.

(10) An alternative spelling of troupe (archaic).

(11) In British military slang, formerly to report a soldier for a breach of discipline (archaic).

(12) An alternative word for consort (archaic).

(13) The collective noun for a group of baboons.

(14) In music, a particular roll of the drum; a quick march.

(15) In mycology, mushrooms that are in a close group but not close enough to be called a cluster.

(16) To gather in a company; flock together.

(17) To come, go, or pass in great numbers; throng; to walk, as if in a march; go; to walk, march, or pass in rank or order.

(18) To associate or consort (usually followed by with).

(19) To work as a trooper. 

(20) To work steadily without complaint; to persevere ("What a trooper!" the usual praise for such folk.

1545: From the French troupe, from the Old French trope (band of people, company, troop, crowd), of uncertain origin but perhaps from the Frankish throp (assembly, gathering of people), from the Proto-Germanic þurpą (village, land, estate), from the primitive Indo-European treb- (dwelling, settlement) or a back-formation of troupeau, diminutive of the Medieval Latin troppus (flock) and Middle French troupe, from which Modern French gained troupeau (herd)), the construct being trop- (from the Germanic form thorp) + -el, from the Latin –ellus, the diminutive suffix.  There may have been some connection with the Old English ðorp or the Old Norse thorp (village) and the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) suggest the French form was from the Latin troppus (flock) of unknown origin but may also have been picked-up from the (speculative) Germanic source.  Doublet of troupe, and possibly also of thorp and dorp; it was cognate with the German Dorf (village).  Troop, trooper & trooping are nouns & verbs and trooped is a verb; the noun plural is troops (troopers the more commonly used form).

It came to be applied to groups of animals in the 1580s, the military adoption for a “subdivision of a cavalry force" dating from the same time, the general use of ‘troop” to describe any “armed forces” attested from the 1590s.  Troops were part of the structure in the Boy Scouts from the organization's beginnings in 1908, the Girl Scouts emulating this upon formation four years later.  In modern use, the spelling troupe has assumed the exclusive use of describing a company of actors, singers, acrobats or other entertainers and performers.  The noun troop is a linguistic curiosity.  It’s used as a collective noun (a troop of girl-scouts) and in the noun plural (the troops) but not as a noun singular (one doesn’t refer to individual troops as “a troop”) but there is the noun singular “trooper”.

The Dilworth Story.

In the slim volume The Dilworth Story (1954), US historian of machinery & transportation Franklin M. Reck (1896-1965) wrote of the way Richard Dilworth would illustrate the point that many “inventions” credited to a single individual often come from the labours of many by citing the quote: “My mother was a canteen lassie.  Anyone of a troop of dragoons was my father.”  That, he claimed, was “a line from Bobby Burns.”  The Scottish poet Robert Burns (1759–1796) was known familiarly as “Rabbie Burns” and there seems no doubt about the identities of his parents who neither worked in canteens nor were member of military troops but it’s a memorable line worthy of Burns and the word “lassie” (used in Scotland and northern England to refer to girls and young ladies, usually in an affectionate sense) does appear in his works so to Mr Dilworth it must have sounded plausibly Burnsian.  Sayings sometimes are attributed to Burns on the basis of “sounding Scottish”, the same phenomenon explaining the fate of pithy phrases thought “Shakespearian” or “Churchillian”.  Richard Dilworth (1885-1968) was a self-taught engineer who made notable contributions to the development of diesel-electric locomotives in the US and it was only his modest character which seems to have relegated him to obscurity while others perhaps less worthy receive at least footnotes.  Published by the Electro-Motive Division of GM (General Motors), the foreword to The Dilworth Story was written by Charles F. Kettering (1876–1958), the US engineer responsible for many good things but also the introduction of leaded gasoline (petrol), an ecological disaster which would for half a century-odd poison the world.

Military and para-military use

Para-military use: Lindsay Lohan and attorney Mark Heller (b 1945) arrive at Los Angeles Superior Court, 18 March, 2013, a phalanx of Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department troopers clearing her path.

The troop as a military sub-unit continues to exist in some armed and police forces but tends now not in general to be part of military structures.  It was originally a tactical group, a small formation of cavalry, part of a squadron deployed on a battlefield for a specific action and it’s in that sense that use persists, troop sometimes an alternative term for an infantry section or platoon.  There are historic exceptions in the US Cavalry and the British Army where a troop can be an infantry company or artillery battery.  The Australian Army uses the term, a troop a platoon sized element and the general term for army personnel (and literally the private soldier) is trooper.  Technically, it’s only the SASR (Special Air Service Regiment; special forces) of the RA Inf (Royal Australian Infantry Corps) which uses troop to refer to its platoon size formations but it seems embedded as common slang.  As a general principle, where used in the military, a troop tends to be platoon-sized except in the US Cavalry, where it’s equivalent to a company (ie three to four platoons) and, when combined, these form a regiment, the change in nomenclature dating from 1883.

Para-military use: A troop of Covid-era Girl Scouts selling Covid-era Girl Scout Cookies (Girl Guide Biscuits in some places).

In civilian use, many US police forces use troop and trooper because they modelled their command structures along military lines, the same reason the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts adopted the form although, in these less robust times, it’s become common, especially with the latter, to replace troop with company, the now less-fashionable military connection being less overt.  One exception was the Salvation Army which never used troop, either as an organizational unit or in the collective to describe its members although, it was common to refer to them as "Christian soldiers".  They did use military ranks and some of the structural terms (such as corps and division) were adopted but never troop.

One Girl Scout troop’s entrepreneurial flair in March 2026 caused a stir, Fox News reporting the bumper sales the young ladies booked after setting up for business outside a cannabis dispensary in Mount Laurel, New Jersey (one of some 200 outlets in the state).  The choice of location was of course sound, stimulation of the appetite one of the best-known side-effects of using the substance; it's one of the many reasons it came to be used for medicinal purposes.  The opportunistic pop-up cookie store proved synergistic, the dispensary's hungry stoners queueing for a sugary treat while the owner of Daylite Cannabis told Fox News the store's foot traffic had increased while the troop plied their trade.  He revealed also that many of his customers stopped at the Girl Scout's booth before entering his shop, proving at least some weed-smokers think ahead.  Whether the girls were (empirically or otherwise) familiar with the phenomenon of “the munchies” or the choice of location was made by someone else wasn’t revealed but it seems Girl Scouts head office wasn’t impressed and the venture won’t be repeated.

Cardigan

Cardigan (pronounced kahr-di-ghun)

(1) A usually collarless knitted sweater or jacket that opens down the front, usually with buttons (sometimes a zip); in some places also called a cardigan sweater or cardigan jacket.

(2) The larger variety of corgi, having a long tail.

1868: Adopted as the name for a close-fitting knitted woolen jacket or waistcoat, named after James Thomas Brudenell (1797-1868), seventh Earl of Cardigan, the English general who led the charge of the Light Brigade (1854) at Balaklava (Balaclava) during the Crimean War (1853-1856) although the fanciful account of him wearing such a garment during the charge is certainly apocryphal.  The place name Cardigan is an English variation of the Welsh Ceredigion, (literally “Ceredig's land”, named after an inhabitant of the fifth century).  Cardigans usually have buttons but zips are not unknown and there are modern (post-war) variations which have no buttons, hanging open by design and reaching sometimes to the knees.  These sometimes have a tie at the waist and the fashion industry usually lists them as robes but customers seem to continue to call them cardigans.  From its military origins, the term originally referred only to a knitted sleeveless vest, the use extending to more familiar garments only in the twentieth century.  Coco Chanel (1883-1971) popularized them for women, noting they could be worn, unlike a pullover, without messing the hair.  Cardigans were one of the first items to which Chanel added the influential weighted hems.  The most usual contraction is now cardi displacing the earlier cardie (cardy the rarely seen alternative). Cardigan is a noun and cardiganlike, cardiganless & cardiganed are adjectives; the noun plural is cardigans.

Lord Cardigan, engraved by D.J. Pound (1820-1894) from a photograph, published in The Drawing-Room of Eminent Personages, Volume 2 (London, 1860).  At the time, in the British Army, moustaches were then a thing which verged on the obligatory.

The cardigan claimed to have been modelled after the knitted wool waistcoat worn by British officers during the Crimean war but the origin of the design is contested, one story being it was an invention of Lord Cardigan, inspired by him noticing the tails of his coat had been accidentally burnt off in a fireplace although the more common version is it was simply a practical adaptation to keep soldiers warm in the depths of a Crimean winter.  So, although the fireplace story is romantic, it may be a military myth but may not be unique.  In the appendix of names to the Dairies of Evelyn Waugh (1903-1966) (edited by Michael Davie (1924-2005) and published in 1976), it was noted the solicitor Edmund Sidney Pollock “E.S.P.” Haynes (1877–1949) “died after his shirt-tails caught alight while he stood in front of his bedroom gas fire.”  Whether that was the immediate cause of death or simply a contributing factor isn’t clear because other sources record his cause of death as “pneumonia”, in those days known to doctors as the “old man’s friend” because “it carried them off so quickly”.  Haynes had acted for Waugh in the 1930 divorce from his first wife (Evelyn Gardner (1903–1994), one of the original “Bright Young Things” of fashionable London in the 1920s); the troubled, unsatisfactory marriage endured barely two years and its sundering saddened those in society who had enjoyed being able to refer to the couple as “He-Evelyn & She-Evelyn”.  As was his habit with those he knew, Waugh used She-Evelyn as the model for the adulteress Brenda Last in his novel A Handful of Dust (1934); after the divorce, they would never meet again.

In some circles, the cardigan in the twenty-first century gained a new lease on life because the style made it ideal for use in the “curtain reveal” manner.  Actress Katie Holmes (b 1978) demonstrates the motif wearing a two-piece ensemble (cardigan with bra in the same cashmere knit; the latest variant of the twin set idea) from Khaite.

Although he made his living as a solicitor, Haynes interests were wide and he was a prolific author (of law, women's suffrage philosophy, politics and more) and one of the eccentric figures who once made English literature an interesting place.  At the professional level, his greatest contribution to the law was the effect his work in reforming the country’s then onerous divorce laws ultimately would yield but his career ended badly, in 1948 struck off the Solicitors' Rolls for a failure “properly to maintain books of accounts”.  Acknowledged as possessing a brilliant mind, his lifestyle in middle age became careless and it’s said his lunch “rarely would finish before four” and he had the unusual habit of maintaining “…at the end of his table a store of bottles jars and tins containing garlic, biscuits, sauces etc.”  Again, Waugh’s journalistic eye took all this in and Haynes inspired the vivid descriptions of the eating practices of boot family at Boot Magna Hall in the novel Scoop (1938).  The long lunches took their toll and he was later compelled to wear a sort of corset to lift and hold in suspension his sagging belly, the weight supported by stout shoulder straps, the construction imagined conceptually as a “large, single cup bra”.  Whether the consequent lack of mobility had anything to do with his shirt tails catching fire seems not anywhere mentioned but such a physique would not have assisted a recovery from consumption (pneumonia).  

Lindsay Lohan (b 1986) in twinset cardigan, Los Angeles, January 2012.

Twinset is the term used when a cardigan is worn with a matching sleeveless or short-sleeved pullover sweater.  Historians note that although the twinset, attributed to both Coco Chanel and Elsa Schiaparelli (1890–1973), was a fashion innovation first seen during the 1920s, it didn’t achieve widespread popularity until the early post-war years.  The mildly disparaging term twinset and pearls references both the perceived social class and conservatism of those characterised as especially fond of the combination though it has been reclaimed and is now often worn without any sense of irony.  Fashion advisors note also that the classic mix of twinset and skirt can be leveraged with a simple multiplier effect: One set of the garments provides one outfit but if one buys two of each in suitability sympathetic colors, then six distinct combinations are produced while if another skirt and twinset is added, suddenly one's wardrobe contains eighteen outfits.  It's the joy of math.

Kendall Jenner (b 1995), Paris, March 2023.

Few motifs draw the fashionista's eye like asymmetry and in March 2023, model Kendall Jenner (b 1995) wore an all-gray ensemble which combined the functionality of a cardigan, dress, skirt & sweater.  Designed by Ann Demeulemeester (b 1959) and fashioned in a wool knit with a draped neckline and asymmetrical leg slit, it was worn with a pair of the Row’s Italian-made Lady Stretch Napa leather tall boots with relatively modest 2½” (65 mm) stiletto heels.  Despite the extent of the exposed skin, the cut means it possible still to wrap for warmth and, being a wool knit, it’s a remarkably practical garment.  Because of the relatively light construction, most would regard this still as a type of cardigan but, if made with heavier fabrics, something using the same concept would be classed a coatigan (a portmanteau word, the construct being coat +‎ (card)igan) which is a hybrid of a coat and a cardigan.  Predictably, there are definitional gray areas and, as a general principle, whatever term the manufacturer uses is accepted.

CONELRAD

CONELRAD (pronounced kon-ill-rad or kon-ill-rid)

As an acronym: CONtrol of ELectromagnetic RADiation, a Cold War era  system of emergency public broadcasting developed by the US in the mid 1950s.

Exclusive to the US, CONELRAD was a nationally standardized system of emergency public broadcasting (on the AM (amplitude modulation) medium-wave band at 640 & 1240 kHz) intended to operate in the event of enemy attack during the Cold War.  The original specifications for what emerged as CONELRAD was first discussed at the "Informal Government-Industry Technical Conference" (March, 1951) and later published by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission): "The primary plan for alerting broadcast stations that is currently being considered by the FCC Study Group is known as the Key Station System.  The arrangement requires certain telephone circuits (private wire or direct line to Toll Board) between the Air Defense Control Centers (ADCC) and specified radio stations to be known as Basic Key Stations & Relay Key Stations”.

Cold War PSA (public service announcement).

The essence of the system was each Basic Key Station upon receiving an alert or warning signal from the ADCC would, upon instruction, broadcast a predetermined message and also relay the message by telephone to all Relay Key Stations assigned to each Basic Key Station.  As a diversified network designed to be able to continue functioning even if various parts were destroyed, it was conceptually similar to a later US military project which would later evolve into the internet.  Intended to be simple, robust and able to reach as wide a possible audience in the shortest possible time, CONELRAD used simple protocols for alerting the public and other "downstream" stations, consisting of a sequence of shutting the station off for five seconds, returning to the air for five seconds, again shutting down for five seconds, and then transmitting a tone for 15 seconds.  Key stations would be alerted directly and all other broadcast stations would monitor a designated station in their area.

In the event of an attack on the US, all domestic television and FM (frequency modulation) radio stations were required immediately to cease broadcasting and upon alert, almost all AM stations shut down, those remaining on-air transmitting either on 640 or 1240 kHz.  No transmission would last more than a few minutes and upon one going “off-air” another would take over the frequency on a ”round robin” chain, this to confuse enemy aircraft which might be navigating using RDF (Radio Direction Finding), a technique first widely used in the early days of World War II (1939-1945).  In the US, all radio sets manufactured between 1953-1963 were required to have the two frequencies marked by the triangle-in-circle (CD Mark), the symbol of Civil Defense organizations.  In 1963, CONELRAD was replaced by the EBS (Emergency Broadcast System) which operated until 1997 when all responsibilities were assumed by the FCC.

Diet Coke product placement in Mean Girls (2004).  One of the clues in identifying product placement is that items carefully are placed so brand-names are always legible.

Product placement, a technique on marketing in which products are brands are “worked into” something like a film or television programmes, is now so ubiquitous (witness the frequent appearance in Mean Girls (2004) of Coca-Cola, Doritos, Cheetos, Dunkin' Donuts, Red Bull, Silk Milk, Taco Bell etc) that there are now internet sleuths gleefully who document each instance.  Frequently, the presence of a product is merely an example of “brand awareness” with no substantive effect on the plot (in most cases it’s of no significance whether the characters drive Fords or Buicks or drink Pepsi or Coca-Cola) although there have been some deemed morally or politically dubious and variously they’ve involved things like alcohol, tobacco or firearms or institutions like the US military.  Known also as “embedded marketing”, the technique is most associated with commercial cinema where the stuff is easy to interpolate but there have been examples even in literary fiction, the best known being The Bulgari Connection (2001) by Fay Weldon (1931-2023).  In that, in exchange for an undisclosed payment, the author was required to make a specified number of mentions of the Italian luxury goods house Bulgari (generously, greatly she exceeded the quota).  Of course, that’s an example which became notorious and it’s not known how many other “respectable” novelists have been subsidized this way.

Stromberg-Carlson radio (with CONELRAD settings arrowed in red) promoted as one of the many “plusses” in the ownership of one of the Ford Motor Company's new Edsels.  In Australia, the phrase “it seemed like a good idea at the time”  is known colloquially as the “streaker's defence”.

The companion technique is “product association”.  Here, a company seeks in some obvious way to be associated with someone or some institution and in every glossy magazine there will, in one form or another, be probably dozens of examples.  Usually, “product association” is contractual with the consideration (usually cash or some form of contra arrangement) flowing one way or the other but the technique can also be executed as a form of “ambush marketing” (a hotel hiring for a morning a number of Ferraris, Lamborghinis and such to park outside for a photo-shoot, thereby hoping the “prestige” of the brands will “rub off”, despite the manufacturers receiving not a peppercorn for their unwitting participation).  More conventionally, it’s a normal commercial transaction entered into on terms agreeable to both parties and, if thought mutually beneficial, it may be on the basis of NMA (no monetary action).  In the matter of Stromberg-Carlson (by then a division of General Dynamics, now famous for nuclear submarines, warplanes and such) advertising their satisfaction at their new “transistorized” radio with “Town-and-Country tuning” being “one of the outstanding plus features of America’s newest car, the exciting Edsel”, it would have seemed like a good idea at the time.  By all accounts the Stromberg-Carlson car radios were fine devices but exhorting customers to: “See and drive the Edsel – it’s wonderful!” would have done nothing to enhance the corporate image.  That is of course a risk with product association: just as positive image can rub off, if things go awry, there’s a risk of that spreading too.  As it was, the Edsel venture floundered within three seasons but Stromberg-Carlson wasn’t part of the collateral damage.

1958 Edsel Citation Convertible, a failure with a fine CONERAD transistorized radio by Stromberg-Carlson.

Formed in 1894 as a partnership between Swedish immigrants Alfred Stromberg (1861-1913) and Androv Carlson (1854-1925), Stromberg-Carlson was for much of the twentieth century one of the dominant US manufacturers and distributors of electronics and telecommunications equipment.  As is modern corporate practice, Stromberg-Carlson became absorbed into other concerns and has since been part of the swirl of M&A (mergers & acquisitions) activities but it remains active in the industry.  Between 1906-1907, Alfred Stromberg dissolved his interests in telecommunications and formed what would become the Stromberg Motor Devices Company and ultimately Stromberg Carburetors.  In the post-war years, Zenith-Stromberg carburetors were used on a variety of British cars but they became well-known in the US after being adopted in the late 1960s because the company had a product which was ideally suited to complying with the increasingly stringent US emission regulations, the trade-off being some loss of performance, particularly at higher engine speeds.  In something like the Jaguar E-Type (XKE; 1961-1971), the switch from triple SU carburetors to dual Zenith-Strombergs meant the high-speed response suffered but, even in those happier days, there weren't than many who with any frequency explored how the things performed above 125 mph (200 km/h).