James Cameron
banner
jjjcameron.bsky.social
James Cameron
@jjjcameron.bsky.social

Professor of Modern North American History at the University of Oslo, Norway. Nuclear strategy and arms control.

Norway is not a member state of the European Union (EU). It is associated with the Union through its membership in the European Economic Area (EEA), signed in 1992 and established in 1994. Norway was a founding member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) in 1960, which was originally set up as an alternative to the European Economic Community (EEC), the main predecessor of the EU. Norway had considered joining both the EEC and the European Union, but opted to decline following referendums in 1972 and 1994. According to the European Social Survey conducted in 2018, 73.6% of Norwegians would vote 'No' in a referendum to join the European Union. Norway shares land borders with two EU member states, namely Finland and Sweden, and maritime borders with a third, Denmark. .. more

Political science 50%
Economics 14%
Pinned
I have been promoted to Professor in the Department of Archaeology, Conservation and History at the University of Oslo. Very pleased and thankful to the committee, my colleagues, and especially my family.

But if Moscow can defeat you without using nuclear weapons, because it has superior conventional forces, then it doesn't need to resort to nuclear weapons. So a second-strike capability is arguably useless.

So, a key question for the proponents of a Nordic nuclear deterrent: what is the basic objective?

If the deterrent is an insurance against US abandonment, then you need to have a doctrine of nuclear first use or have conventional forces strong enough to defeat Russia & force it to escalate first.

Sweden's premise was that it was facing the Soviet Union ex. NATO. So, the nuclear deterrent would be to offset Soviet conventional superiority. In that situation, a doctrine that including nuclear first use was almost inevitable. Otherwise the USSR could just rely on conventional superiority.

Whoever this Labour MP is, they have the right(ish) idea. www.politico.eu/article/us-d...

The gap between the increasingly pressing need for European countries to pool their defense efforts and their demonstrated ability/willingness to do so seems... quite wide.
In 2017, France’s Emmanuel Macron personally launched a joint program among three EU countries to build a sixth-generation fighter jet.

Now the project is on the verge of collapse, four European officials told POLITICO.

🔗 www.politico.eu/article/fran...

Reposted by James Cameron

In 2017, France’s Emmanuel Macron personally launched a joint program among three EU countries to build a sixth-generation fighter jet.

Now the project is on the verge of collapse, four European officials told POLITICO.

🔗 www.politico.eu/article/fran...

That was the case with Chevaline. I don't know of any information to that effect now.

I wonder what happened about a decade ago to cause all of this?
Starmer has to survive 38 days to have had a longer tenure than Rishi Sunak.

If a successor were to be in place by 13th July, we'd have had 7 PMs in a decade, which, by my reckoning, is the most since the 8 of 1827-37.

Reposted by James Cameron

Starmer has to survive 38 days to have had a longer tenure than Rishi Sunak.

If a successor were to be in place by 13th July, we'd have had 7 PMs in a decade, which, by my reckoning, is the most since the 8 of 1827-37.

Very niche queries, but:

1. Can't Trident II take 12 warheads if they are W76s rather than W88s?

2. The UK Holbrook warhead is an anglicised W76, so surely UK Trident IIs can also take 12 warheads?

A lot of sources cite maximum of 8 for some reason.
www.nytimes.com/2026/02/05/u...

Good essay on British Cold War nuclear strategist Michael Quinlan and how he can inspire the intellectual rearmament of a new generation of UK and European deterrence policymakers.
Michael Quinlan and Europe’s forgotten nuclear wisdom
Restoring credible deterrence for a new nuclear age should begin with the ‘intellectual rearmament’ of European statesmen and officials, in the tradition of Michael Quinlan, Britain’s Cold War master ...
engelsbergideas.com

This is gaining the feeling of a death spiral.
New on FT website:

Downing Street has refused to say whether Sir Keir Starmer knew Palantir was a client of Peter Mandelson’s lobbying firm when they both visited the company in Washington last February — ahead of it winning a £240mn UK government contract.

www.ft.com/content/5bba...
Starmer faces questions over visit to Palantir office alongside Mandelson
Former ambassador was also shareholder in lobbying group that counted US tech firm as a client
www.ft.com
New on FT website:

Downing Street has refused to say whether Sir Keir Starmer knew Palantir was a client of Peter Mandelson’s lobbying firm when they both visited the company in Washington last February — ahead of it winning a £240mn UK government contract.

www.ft.com/content/5bba...
Starmer faces questions over visit to Palantir office alongside Mandelson
Former ambassador was also shareholder in lobbying group that counted US tech firm as a client
www.ft.com

Given this chaos and lack of bureaucratic capacity inside the Trump administration, I wonder if the US government would be able to successfully handle technically complex arms-control talks.
New START ended in a very Trump way:

1. Expiry deadline passed with nothing from the White House, everyone assumed it was over.

2. Anonymous sources claiming that Kushner and Witkoff were cooking up a stopgap "handshake" deal in Abu Dhabi.

3. Trump Truth Social post confirming(?) it's over.

New START ended in a very Trump way:

1. Expiry deadline passed with nothing from the White House, everyone assumed it was over.

2. Anonymous sources claiming that Kushner and Witkoff were cooking up a stopgap "handshake" deal in Abu Dhabi.

3. Trump Truth Social post confirming(?) it's over.

So... they won't observe the New START limits?

Instead of a Nuclear Posture Review, we have a series of Truth Social posts.
“Rather than extend ‘NEW START’ (A badly negotiated deal by the United States that, aside from everything else, is being grossly violated), we should have our Nuclear Experts work on a new, improved, and modernized Treaty that can last long into the future.”

Reposted by James Cameron

“Rather than extend ‘NEW START’ (A badly negotiated deal by the United States that, aside from everything else, is being grossly violated), we should have our Nuclear Experts work on a new, improved, and modernized Treaty that can last long into the future.”

Reposted by James Cameron

There was no reason to undercut it since limits were high enough to allow all planned forces—until 1985 when the U.S. deployment of increasing numbers of ALCM equipped bombers would push us over limits. So we withdrew the pledge (and blamed the Soviets for violating the “spirit” of the SALT I.

It should be said that the decision not to undercut SALT II was made after months of debate inside the Reagan administration.

For some reason, I doubt the same amount of consideration has gone into the Trump admin's prospective decision to continue to comply with New START's central limits.

On New START, there is precedent re legally nonbinding statements of compliance.

Reagan on the unratified SALT II, May '82:

"As for existing strategic arms agreements, we will refrain from actions which undercut them so long as the Soviet Union shows equal restraint." share.google/wIgYPIgnLatb...

The Trump administration's arms control strategy (such as it is) seems to be aimed primarily at wasting the time of "RIP New START" op-ed writers.

Reposted by James Cameron

The only way 6 months is a meaningful time is if the two can agree on an agenda. Will the U.S. limit Golden Dome? Will Russia limit its tactical stuff? This isn't about numbers, but will anybody agree to restrain their forces below NST limits? At best, maybe we get some "nukes are bad" statements.

Looks like US and Russia will agree to continue to observe New START caps.

One "source said... both sides would agree to observe the [New START's] terms for at least six months, during which time negotiations on a potential new deal would take place."
Scoop: U.S. and Russia agree to observe New START nuclear pact after expiration
New START is the last major guardrail constraining the nuclear arsenals of the two countries that together hold some 85% of the world's warheads.
www.axios.com

So I guess that's it. New START has expired and almost 54 years of bilateral US-Soviet/Russia strategic nuclear arms control ends (for now).

The Trump administration doesn't seem to have much of an articulated strategy on anything nuclear -- not deterrence, modernization, nonpro, or arms control. The NDS had practically zero.

Reposted by James Cameron

Russia takes back the commitment to stay within New START limits for one year, but leaves some room for doing it de facto (or together with the US). However, Putin's September initiative seemed only conditioned on the US response after a year, so maybe we'll see it again. mid.ru/ru/press_ser...

Congratulations!!
So, I spent many many years working on my book, and it coincidentally comes out the same week as the end of the New START Treaty.  In print from Cambridge University Press next week, and ebook is online now. www.cambridge.org/vaynman or on Amazon: a.co/d/0brNOTKq