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.

Yes, although read in context I think we can infer what kind of issues will be considered "woke" and inhibiting warfighting effectiveness (proportionality, discrimination, etc.).

Quite concerning extract on responsible AI use from Pete Hegseth's speech yesterday, unveiling the new Department of Defense AI strategy. www.war.gov/News/News-St...
The US can keep forces in the Caribbean — but at a high cost. These deployments burn readiness, limit presence elsewhere, and leave the US less prepared for future crises.

Back to shouting about readiness to anyone who will listen (and even those who won't): www.bloomberg.com/news/article...
US Force’s Presence in Caribbean Has Limits, Despite Trump Vow
President Donald Trump vowed to keep US forces in the Caribbean for the foreseeable future. Yet given the sheer size of the military buildup in Latin America, he can’t maintain that presence indefinit...
www.bloomberg.com

But this argument for German proliferation is premised on the unreliability of France and the UK. The potential unreliability of others wouldn't be solved if Germany just assisted with a program but left control to partners.

Latest iteration of the German nuclear proliferation debate.

Apart from everything else, I don't understand the preference for tactical nuclear weapons.

Generally any deterrent starts with the strategic capability to inflict unacceptable damage on key cities and/or decision-making centers.
„#Deutschland braucht eigene…in erster Linie (mobile) TAKTISCHE ATOMWAFFEN!! Waffen, die sich der…Bedrohung durch #Russland entgegenstellen (können).“ sagt BrigGen. F. Piper. Angedacht wird aber nur eine Finanzierung nicht Herstellung/Besitz/Verfügungsgewalt.
www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/atom...
Braucht Deutschland eine eigene Atombombe?
Der mögliche Griff Donald Trumps nach Grönland führt zu heiklen Debatten. Was, wenn es zum Bruch kommt und die USA den Atomschutz kündigen?
www.sueddeutsche.de

Reposted by James Cameron

„#Deutschland braucht eigene…in erster Linie (mobile) TAKTISCHE ATOMWAFFEN!! Waffen, die sich der…Bedrohung durch #Russland entgegenstellen (können).“ sagt BrigGen. F. Piper. Angedacht wird aber nur eine Finanzierung nicht Herstellung/Besitz/Verfügungsgewalt.
www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/atom...
Braucht Deutschland eine eigene Atombombe?
Der mögliche Griff Donald Trumps nach Grönland führt zu heiklen Debatten. Was, wenn es zum Bruch kommt und die USA den Atomschutz kündigen?
www.sueddeutsche.de

Your antennae were accurate!

Apart from the Dagens Nyheter one?

Would a visibly increased risk of other European countries attempting to acquire their own nuclear weapons prompt an expansion of UK and/or French forces to try to close the deterrence gap left by the US and stem proliferation? Hard to say.

I think your instincts are correct!

I would add that "no plans to expand the UK's nuclear deterrent" is not the same as "we will not."

The question should definitely be kept under review, given current events.

Ultimate control is what really counts with nuclear weapons, so the backup would define arrangements -- i.e. it would be proliferation to the states involved individually, even if there were to be some kind of joint arrangements under certain circumstances.

The editorial makes out that it is not proliferation to separate states within a coalition, but rather some kind of joint force. Though (as ever) the nuclear weapons part is quite vague.

I would say the sensibility and feasibility should be at the forefront of considerations. The editorial pretty clearly states that it doesn't recommend just proliferating to five separate states.

Then you would simply be proliferating nukes to about five different states, which is what the editorial suggests it wants to avoid.

Because however high society thinks those risks are in the abstract, they are likely to be even higher in reality -- so if you are wavering over the risks when considering it in general, it is best to go back and think about whether there is a better way to provide for your security.

I agree with the debate part, but it would probably be better as a national conversation with expert input rather than only a debate between experts. It would be a huge decision with implications for the whole society.

I don't think that question is going away, but the debate needs to work through the implications of that decision more thoroughly than seems the case at the moment.

Yes, I am 99% certain that reporting is incorrect.

I don't think France has offered to share nuclear weapons in the accepted sense of the term, i.e. French weapons delivered by allied aircraft or any kind of dual-key arrangement.

I completed my MA 18 years ago (gulp) and the PhD thesis is a big step up. It can be challenging and supervisors should always work to make that transition as smooth as possible.

Dual-key French nuclear weapons takes the biscuit. That goes against everything that France stands for as a nuclear power.

My general view is that if a country thinks it would like nuclear weapons, but wants to spread the political, economic and security risks of doing so, then it probably shouldn't do it because proliferation is going to be politically damaging, economically costly and dangerous.

I think it comes down to people losing faith in US extended deterrence, not keen on a UK-French alternative, but opting for solution that promises to spread the security, financial, and political risks of acquiring nuclear weapons (which it won't).

If there is European nuclear proliferation -- and the chances of that are rising at the moment -- then it will be individual countries, not coalitions.

Then they are not really joint in any meaningful sense. You are just proliferating nuclear weapons to about five counties -- the name number of recognized nuclear weapons states in the world today.

Reposted by Alan Richardson

Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter floats the idea of "joint Nordic nuclear weapons – perhaps together with Germany."

How the launch authority for that would work is a mystery.
Ledare: Ingen vill diskutera svenska kärnvapen – men vi måste
Det finns ingen anledning att låtsas som att Natomedlemskapet blev som vi hade hoppats. Trump hotar nu inte bara att lämna Europa – han hotar Europa.
www.dn.se

I'm not sure there is any way around the PhD-MA gap. A 3-4 year monograph/series of articles is going to be more challenging than an MA thesis that can take 1-2 semesters to write.

A very good MA thesis is a strong signal the candidate will make a good PhD student. But there is an unavoidable gap.

Thanks, Caroline!
We are happy to announce the call for papers for the third WhoGov Mini-Conference on Political Elites!

It will be held on August 20-21st, 2026 in Oslo. We welcome research on political elites broadly understood and not just papers using WhoGov.

You can find the call here: bit.ly/whogovminico...