> I guess I'll go for the obvious: If the U.S. wanted to "claim dominance" at any expense, we certainly would have felt much less constrained in the use of nucl

> I guess I'll go for the obvious: If the U.S. wanted to "claim dominance" at any expense, we certainly would have felt much less constrained in the use of nuclear weapons in past conflicts. Nuclear weapons are defensive devices. The assurance of mutual destruction in case of an open conflict drove the cold war, and secures Israel's border, for example (not really mutual in that case). Using nukes offensively would completely alienate the US from the rest of the world. The US govt. needs sheepish allies to play along. It would also be unpopular at home (even though that could be spun around). > What you are describing is a mythology. One no better, and probably less accurate, than the mythology that the U.S. is an angel of hope and freedom on the world stage. The US, as any hegemonic nation before it, has been as bullish as politically and diplomatically possible. It doesn't mean that US citizen are bad people. Most of us are short-sighted when it comes to politics, and politicians and other policy makers take advantage of it.