> The regulation is good only for US interests.

I think your nuclear scenario outlines precisely why this isn't true. Nuclear regulation has terms that are "good for the US" only in an absolute sense. The US would dominate even more overwhelmingly in the unregulated scenario, which gave them negotiation power to get those favorable terms. The same seems true so far with AI.

I don't think you can use the successful negotiation of nuclear regulations to argue there is "no alternative" involving regulation. I think it strongly suggests the opposite.

Of course the details matter a lot, but the core analogy holds in many scenarios. ( https://ai-2040.com/ at least attempts to lay out details, speculative as they may be)