I posit arms wars are nothing more than gratuitous male posturing. The metaphorical representation of male sexual identity should (given the amount of resources that have been poured into arms development, and the amount of resources again that are poured into dismantling arms) be obvious to us all by now as something that far outweighs the perceived, practical value of any armament. The wise adage, "Make love, not war," couldn't be more fitting. Stop bragging about your penis size (making war), and do something with it (make love).*
My sense is that public opinion is slowly manifesting the reality of this adage. Nationalism is dead, and what were formerly armies of specific nations have now become little more than policing forces. With the death of nationalism and growing empathy and respect between cultures around the globe, the policing forces will congeal and diminish as their relevance and necessity decreases.
What this means for all countries, but particularly for leaders like the U.S. and China, is that they should shift the basis of their economies towards those of benevolent, civilian interests (consumer capitalism, social reform, safer nuclear reactors) and away from military dependency. Because the most successful regions of the globe will be the one's that are most economically diverse (and hence most attractive to global investors), ironically the countries that invest the most in miliitary spending will ultimately be the biggest losers.
This isn't a fantastic model, it's one that we've all witnessed due to the force demilitarization of Japan and Germany after WWII. Because those nations were forced to spend in areas other than their military, they've succeeded both in terms of their nations and the individual citizens of those nations. Of all the rhetoric that bounced around after 9/11, I don't recall Japan or any Japanese people being fingered as terrorists, despite the fact that they're the only nation that's suffered a nuclear attack. There's no resentment there, presuming at least that some sense of resentment would have filtered its way to me through popular media.
Continued agression, whether on a personal or global level, makes losers of everyone involved. The question is, can we reason that the transition to non-military economies is possible before we are faced with catastrophic consequences such as Hiroshima, the single-minded insanity of Hitler, and 9/11? Let's just cut out the middle-man (war) and get straight to the more enviable state of being (love).
*Don't end up like ol' Slim, though: