Allowing one's arsenal to slowly become obsolete is akin to disarmament, and unilateral disarmament isn't wise if one values their independence.
Similar weapons are being deployed by the US's military rivals:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-ZF
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_veh...
This particular madness will continue until all major powers come to some measure of political unity. A helpful first step would be for all of them to have elected officials.
I already answered that:
>> This particular madness will continue until all major powers come to some measure of political unity. A helpful first step would be for all of them to have elected officials.
Alternatively, the US and other democracies could be destroyed and their populations either exterminated or forcefully assimilated into some kind of authoritarian world superstate.
A false choice you attempt to make true by ensuring the cycle of escalation never ends. No US war since 1945 has been undertaken for the purpose you ascribe.
You don't understand deterrence.
In fact, an understanding of deterrence is the basis for my critique. Deterrence is just branding for an endless cycle of escalation, investment, and global danger. It's almost as if, perhaps, you weren't alive during the Cold War and don't understand its absurdity.