I know that total disarmament is a utopian vision, we will never live in perfect world - people don't change, there were, are and will be wars. However NBC weapons scare the sh*t out of me, mainly due to their immense powers, area coverage and secondary, long lasting effects (that are difficult to counter). Bayonet kills one man, machine gun burst kills a squad, HE bomb eliminates a platoon, but new-q-lar warhead not only wipes out whole city, but also leaves fallout, which radiates survivors (if there are any) and stays active for several years... Not to mention adding to the greenhouse effect. Forget the EMP wave which will fry your PC. Toxic gas or lethal virus can also get out of hand... So as much as the conventional weapons are lethal and scary, they're the "lesser evil".
That's why I'll always advocate reducing new-q-lar potential worldwide. Especially now, when the MAD theory is no longer clear: during the Cold War there were US and USSR, both ready and able contestants to the title "biggest bad a55 on earth, bar none". Their new-q-lar potentials nullified each other (ok, I'm aware of the differences in quantity and quality, but enough to say both had enough for MAD work), which could indeed be the only reason why World War III didn't broke out in the last 50 years (too bad that US did nothing to stop the spread of communism after WW2, thus eliminating the threat - they had major air/land forces in Europe, huge production and A-bomb; I always laugh when I hear the Cold War bulls**t about how good Uncle Sam opposed the bad Batiushka Ivan by trying to protect Korea, Vietnam or Middle East from communist's influence, I guess giving half of the Europe to reds in 1945 was "a small thing", not worth of US attention). But now there is no more USSR, this doesn't mean that Russians are completely harmless - they will stubbornly protect their sphere of influence (Chechenia anyone?) and cold-blooded Putin (ex-KGB colonel) is much more dangerous than chubby Yeltsin - but with the collapse of economy and the Eastern Block, they are no longer in position to want directly oppose US in a military conflict (besides, they now face the elusive threat US does). So for the time being, there is no second boxer in the MAD ring, there is no ballance and this is why US new-q-lar arms race becomes dangerous. In the future I'd bet on China to be the other major player (North Korea may be dangerous as hell, but they're not up to US size - different "weight category").
So what should US do? Since we agreed they can't drop all their weapons like some bunch of hippies
Well, as it was already said in this thread, building an anti-nuke shield (which used to bear a cool name of "Star Wars program") is an option. This will undoubtedly give them an edge over their enemies ("we can hit you, you can't hit us - suckers!"). This can be also considered as a "pacifist's way of arms race" as other countries would pursue the same thing (as penetrating enemy territory would be tricky, mass sabotage is even less likely, virus has limited means to reach Army computers etc.). Also, a more conventional approach to arms race would be more preferable, especially now, when the enemy cannot be so easily found (and we can't use area-effect weapons like nukes). So this means better, stealthier planes/AA missiles; tiny, unmanned aircraft capable of doing recon, but also delivering weapons on the heads of unsuspecting enemy, etc. - yer usual wonder-weapon toys. Also, as armies become more and more reliant on electronics, new ways of crippling their comms (like offing a comsat from the orbit) and jamming the black boxes would be more readily available to tech-savvy US, rather than to China or even Russia (given the amount of rubels they now spend on military research - space junk like Burans can be bought for scrap price and this was once a heavily guarded secret).I'd also like to see more stress on special forces. Sending grunts to a conflict, where it's difficult to recognise combatants from civilians always ends up bad, while special forces excell in countering guerillas/terrorists/whaddayoucallit. The "Land Warrior" program is a good example of modern soldier. Even WW2 had shown, that if we know where the enemy is hiding, if we can react quickly, if we can paralyze their chain of command, then even a strong opponent will fall on its knees. Gulf War 1 is another proof - things like ground attack planes working together with J-STARs, seeing Iraqi tanks on the palms of their hands... so what that Saddam had plenty of equipment?
Being one-two tech generations ahead of the opponent really makes a difference in battle, even if they're stronger in numbers.
It is alarming that Bush's administration (because he's just a puppet) is still thinking in 1950s way... Nukes, global domination (hi Mr. Wolfowitz), enemy on every corner ("screw the Constitution, we've got War on Terrorism out here!"). Soon you'll be back into the paranoia when every American family will be building their own bunker. The rest of the world will be already in their bunkers, trembling with fear.