There are three choices.Tick the one that best reflects how you feel about the matter:
1-The best way the United States ensures military superiority globally is by going back to treaties of non-proliferation, making sure other nations comply as well.
2-The best way the United States ensures military superiority globally is by funding America's anti-terrorism programs, working with allies and reinstituting the treaties to ban weapons of mass destruction.
3-The best way the United States ensures military superiority globally is by continually investing and upgrading Star Wars and nuclear arms programs, and striking other nations the U.S. sees as a threat before they develop weapons of mass destruction.
Yikes! I strongly disagree with the second poster who seems to favor quick-strike situations against nations who are our enemies. Thank goodness we never fulfilled this prophecy against the Soviet Union or Cuba during the Cold War days. Though I'm not sure that any of these are realistic choices, the first two seem to be the most reasonable options.
These are not good or realistic choices....
Part of the problem is the assumption in the question that the U.S. must strive for military superiority, instead of military... I don't know, safe defense. We don't have to flex and kill to show how powerful we are. We cannot disarm ourselves, and we can't continue to play World Police. On the other hand, we always need to be on defense, and be unrepentant about enforcing our security. I guess 2 is closest to realistic, even though we know from experience that other countries will cheerfully sign weapons bans and then produce them in secret.
I think that number 1 is unrealistic. We can't force countries into compliance without going to war. I also don't think number 3 is realistic. We could end up in another Cold War or another arms race. This leaves number 3, which is not entirely unreasonable. You can try to work with other countries and try to keep the peace as long as possible.