I know I'll get jumped on for this, but I think removing a well-designed a.a. filter rarely results in much more real detail. Instead, it allows the generation of false detail beyond the nyquist limit, which gives the impression of sharpness. Aliasing looks very sharp. And at the resolutions we use now, nobody can tell the difference in many landscape images. But that "extra" detail just may not be in the original scene at all. This article explains the issue quite well, I think: http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/article.php/20
Right now, even the highest resolution bayer sensors fail to fully exploit the abilities of decent lenses. Ctein has pointed out that it will take sensors with resolution in the hundreds of megapixels to actually accomplish that. In the meantime, there are two strategies people use to get the look of ultimate sharpness--both of them relying on digital artifacts and processing.
One is to remove the a.a. filter, and accept some aliased edges and false details that look sharp. These artifacts are often indistinguishable from actual detail in, say, landscape photography. The second strategy is to cut off most detail beyond nyquist with an a.a. filter, and use advanced sharpening techniques that try to recreate what the lens saw. If pushed far enough, deconvolution sharpening not only restores sharpness, but introduces a mist of grain and other digital artifacts that make the file look super sharp. (Just being honest, here.)
Personally, I prefer the second strategy. Deconvolution sharpening gets better all the time. And I would rather have control over the process than accept whatever artifacts the sensor gives me. Not just moire, but distorted edges and other inventions of the sensor and camera processing.
Pretty much every digital file made without an a.a. filter has aliasing, baked in. Just check the resolution charts of your favorite lenses. They all show false color and false detail--even those taken on cameras with a weak a.a. filter. It's fine if you like how the file looks, but we shouldn't confuse this aliasing with actual resolution.
I think that in ten years people will look back on the whole a.a. debate as a quaint vestige of digital growing pains. In the meantime, we should keep it real. Digital cameras without a.a. filters record a lot of false data. If we want to incorporate that into the look of our images, fine. But it's still there. For the most part non-a.a. cameras don't reveal more resolution. They create it.
Now I'll go hide in my bunker to wait for the incoming flames...