Yes! Especially if you can cover mutual supervision - that sort of arrangement seems to get glossed over in the "tree of supervisors" world.
Who restarts who? That's a bit tougher to do when everything becomes cyclic.
Links are bidirectional though, so when one of the workers die, the other can know about it, die, propagate the error or react to it. Monitors are unidirectional and won't propagate the errors, but only report it. I guess you could write your own mutual supervision that way, but it would be a bit weird, still.
The first one is distributed Applications. This is part of the standard OTP stuff. What this does is declare a node as a master, and then failover nodes for your OTP application. When your master goes down, the other nodes take over it. Whenever the master is back, the failover nodes drop their applications and restarts it on the master. This loses all of the state if it hasn't been kept in a safe place.
Another one is to look at gen_leader. gen_leader is not part of OTP, but has been written by Ulf Wiger and is available on github or through agner. A quick description of it would simply be to say that it's a boosted gen_server that will find a master of itself somewhere and automatically replicate its data everywhere else. If the master dies, a leader election occurs and a new one takes over.
A third option is to have a masterless concept. This is what happens in Riak. Data has to be shared in clever ways and code organized to support such a design. Nobody's a master, everyone's a follower. You add redundancy here and there, push important state to a safe spot, etc. In the standard library, modules such as 'global' handles this kind of thing.
Supervisors are not exactly made to cross node boundaries. They protect your local processes. If you need something more complex to keep your state alive, this usually happens at a higher level for OTP.
That being said, riak_core has been on my List Of Things To Have A Really Good Look At for a while now...