"It is often said to be the prime duty of a government to protect its citizens," Jonathan Schell writes in 1998 his book "The Gift of Time: The case for abolishing nuclear weapons now." "Why shouldn't America's leaders, by agreeing together with Russia's leaders to abolish both countries' nuclear arsenals, rescue our people and theirs from the threat of annihilation?"A good question. Yet, for a cynic like myself there is an easy response. In today's world, America and Russia are hardly the only nuclear powers. Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, Iran and Iraq are all nuclear powers or threatening to be so. Even if America and Russia unilaterally disarm, other countries could retain nuclear capabilities. And, nuclear weapons cannot be disinvented, meaning proliferation can reoccur at any time.

America and Russia inarguably possess large stockpiles of both tactical and strategic nuclear arms. And, they have for at least 50 years, since the beginning of the Cold War arms race. Yet, the last nuclear weapon to be used in war was dropped Aug. 11, 1945 on Nagasaki, Japan, helping to end World War II in the Pacific. Since then, wars have been fought by nuclear powers in Korea, Vietnam, the Falkland Islands (U.K.), Algeria (France), Afghanistan (U.S.S.R.) and the Persian Gulf. But, America, Russia, Britain and France never used their nuclear edge in any of these wars. Why?

According to Roger Molander, who served as a nuclear warfare and arms control adviser to Presidents Nixon, Ford and Carter, exercises made it clear that "nuclear weapons offered little military or political value to the United States in regional conflicts, even against adversaries using nuclear weapons." Conventional weapons can now "destroy virtually all types of targets ... as effectively as nuclear weapons and with lower collateral damage to noncombatants."

The main argument against unilateral disarmament is the "breakout" problem. Even if America, Russia and the other nuclear powers agree to disarm, some rogue leader may attempt to break out from the agreement and hold the world hostage with a few nuclear weapons. This is entirely unrealistic though, because conventional weapons are now so effective.

If Iraq, North Korea or even Osama bin Laden used a nuclear weapon against the United States, it is highly unlikely that America would retaliate with anything other than conventional weaponry. As Rolf Ekeus, the Swedish ambassador to the United States said, "Would the United States blow up Iraq with a nuclear bomb? It's not credible ... the United States would use its smart weapons." Using a nuclear weapon in response would make America seem callous and vindictive in international eyes, especially because dictators, rather than the general population in Iraq and North Korea control the nation's arms.

Why should the United States hold innocent civilians responsible for the self-destructive actions of their unelected leaders? Looking back, many feel that was the mistake made at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After surveying the damage done there, few would be willing to repeat it, or deal with the political consequences.

So, rather than a justification for Cold War-era deterrence theories, the recent crisis with North Korea demonstrates why nuclear weapons must be removed. We will never be willing to use nuclear weapons against North Korea, and Kim Jong II realizes this.

Our nuclear weapons are clearly not deterring him from using his. Deterrence does not work in a breakout situation.

The list of disarmament proponents is illustrious and growing. It includes former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara. Military and political leaders from both countries have decided, based on personal experience, that nuclear weapons are not a necessary evil. If these leaders are willing to admit that possessing nuclear weapons is unnecessary in the modern world, civilians should listen carefully to their arguments and follow suit.

Now that the Cold War has ended, America and Russia must take advantage of their now-cordial relations and decide to unilaterally disarm. A poll conducted by Lake Sosin Snell and Associates found that 87 percent of the American public favors a treaty eliminating nuclear weapons. Already, four out of seven continents are free of nuclear weapons: Africa, Antarctica, Australia and South America. An agreement between the United States, Russia and China to disarm would make a pro-nuclear position of other current or potential nuclear powers untenable.

In "The Gift of Time," Schell says a general post-Cold War apathy toward the nuclear issue has halted the disarmament movement. The United States and Russia need to reenter serious negotiations, leading to full disarmament rather than the slight reductions of weapons stockpiles. The rest of the world will follow the example set by the two nuclear superpowers.

The responsibility for disarmament now rests on the shoulders of the citizens. An active, anti-nuclear movement such as the ongoing ones in Australia, New Zealand and Japan can set an example for Russians and Americans.

"Peace is not the province of governments; it is the province of the people," writes David Krieger, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. "The people know far more about achieving and maintaining peace and human dignity than the so-called experts - political, military or academic - will ever know. Therefore, we must act now as if our very lives depend on it - because they do."

Let us, the people, value our own lives and those of our neighbors, leaving the nuclear age forever behind at Nagasaki. Instead, let us look forward to the peaceful information age of the future.