Nearly 60 years ago, Americans learned of the first case of nuclear proliferation. The Soviet Union, thought to be years away from acquiring its own atomic bomb, set off a successful test explosion in August 1959. The nuclear-weapons arms race had begun.

Last month's anniversary was a grim reminder of the threat we still face from the spread of nuclear weapons. Certainly, the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 only emphasized the danger. More than one person mused the next day: What if they had had The Bomb?

This very question remained on the minds of hardened veterans of the Cold War. The doctrine of "mutual assured destruction" carried us through the Cold War, they believed, but 21st-century enemies are no longer deterred in the conventional sense. Our nuclear nightmares, which were once about "nuclear winter," now include "dirty bombs" that could destroy a U.S. city, and we might never know who was responsible.

Two prominent conservatives have arrived at a surprising solution to the threat of the rapidly expanding proliferation of nuclear weapons. Former Republican secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Shultz now believe that we have to set our sights on freeing the entire world of nuclear weapons. They see the direct link between proliferation prevention and disarmament.

Last year, the two co-authored - with former Secretary of Defense William Perry and former Sen. Sam Nunn, two defense-oriented Democrats - an essay published in the Wall Street Journal that spelled out their vision. They called on the nuclear powers, led by the United States, to publicly commit to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons, to be achieved through a series of mutually verifiable steps.

The steps include taking deployed nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert in order to avoid accidental launches; halting the production of fissile material, such as plutonium, needed to make a nuclear weapon; improving security for existing stocks of weapons and fissile materials; ratifying a ban on nuclear-weapons tests; and negotiating deeper cuts in existing arsenals.

The piece set jaws dropping. No one expected this plan from these former Cold Warriors.

But it had the desired effect: Freeing the world from nuclear weapons is, to the mind of policy and political elites, no longer the dream of naïve activists. It is practical. It is doable. It is necessary.

Like so many ideas that at first seem heretical, the goal of a nuclear-weapons-free world achieved through a series of verifiable steps already enjoys the support of a sizable majority of Americans, according to comprehensive polling last year by WorldPublicOpinion.org.

And a new survey out last month by Harris Interactive and sponsored by the Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Free World found that almost seven of 10 Americans believe possession of nuclear weapons by some countries encourages others to develop their own nuclear arsenals.

The presidential candidates are taking notice as well. Sen. Barack Obama explicitly endorsed the vision and plan outlined by Kissinger, Shultz, Perry and Nunn in a speech last fall at DePaul University. Sen. John McCain also endorses the goal, articulated in his speech at the University of Denver in May. This is the first time in history that the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates both publicly support charting a course to create a nuclear-weapons-free world.

We are witnessing the rarest of things with this growing support across ideological and political lines. Come January 2009, the new president can do what is both right and popular by providing the U.S. leadership that is needed to create a world free of nuclear weapons.

Link to the article