KUALA LUMPUR -- On Aug. 6, peace activists from around the world flocked to Hiroshima to pray for peace and remember those who died when the first nuclear bomb was dropped on that city 58 years ago. More subdued ceremonies marked the anniversary of the second, and we all hope last, use of nuclear weapons in anger three days later in Nagasaki.

Sandwiched in between these two dates was a "secret" conference in Omaha, Nebraska, where senior U.S. Defense Department officials reportedly met with nuclear weapons specialists to discuss ways of upgrading America's aging nuclear arsenal. While one can argue that there is never a good time to discuss the use of nuclear weapons, the Pentagon's timing of this event underscores and reinforces the impression around the world of U.S. callousness toward the views and feelings of others.

These views have been very much in evidence at this year's annual Asia Pacific Roundtable in Kuala Lumpur. Speaker after speaker, including many who have traditionally been supportive of Washington and still favor a continued U.S. military presence in the Asia-Pacific region, condemned U.S. "unilateralism" and "arrogance."

While some of the accusations are emotional and do not stand up to the facts -- or overlook the reality that all nations, when nation interests appear at stake, act unilaterally -- the bottom line remains: the Bush administration has a serious image problem that it appears intent on exacerbating. Given its "hyperpower" status, many argued, Washington no longer is concerned about what others think. Multilateralism, American-style, means "get on our bandwagon or get out of the way."

Washington sees itself as a primary proponent of nuclear nonproliferation. Its current standoff with North Korea is aimed, first and foremost, at stemming the development and potential use or export of weapons of mass destruction, or WMD. Washington, along with the international community in general, demands that Pyongyang rejoin and honor its commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Yet Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba says the NPT is "on the verge of collapse," not because of North Korean actions but because the United States "appears to worship nuclear weapons as God."

Akiba described U.S. policy as "openly declaring the possibility of a preemptive nuclear first strike." To my knowledge, the U.S. does not have, and has never professed to support a "preemptive nuclear first strike" strategy. Nonetheless, this accusation has increasingly been accepted as fact. After all, the Bush administration's National Security Strategy endorses a strategy of preemption against the use of WMD and the Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review (as leaked to the press) reportedly lays out contingencies under which nuclear weapons may be used. While neither talks about "first use," they don't rule it out either.

The latest "proof," as cited by Akiba, is the Bush administration's "resumed research into mininukes and other so-called 'usable nuclear weapons.' " He is referring to recent congressional legislation approving research on the potential development of smaller nuclear weapons (reversing a 10-year ban on research and development of weapons with an under-5 kiloton yield). Approval to actually produce such weapons has neither been sought by the Pentagon nor granted by the Congress.

The legislation does permit the Pentagon to begin examining, in U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's words, "a variety of different ways -- conceivably -- to develop the ability to reach a deeply buried target." This is the apparent objective of the Omaha meeting.

Critics at home and abroad are quick to point out that such actions run contrary to the Bush administration's professed counterproliferation goals since they emphasize rather than downplay the potential future importance of nuclear weapons and thus could encourage others to also seek this edge. It's no wonder, critics argue, that North Korea feels compelled to pursue its own nuclear deterrent in the face of this increased U.S. nuclear threat.

While experts can easily dismiss such misconceptions, they have a cumulative impact on the minds of friends and potential foes alike regarding Washington's commitment to its NPT responsibilities and the probability or desirability of the future use of nuclear weapons. This hardly serves U.S. nonproliferation or broader national security interests.

Perhaps it's time for the Bush administration to consider a "no first use of WMD" policy. This would emphasize the purely deterrent role that nuclear weapons continue to play in U.S. defense strategy, not just against the use of nuclear weapons by potential adversaries but by their use of chemical or biological weapons (the "poor man's nukes") as well.

It recognizes the political reality that the American people would never tolerate the use of nuclear weapons by its government other than in self-defense in response to a WMD strike; and the military reality that, in this age of advanced technology and U.S. weapons superiority, nuclear weapons are not needed either for preemption or to prevail in a conventional conflict.

It's time for Washington to return to the moral high road and put the WMD debate into proper perspective. A "no first use of WMD" policy declaration would be a significant step in this direction.