Playboy.com: What would you say to the people who believe that MAD [Mutually Assured Destruction] still seems pretty sane?

Hans Blix: I don't agree with that. And I'm in the good company of people like George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, Bill Perry and Sam Nunn. They have argued that during the Cold War, Mutually Assured Destruction and deterrence were meaningful. But nowadays, with detente, the end of Cold War and end of Communist expansion, it is not meaningful. And the continued possession of large numbers of nuclear weapons rather may act as a stimulation to possible would-be proliferators and possible non-faith actors. So the contention is that none of the great nuclear powers would, in today's world, deliberately threaten each other with nuclear weapons.

Playboy.com: Are nuclear-armed rogue states and terrorists a bigger or smaller threat than most people think?

Blix: I think it's a somewhat smaller threat than most people think. It is somewhat hyped.... But long-term, the technology of making nuclear weapons is going to be more and more available. If we wait another ten years there will be even more [rogue states] who can read on the Internet or in text books how you do it. And I don't think that one can simply have a strategy that aims at shooting at anyone or disabling anyone moving in that direction. I think the nuclear weapons states need to set the example that we all [need to] move toward nuclear disarmament. Then it will be less psychologically difficult to get everybody to come along.

Playboy.com: In terms of rogue states Iran and North Korea, many people think that Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-il are just nuts. How do cults of personality and individuals really impact the issue of disarmament?

Blix: Oh they do, and not only in those such states -- in the United States as well, I think. But perhaps we tend to exaggerate a little the importance of the individual. They have their importance, but Ahmadinejad clearly is not alone. Kim Jong-il is also not alone. He has a lot of military and other people. I think what one can be relatively sure about is that in most cases carrots and sticks have their function. That's less so of course when it comes to non-state actors who are willing to sacrifice their lives, and perhaps even think that that's a great thing to do.

Playboy.com: How do you deal with a culture that idolizes martyrdom?

Blix: Meeting the threat of terrorists, or a terrorist movement seeking nuclear weapons, calls for very different approaches from the ones you have against states. Here it's more of a police action. It's much more dependent upon intelligence and cooperation between states. And I think the world has been somewhat deficient in that game, including the CIA evidently in the case of Iraq. So I think there's a lot to be done in terms of intelligence; you don't need aircraft carriers in order to search for non-state actors.

Playboy.com: Are the means of detecting nuclear weapons getting better?

Blix: The technical means have developed tremendously, with a good deal of help from the United States. One of the most important things is environmental sampling, where you take samples of water or of soil and analyze it. Nuclear [material] leaves tremendous fingerprints. Even the tiniest quantity will tell you if someone is up to enrichment of Uranium or reprocessing it. When I was with the IAEA we took what we called "urine samples" on Iraq. We took samples in various waterways and analyzed them to see if there were any traces of radioactivity. And then you have satellites, which is an old method [but] still used by the IAEA extensively. And all of these things are in development. So the chances are much better today that you will find something than they were in the 1980s.

Playboy.com: What about the development of a superweapon that could trump all nukes?

Blix: Well, we haven't heard of any. I mean the hydrogen bomb is so huge that it's hard to imagine anything worse. It's true that [Russian Federation President Vladimir] Putin has sometimes talked about other types of weapons, and maybe they can devise something, but.... [However], for weapons to be meaningful you must have some conflicts. During the Cold War we had an expanding communism, and NATO and nuclear weapons in the US were means of containing the Russians. That was valuable. But today, what are the big conflicts between the big powers? Are they about the emissions of carbon dioxide or are they about the exchange rate? I don't see that any of these countries today are expansionist. There are some flash points like Taiwan, but they are few. So I don't see really what the fight of substance is about. You may refer to oil, but is the US going to occupy Saudi Arabia? So I question this enormous expansion of weapons that we have now. The world is spending 1.3 trillion dollars a year now. Half of it is America. And is this really meaningful to the situation? I think after the debacle of the military methods being applied in Iraq and also Lebanon, it is time that governments begin to look more for diplomacy and for political means of assessing and resolving the frictions they have.

Playboy.com: You talk about the money being spent. What could the positive economic impact from disarmament be?

Blix: It could be enormous, and there's no difficulty finding ways to use [the money]. Certainly education and poverty eradication, but also efforts to mitigate global warming. I'm as afraid, if not more afraid, long-term of global warming than I am of weapons of mass destruction. With weapons of mass destruction there are relatively few actors, but when it comes to global warming it's six and a half billion people with enormous economic interests at stake. And I think that we need to put more resources into changing and modernizing industries so they use less energy. I'm favorable to research and development of wind power, solar power and so forth, but I think they will never be more than marginally helpful. To my mind, the development of nuclear power [for its peaceful use] is very, very significant.

Playboy.com: Do you worry about human error leading to a nuclear explosion, and is that one more obvious reason for disarmament?

Blix: Yes, yes. So much [of the process] is automatic and the timeframes are so narrow that it really scares you. And [people] may say nothing has happened, but it might be luck rather than anything else. I think we would all feel much more comfortable if the timelines [to launch] were longer and if possible they had the warheads in one place and the rockets in another.

Playboy.com: What's something the new US president could do and should do on day one to have a real impact on the issue of disarmament?

Blix: I have no hesitation saying that the most important [item on] their agenda is to get the Senate to review again the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which they rejected during the Clinton administration. The Clinton administration signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and it was rejected, and since then it is in limbo. If the US were to ratify that treaty with the consent of the Senate then I feel pretty sure that China would too. And if China did India would, if India would Pakistan would, if Pakistan did Iran would and Israel and Egypt and so forth. Then we would have a legal ban of any further nuclear weapons tests. Now I cannot be 100 percent sure that the legal ban couldn't be broken, but nevertheless, we would be better off than we are now.... So this is at the top of agenda and I'm glad that both Hillary [Clinton] and [Barack] Obama have declared that they favor review by the Senate.

Playboy.com: Does a possible John McCain presidency frighten you?

Blix: Yes. I respect John McCain, as everybody does, and I think he's a man of integrity. But I think he still stands for a military vision of how we can organize the world.