Playboy.com: The UN is weaved throughout your book, but many in the United States seriously question that it can really handle any of these problems. How do you deal with that perception in the United States, which seems like a real stumbling block?

Blix: Well, it's divided. When you read US opinion polls, actually [citizens] are more favorable [about the UN] than the opinions are among policy makers.... There are over 100,000 people in the UN authority in various peace-keeping operations, and [they are helping to avoid] a lot of bloodshed in the world. So the view is exaggerated that you cannot do it through the UN. I think it's undervalued and underestimated here by some people, but not by all at all. But still, the UN will never be better than the members make it. It's an instrument to be used by member states. And if they don't use it, or if they squabble too much, then no sound comes out of the orchestra.

Playboy.com: Have you discussed these issues directly with any of the candidates running for president?

Blix: No, I haven't met any one of them. But I do appreciate that both Hillary and Obama seem positive toward disarmament and have come out in favor of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which I think would be a signal to the world that disarmament is again an issue for negotiation.

Playboy.com: You describe George Bush and his administration as "trigger happy." Given the situation in Iraq, would you consider George Bush a war criminal?

Blix: I don't think I want to take a stand on the question of criminal responsibility. I think that the political responsibility is there. I have not even ever said that they were in bad faith. I'd rather say that they mislead themselves and then mislead the world.

Playboy.com: You write in the book, "[A] state's technological progress toward nuclear-weapon capability, while worrisome, does not constitute an armed attack that justifies the use of armed force under the U.N. charter." What about that vis a vis Operation Opera in the sense that the Israelis thought it would be worse if they waited before bombing the Osirak Iraqi reactor in 1981.

Blix: When the Israelis bombed the Osirak reactor in 1981, they were condemned by the Security Council, and the US supported the condemnation. [The United States condemned it] a little half-heartedly, but they supported the condemnation. Nowadays, I've heard politicians in this country say that the events demonstrated that the Israelis were right. I'm not so convinced about that. It's clear that Saddam had intentions for nuclear weapons at that time. But if the Iraqis had wanted to produce plutonium, first of all they would have had to build a reprocessing plant and they didn't have one. Secondly, they would have had to alter and modify their reactor, which would have been visible to the IAEA inspectors. So I'm not so sure that the bombing of Osirak in 1981 is proof that you should not wait.

Playboy.com: Do you think it's naïve to think that Israel would ever agree to disarmament?

Blix: No, I don't think so. In most cases where you have had states going for nuclear weapons it has been out of perceived security interests. If one could cater to Israel's security concerns in another way than their having the nuclear weapons, I wouldn't exclude that it would [disarm]. The main avenue talked about is a zone free of weapons of mass destruction. But that will presuppose a peaceful settlement in the Middle East, and I think a peaceful settlement would also have to comprise Israeli nuclear disarmament. However, one could also discuss why not invite Israel to become a member of NATO? They now certainly have American protection, but as a member of NATO they would have even stronger international protection. And an idea that we came up with in our commission on weapons of mass destruction was to create a fuel cycle free zone in the Middle East. That would not do away with Israeli weapons, but it would mean that all of the countries in the region would commit themselves not to have any production of highly enriched uranium or plutonium. That's not doing away with nuclear weapons, but it is something that could be of interest to solve the uranium issue today.

Playboy.com: You write, "A crucial mark of a civilized society is that the citizens have given up the personal possession of arms and conferred upon public authorities a monopoly on the right to possess and use arms in accordance with law." A lot of Americans would cringe at that.

Blix: I know. But I still think it's true. A lot of Americans would also agree with it.

Playboy.com: But don't you think it flies directly in the face of the US Constitution?

Blix: No, because it depends on how you interpret the Constitution in this country. There are many people in this country who do not interpret it as allowing everybody to have arms. Isn't it the militia that [the Constitution] talks about? So I don't think it's settled here. But regardless of what people may think here, I think it is generally [agreed upon] in the world. The risk of weapons being used is much greater if they are abundant. We know how many children get killed [in the United States] by mistake because weapons are available. I certainly don't belong to the National Rifle Association nor would I like to see an International Rifle Association set up.

Playboy.com: Is nuclear Armageddon really possible?

Blix: I don't think we can have a [nuclear] holocaust any longer, but it could be bad enough anyway.

Playboy.com: Is disarmament really possible?

Blix: Yes, but it's a long way away. We will have to take a great many steps before we get there.