If NK were to ever actually use their nukes beyond detterrence, I think its fair to assume it would go down like this. The regime is rapidly collapsing. In its final, chaotic moments, it turns its WMD on Seoul, then Tokyo, then the various other centers of SK and Japan, and finally, possibly some of the industrial cities of Northeastern China. Though not apocalyptic, this would cause a horrific global depression and sudden global panic and chaos, leading to consequences far beyond the vast numbers of people immediately affected (killed, wounded, homeless, etc.) That is North Korea's real threat to us, not its ability to immediately kill a bunch of Americans, or cause us to collapse, but to F up the world crazy bad. In most cases, this is rather basic detterrence strategy. However, since some sort of North Korean collapse within the next 25 years or so seems inevitable, it takes on a much more realistically menacing character.

Why? why? Why bother with Friedman? He is such a gasbag.

The entire treat of north korea's nukes is nothing more then a backlash from a 60 year old fad of "if you see a second sun, run to bombshelter"

"Our unemployment today is not only because of the financial crisis."

There is a grain of truth in this statement, but maybe not in the way Friedman follows up in the op-ed. I fully agree that we need better educated people, but to what extent though? Where are all these people going to work? We are moving away from manufacturing jobs. But how many of these highly educated/skilled people can actually find employment in high-end jobs? How many of these high-end jobs actually bring value added? What is the true value added of all these highly educated, highly skilled people in the medium-long run?

Once everyone in a society is highly skilled and educated, what is the next step? Can everyone be a chief? Doesn't the tribe need indians as well?

How about individual limitations? Can everyone realistically achieve a high standard of education? What do you do with those people who either do not have the abilty or the means to achieve higher standards of education?

In the long run, can we truly rely on technology to replace all the low-end jobs while we all perform high-end jobs? How would the definition of high vs low-end shift at that point?

Is Tom Friedman asking himself any of the above questions? Is he thinking about the answers?

Higher standards of academic achievement are all desirable. A highly educated society is the goal we should all aim for.

But, in the very end isn't it more fun to bash an incompetent low job employee vs smashing the face of a robot?! Some many years from now, what pleasure will we take in criticizing an op-ed written by a brainless robot 50? Most likely, I will look back nostalgically to this very moment.

Columnists, or news writers for that matter, often write what you want to hear - only that sells. So for Friedman to keep berating the American system doesn't make any sense to me. I am not saying that there are no problems, but he remains at it all the time ....
That aside, I think innovation comes from keeping the mind free enough for open thought. I think an easy school curriculum nurtures such thinking as long as there is the right guidance at school or at home. Just like making a child run a marathon is detrimental to a growing body. Excessive cramming at an early age is certainly not conducive to developing ones true potential.
America, needs to create more economic incentive to maintain a manufacturing base, which will create more jobs opportunities for all those who do not want to become Phds. This will enable America to be both at the cutting edge of innovation, and yet at the same time have a sufficient manufacturing industry, so that every defense computer is not imported from China. That is what made America great in the first place.