There seems to be two kinds of articles floating around in regards to "cyberwar" this one, which I feel underplays the potential dangers and those that stick to

There seems to be two kinds of articles floating around in regards to "cyberwar" this one, which I feel underplays the potential dangers and those that stick to Panetta's Pearl Harbor-style prediction. I think both fail to capture the reality of the situation. As with most things I believe the threat falls somewhere in the middle. While cyberwar (which is a dumb term) hasn't yet resulted in 'real' causalities I think using that as a metric is outdated. Cyberwar will never have the same strategy as traditional war. Economic havoc and infrastructure disruption will be the name of the game and with the right set of environmental circumstances a small group of people can have a huge impact on the world stage. I believe non-state actors will be a powerful force in this arena. The infrastructure required for these actions isn't nearly as huge as this article tries to make it out. That said, I also don't believe all of the end-of-days fear mongering that's grown up around the idea either. Just as with all new threats, we will adapt.