I think what would be bad would be to allow what are basically apocalyptic death cults (what else do you call groups focused on inflicting death/chaos through martyrdom?), to get countries to do to themselves what the cults could never have hoped to achieve on their own.

Unfortunately, a large part of global society has become so focused on what is “acceptable” and “not acceptable” that it does not know how to react to opponents that do not subscribe to that particular philosophy. What the world is trying to deal with isn’t going to meet in “honorable combat” on the battlefield, it’s going to blend in with the civilian crowd. This, unfortunately means a lot of collateral damage. The media grabs onto this fact and spreads it like wildfire all over the place, without any explanation as to why collateral damage happens. Before long, people are forgetting about the real folks who want to watch the world burn, and start picking apart the actions of those trying to stop it. I remember the comment: In the battle between good and evil, evil will triumph because good is stupid.

As far as hacks, leaks, etc., known for a long time that there is no such thing as “secure communication.” As soon as you transmit information to another in any form, you lose control over it. The thing is, it can be very difficult to determine where the actual actors are.

Peter, you mention The Great War. Kind of the same B.S. was being tossed around Europe before that rather ugly bit of human history started. Same for the Spanish-American war. The question is, how long before one side feels like they have been trapped in a corner, and does the last-stand thing?