It's very interesting that you all got this quickly. I've been preaching that the previous scenarios are the real cyber warfare, and dangers that the on the ground war fighter needs to be aware of...

Attacking and protecting scada, telco, data systems (more and more wireless and virtualized), command and control, all are areas we do real well at with the NSA and CIA having excellent operational assets in information assurance and security. We know how to protect and harden our systems from direct attack, but not so much about seeing how the systems are used in the social realm as an indirect attack. The adversary is using our own technology against us. Isn’t that one of the principles of guerilla warfare?

What we don't do very well or at least organizations don't do very well is consider Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 phenomenon’s as critical to their operational environments. This applies to the corporate world as well as the military. Information and communications are powerful weapons within the small wars world. Think about how information has taken down enormous companies like Enron and now HP. Cyber warfare doesn’t have to be bullets and bombs, but it can be very powerful for knowing where to send those bullets and bombs.

In all out warfare the advantages of the cyber world seem to decrease as the weaponization and scope of an altercation expand. There is little the cyber world can do about carpet bombing. You can use the cyber world to get the enemy to expose themselves in the real world. The only groups that seem to have gotten this are the groups chatting up pedophiles in chat rooms and misdirecting them to police sting operations.

In small wars the conflict is limited and the nature of "humanitarian" rebuilding efforts after an incursion make distributed technology environments especially useful. The desire to provide basic services defined as water, electricity, and telephone will increase the viability of cyber warfare. The humanitarian mission is being evaluated on it's ability to provide the services (and hence the tools) that will be used against it. The primary use of the web 2.0 and web 3.0 channels would seem to be in support and communication channels between real world adversaries coordinating support missions (espionage, planning, reconnaissance, etc..).

I’ve been trying for the last few years to define where this would be in the academic world. It’s important if you want to publish on the topic. I’m a technologist (computer forensic scientist), I’ve been thinking this area of inquiry is technology anthropology, or technology sociology, but I haven’t found a military discipline that would fit. This is likely due to my own lack of knowledge about military matters. I was a Marine corporal not a general.