Cyberworld War I?

Remember World War I, in which a system of alliances ended up sucking a ton of nations into a war after a single assassination in a small country?

Well, it's happening again. The cyberwar between Wikileaks and the U.S. and Swedish governments is now dragging a bunch of other entities into the fray.

Wikileaks supporters include Anonymous/4chan, DataCell, Daniel Ellsberg, and a slew of others including Ken Loach, Jemima Khan, John Pilger, Patricia David, and Geoffrey Sheen.

Wikileaks opponents include Mastercard, Visa, PayPal and Sarah Palin, and Twitter. Based upon past battles, it also appears that Gene Simmons would be aligned on this side.

And the opponents are using the same terminology. Guess which side said that the opponents claim to be "in favor of free speech yet they attack [ally] for exercising...free speech"? This particular quote came from an aide to Sarah Palin, but it just as easily could have come from Ellsberg.

And those with really long memories remember how the original World War I turned out. Both sides ended up in a stalemate, international commerce ceased, resources were diverted to war production, one country underwent a revolution that affected the world for three-quarters of a century, and we ended up listening to a man named Woodrow who couldn't even convince his own country to listen to his ideas.

And after World War I ended? That's when things got REALLY bad.

Will Cyberworld War I have the same outcome?

Incidentally, this Cyberworld War I idea isn't exclusive to me. Also see Salina Post and informationliberation. The latter source ignores Gene Simmons' issues (presumably a group called informationliberation doesn't care if Simmons is robbed), but does note that the Espionage Act of 1917 has been referenced already.