Let's look at it in a history standpoint. A hundred years ago, we did not have the weapons we have today. All they had were guns and cannons and some road horseback into battle while others ran in on foot. Over the years, war has added many different types of weapons; vehicles, bigger guns, tanks, planes, nuclear weapons and now computers. Yes, computers are now being used as weapons. Remember Stuxnet? This was a virus that was instructed to find turbines within a plant overseas and destroy them. It did so through a flash drive and made its way through the network even when some computers were not even on the network (New York Times, 2011). The fact is, weapons are getting bigger and better. As long as the weapons are changing, so should the definition of warfare and now information warfare, which Stuxnet was.
My honest opinion is that warfare and even that of information warfare is changing so much because the area (warfare) changes constantly and these definitions are just trying to keep up with the times. There are some, in my opinion, that do not do the topic justice, but there are also some that put the whole topic into perspective. I'm not going to add them here for there are just too many. Just do a Google search for "Information Warfare" AND "Definition" and you will come up with many results. Decide for yourself on which is the best. My instructions to you, the reader, keep an open mind about the definitions you find. Information warfare is something that happens on a daily basis. Computers attack computers. Information in some way, shape or form is used in these attacks.
If I were to give my own definition of information warfare, I would have to encompass both information and computers in one definition. Something such as; Using the software and hardware on a computer to attack hardware or software of another computer. Some would say that this definition wasn't fulfilling the entire topic of information warfare. Some would probably say that it is lacking the ability of non computer information. Well, take this into consideration, how can a paper document attack another paper document? It physically cannot. What is written on one paper might defend a topic while the other paper might dispute the same topic. Is it information warfare? It could be. The thing is, in this writers mind, it does not encompass the true meaning of warfare; war against an enemy. I'm not quoting anyone there for it is a general definition found in the dictionary. This is also not war; conflict through the force of arms between multiple people. Again, this is one that can be found in the dictionary. Because the topic of warfare leads to conflict between people with force, I am not going to agree that a paper can attack a paper.
In conclusion, it is all up to the reader on whether they want to agree with my feelings on information warfare. Everyone will have their own opinion, and they are entitled to it. Keep in mind when you are reading about information warfare what warfare really is. This will allow you to read the definition and determine if it truly is a good definition for information warfare. Yes, the times have changed, but the major weapon that is being used is the computer. They are the ones used for attacking and defending important information. This is the true nature of information warfare.
References:
New York Times, (2011).
Israeli Test on Worm Called Crucial in Iran Nuclear Delay. Retrieved
June
19, 2012 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html?pagewanted=all
