If so, then "cold" vs. "hot" would be a distinction without a difference.

I don't think the populace is generally educated to think that a "cold war" means "overt attacks on the enemy producing destruction and death." Rather, I think most people think that "cold war" means heightened political/military tension without overt attacks.

To define a "cold war" as one in which no soldiers are used is fallacious: it's a definition by non-essentials. What is relevant to war is whether there is a systematically planned and ongoing violent attacks, not whether soldiers happen to be the means of attack.

Whether certain people happen to know whether there is an attack or who is behind it does not change anything. A state of knowledge does not change the reality: someone is planning and attacking.

Wikipedia does not back your definition, as the Wiki entry leaves room for espionage, sabotage, and other actions that one might consider an "attack" but certainly do not force a declaration of war, mobilization of armies, etc.

Secondly, the Cold War is a misnomer, the US was very much involved in an open confrontation with the Chinese+Soviets in Korea, and to a lesser extent with their proxies in Vietnam later on.

Yes, the Korean war was fought under the aegis of a resolution issued by the UN security council, but it was a 'hot' war, and part of a broad push against Communist influence.

Secondly, the Cold War has two possible referents among political scientists (see the link I posted), and the one in question is not the Soviet one.

Now, these are basic facts that you are clearly wrong about. But I will get downvoted anyway. There is something very wrong with you people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_war_(general_term)

You're wrong, but at least you're not a coward.

Stuxnet is a weapon of sabotage, it is fairly direct, and yet it is not the same as an open declaration of war.

Did you miss out on Sesame Street? "One of these things are not like the other..."

No I'm not trolling. I am expected to be treated like a troll by the herd here however.

Incidentally, Wikipedia backs my definition of "cold":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_war_(general_term)

"A cold war or cold warfare is a state of conflict between nations that does not involve direct military action but is pursued primarily through economic and political actions, propaganda, acts of espionage or proxy wars waged by surrogates. The surrogates are typically states that are "satellites" of the conflicting nations, i.e., nations allied to them or under their political influence. Opponents in a cold war will often provide economic or military aid, such as weapons, tactical support or military advisors, to lesser nations involved in conflicts with the opposing country."

I.e., this definition does not include direct planned and executed attacks by the nations involved. Continuing:

"The definition which has now become fixed is of a war waged through indirect conflict."

Indirect means indirect, not directly planting viruses that can destroy your factory.

  > acts of espionage

  > Indirect means indirect

You underestimate 'the populace'. I think most people suspect the 'Cold War' included everything up to outright war. What do you think all the CIA's Memorial Wall [1] signifies anyway? I imagine the Kremlin has something similar.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_Memorial_Wall