Cyberwar is often defined in very broad terms, and unfortunately it tends to hinge more on the parties involved than the action itself. If a bored teenager hacks his mum's WiFi then it is barely an offence, though draconian sentencing under the US Computer Fraud & Abuse Act looks to change this. If a shady character breaks into a pensioner's online banking account then this is cybercrime and the criminal, if ever caught, would be punished to the extent of the law. However, if patriotic Chinese hackers infiltrate a US Department of Defense machine, this is suddenly cyberwar. Often actions which would be deemed no more than vandalism (website defacement) or protest (denial-of-service) are viewed very differently if the perpetrators are from rival states. Imagine that US government computers were infiltrated by civilians in the UK or Australia: it would all be put down to meddlesome kids. Change their nationality to Russian, and suddenly you have an unofficial cyber-army firing digital ammunition.
Can we truly be at peace in the digital realm? If definitions are this broad, then clearly not. Malware has existed since the 1980s and is only increasing in complexity, whilst botnets grow ever larger despite best efforts. Many countries, including the US, Israel and the UK, have developed sophisticated offensive capabilities and would not be willing to sacrifice an advantage. Less-developed nations such as North Korea see ubiquitous American Internet access as an open target, looking to capitalise on massive security holes to compete on a global scale. Funding continues to favour offensive security rather than defence, as governments stockpile weapons in an escalatory arms race. Whilst international agreements have been previously considered to limit the damage on cyberspace, many large powers do not possess the political incentives to enter into such a deal, without even considering the technological infeasibility.
New technologies change warfare forever, and it is impossible to simply reverse these developments. The invention of the trebuchet allowed stone castles to be assaulted from distance, reducing the advantage of a large fortification. Aerial warfare then rendered military strongholds largely irrelevant, as planes could drop munitions from above. The development of nuclear weapons irrevocably changed wartime strategy and split the world in two for half a century. Now, digital attacks allow aggressors to target a geographically remote location at low cost, with low risk, virtually instantaneously. Regardless of rhetoric and political posturing, no state would wish to sacrifice that ability.
Whether we, the general public, can be at "cyberpeace" depends on how integrated future technology becomes in our everyday lives. Judging from the growth of the Internet of Things, driverless cars, and blanket web connectivity, it seems unlikely. Good, sensible cybersecurity is the only option if one wants to enjoy the future benefits of cyberspace without suffering the costs.