Maybe I'm generalizing from one example here, but every time I've imagined a fictional scenario where something I felt strongly about escalated implausibly into warfare, I've later realized that it was a symptom of an affective death spiral, and the whole thing was extremely silly.
That's not to say a short story about a war triggered by supposedly-but-not-actually dangerous knowledge couldn't work. But it would work better if the details of the knowledge in question were optimized for the needs of the story, which would mean it'd have to be fictional.
There are a stories about dangerous knowledge and stories about censorship gone mad, but I can't think of one where the reader theirself isn't sure which it is.
From a review of Greg Egan's new book, Zendegi:
(Original pointer via Kobayashi; Risto Saarelma found the review. I thought this was worthy of a separate thread.)