My argument is that even this is a huge step forward. All historical evidence before this was that state actors could not be restrained by the mere threat of o

My argument is that even this is a huge step forward. All historical evidence before this was that state actors could not be restrained by the mere threat of overwhelming force; before this, it seemed that nation state, even the big advanced ones needed to 'give it a shot' and be restrained by the reality of devastation, even when it was pretty obvious from the outset that they were biting off more than they could chew (c.f. the Schleffen plan in World War One, Japan's attack on America in World War Two.) Post world-war two? it seems humanity, or at least the big advanced nations, can be restrained by credible threats of devastation, which is a huge step forward over requiring actual devastation.