However, I hope it's not a strawman to assume you're arguing that there is no progress in warfare in the sense of harm inflicted upon civilians. My point is sp

However, I hope it's not a strawman to assume you're arguing that there is no progress in warfare in the sense of harm inflicted upon civilians. My point is specifically that progress in the technologies of war don't by themselves promise that things will be less brutal. Quite possibly other things have produced progress. I make that clear in my parent post. I would also note that technology produces unpredictable changes in the strategic situation and the actual result from a changed strategic is itself unpredictable even from the strategic situation. So where a technology change might take us is unpredictable and unpredictable-over-time. Notably, nuclear deterrence has so far worked well for keeping the world peaceful and is something of a factor for the relative pleasantness of the situation you cite. But if nuclear deterrence were to slip into nuclear war, the few survivors would probably think of this technology advance as the worst thing the world ever saw.