Last week, the U.S. Army conducted a hypersonic weapon test in Alaska as part of an ongoing program named “Conventional Prompt Global Strikes.”

According to Defense News, the program has been in development since 2003 and seeks to provide the U.S. military with a precision strike mechanism to take out key components of air defense systems or logistical hubs.

These new conventional weapons systems will define the future of deterrence, and possibly warfare, as the nuclear threats recede and non-proliferation becomes a top priority for defense and policy makers.

In an age of non-state actors without traditional borders or governments, U.S. defense should look to maim, not kill, with new conventional weaponry.

While nuclear stockpiles will remain an effective deterrent to full scale war, it is time to invest in weapons systems that allow for controlled escalation or de-escalation.

Three years ago, a hypersonic weapon system test was undertaken in Hawaii ending in success, sending a missile 2,500 miles in just 30 minutes.

Unfortunately, last week’s test encountered an anomaly, and the missile and operators quickly engaged a self-destruct sequence out of public safety concerns.

This system, designed to be “viable” by the early 2020s, is just a drop in the ocean for a pivoting U.S. defense policy.

Since the end of the Cold War, the international security environment has changed drastically. The collapse of the Soviet Union signaled the beginning of the end for the extreme nuclear deterrence policies of years past.

Instead, our leaders now look to upgrade U.S. and NATO ally conventional weapon capabilities. As of 2010, the Nuclear Posture Review report has called for a reduced role of nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

The method through which conflicts are resolved is changing rapidly. A nuclear strike cannot deter non-state actors because it would not only kill thousands, if not millions, of innocent civilians, but would also have no effect on a scattered chain of command and decentralized, faceless enemy.

Furthermore, although former President G.W. Bush may have spoken too soon when he claimed Russia was no longer our enemy, the message remains the same: a nuclear attack from the former Soviet state is almost unthinkable.

A 2006 Congressional report states nuclear deterrence worked during the Cold War because the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies outnumbered NATO conventional forces. It was thought then that if an invasion were to occur, the only way to level the playing field would be the use of weapons of mass destruction.

This same report outlined four hypothetical flashpoints capable of causing an expanded conflict between China and the United States.

The analysis provided found that in two of these four scenarios, one being a Chinese combined arms attack on Taiwan, one a preemptive Taiwanese attack on Chinese forward positioned forces, nuclear deterrence was enough to safely prevent any escalation between the U.S. and China.

In the other two scenarios, a naval skirmish between Japan and China and a special operations forces insertion to disrupt Taiwan, it was found that nuclear force would not be a sufficient deterrent. This is because the level of violence would be too low and the nation’s survival would not be at stake.

Although Ukraine is not a NATO ally, it has undergone a similar scenario to the one outlined in the 2006 report: Russia first inserted special operations forces, taking control of key areas and disrupting communications from within, before annexing Crimea.

In a muddled situation such as this, where blame cannot be quickly and accurately attributed to a state actor, nuclear deterrence may not be effective. If, for example, the same were to occur in allied Lithuania, it’s impossible to believe that the imposition of Article Five of the Constitution would lead to nuclear intervention.

Rather, the U.S. and NATO must continue to invest in conventional weaponry that allows for rapid and effective responses. The global strikes system would allow for near instant and accurate retaliation without the civilian cost and escalation to mutually assured destruction.

Terrorists cannot be fought with the same weapons used to deter a Cold War adversary, and neither can covert operations under the guise of rebels or humanitarian actions. A nation must be prepared to defend itself and its integrity through the use of force without using its last resort as its first resort.

Through continued research and weapons testing, American conventional weapons dominance will be enough deterrence that other nations will not look for a nuclear option. The U.S. can set a non-proliferation precedent by investing in effective missile defense capabilities and other conventional weapons programs.

While the recent hypersonic test may seem like a failure, it is actually the first in a string of successes to come. A new way to build a safer world: Peace through strength, not destruction.