Has military, and therefore state development stagnated since the Cold War began?

There are several developments which could be classified as a military revolution between the period of 1945 and 1990. Developments like the Jet engine, the rocket and missile (and thus the ICBM), all could count as a major revolution in the way wars would be fought. Yet, at the same time, military strategy has largely stagnated, while other technologies remained unchanged since 1945. Rifles, tanks, and warships have all seen incremental and gradual change, while still largely filling the same roles that were pioneered in earlier eras. So the question really is, how do you define a military revolution? If youre looking for a great thunderclap change, a leap in technology or strategy which changed everything, very little actually changed during the Cold War. Less so, even, because the lion's share of changed which did occur was limited to theoretical eventualities. However, if you subscribe to a more gradual change, or if you look at one specific innovation, the Cold War continued trends pioneered during the previous 50 years.

For my money, if you want a concrete example of a revolution in military affairs, look at the development of nuclear weapons. They radically changed how armies fought tactically, and how states maneuvered strategically. Both the tactical bomb and the ICBM fundamentally altered how wars could be fought, as well as the significance of future conflicts. The proliferation of nuclear weapons gave countries the capacity to destroy as is unparalleled in human history. Never before could we scourge the planet of life, never before could we destroy civilizations with the push of a button. These concepts were new to the Cold War. They changed how states related to one another, how citizens related with their state, and how people viewed the use and application of military force.