Yet the passably professional military news sites I've read describe the attack in terms like "substantial", "demoralizing", and "temporarily constrain Russia's ability to conduct long-range drone and missile strikes into Ukraine". Not "devastating", nor any similar (emotive or maximal) terminology.
sigh all of that history existed before the development of ICBMs and submarine launched ICBMs particularly. Which happened around the 1960s-ish depending how you count it.
ICBMs, and in particular submarine based ICBMs, are what provide nuclear deterrence in a serious fashion. They arrive faster, and are effectively unstoppable at scale.
An attack can be devastating without harming any military capabilities at all.
9/11 was devastating. October 7th was devastating. Pahalgam was devastating.
The drone attacks against Russian airbases were highly destructive, caused extreme shock, and were extremely impressive - the literal definitions of devastating.
The response will depend on the emotional and political reality within Russia. Although they have not lost their nuclear strike capabilities, they have lost face and now Putin may feel the need to act to retain his strongman hold on the country, or risk being Ceaușescu'd.
And no one responded to any of those with strategic nuclear attacks.
Russia certainly hasn't actually ramped up any nuclear rhetoric in response, which it's been happy to do at other times when it would be taken less seriously (and ramped it down significantly in late-2022 after it's US back channels communicated their intentions if any nuclear weapons or nuclear terrorism was used in Ukraine).