It's hard for me to understand how the parallels wouldn't be abundantly clear.

The nuclear stabilization that occurred was the result of a collective understanding of the existential risk it posed leading to anti-proliferation agreements and superpowers going to great lengths to prevent nations deemed as unstable from obtaining such technology.

Some portion of the global community may collectively discover/decide that the risk AI presents is worthy of anti-proliferation treaties and wars may be fought over it.

The main gap in the comparison is that we have a much clearer understanding of the risks of unchecked nuclear weapons use than we do about what current and future AI tech might or might not unleash.

The underlying point is that we have historically placed limits on our curiosity when we deem certain paths of exploration existentially dangerous. It has yet to be seen if AI will reach those levels of existential risk, but if they do, there is plenty of precedent for stepping on the brakes.