For securing very dangerous commands, I'd recommend asking the user to retype a phrase composed of random words, or maybe a random 8-character hexadecimal number - something that's different every time, so can't be memorized.
I've almost deleted my heroku production server even though you need to type (or copy paste....ahem...) the full server name (e.g. thawing-temple-23345).
I think the reason was that because in my mind I was 100% sure this was the right server, when the confirmation came up I didn't stopped to look if indeed this was the correct one so I mechanically started to type the name of the server and just a second before I clicked ok, I had this genius idea to double check.... Oh boy... My heart dropped to the floor when I realized what was I about to do.
You could say that indeed Heroku's system of avoiding errors worked correctly....
However the confirmation dialog wasn't what made me stop... Instead it was my past-self's experience screaming at me and remembering me that ONE time where I did fucked up a production server years ago (it cost the company a full day of customers' bids... Imagine the shame of calling all the winning bidders and asking them what price did they end up bidding to win....)
My point is, maybe no number of confirmation dialogs however complex they are, will stop mistakes if the operator is fixed on doing X. If you are working in a semi-autopilot mode because you obviously are very smart and careful (ahem..) you will just do whatever the dialog asks you to do without actually thinking what you are doing.
What, then, will make you stop and verify? My only guess is that experience is the only way. I.e. only when you seriously fuck up you learn that no matter how many safety systems or complex confirmation dialogs there are you still need to double and triple check each character you typed, lest you want to go through that bad experience again....
But I still believe auto-pilot mode is a real thing (and a danger!) .
My point is that I'm not sure if it's even possible to design one that actually cuts errors to 0.
And if that's indeed the case, even if it's close to 0, it's still non-zero, thus at the scale Amazon operates at, it's very probable that it will happen at least one time.
Maybe sometime in the future AI systems will help here?
I've also built complex systems that have been run in production for years with relatively few typo-related problems. The way I do it is with the design patterns like the one I just mentioned, which is also what TeMPOraL was talking about (and I guess you missed it.)
If you have the same kind of confirmation whenever you delete a thing, whether it's an important thing or not, you're designing a system which encourages bad auto-pilot habits.
You'll also note that Amazon's description of the way that they plan on changing their system is intended to fire extra confirmation only when it looks like the operator is about to make a massive mistake. That follows the design pattern I'm suggesting.
Personally, I don't believe it is without making the tool impotent. But you can try and push down the error probability down to arbitrarily low value.