I'm a lawyer. Much of what you said is almost correct legal jargon, but very little of it matches my understanding of the law. But I'll grant that my legal education focused on Louisiana, so perhaps the legal jargon and rules are simply different in your jurisdiction.

When you say "provides tighter conditions on what terms lead to the contract being executed in the event of a divorce" what do you mean by this? As I understand the term, to "execute" a contract is to bring it into existence, usually by signing it. So a prenuptial agreement would be executed long before divorce. Also, a prenuptial agreement might have terms that trigger in the event of a divorce; but a prenuptial agreement just as often has terms that govern the marriage prior to divorce as well.

When you say it prevents "no fault divorce," what do you mean? I am unaware of any jurisdictions that allow parties to contract out of the option for a no-fault divorce. Even Louisiana, which uniquely has "covenant marriage" programs designed to limit divorce, allows no-fault divorces after a lengthy waiting period.

I don't understand what you are trying to say in your second paragraph. Are you just noting that a prenuptial agreement might provide that an adulterous party will face penalties in the event of a divorce? A prenuptial agreement might indeed have such a provision, but it might not. In general, parties have plenty of leeway to structure their marriage contract so long as their agreement doesn't offend public policy in some way (e.g., disavowing paternity of children from the marriage or condoning one-sided adultery).

As for your last paragraph, the "well in advance" bit seems unnecessary. You'll want to involve attorneys to make sure the agreement is enforceable. Depending on your jurisdiction's rules, you may also need to involve notaries and/or witnesses (Louisiana, for example, requires either an "authentic act" or signatures acknowledged in court https://law.justia.com/codes/louisiana/2011/cc/cc2331). But, unless there's some jurisdiction-specific rule I'm unaware of, there's no reason the contract needs to be prepared far before the marriage; people can freely modify their marriage by contract even after they have been married.

Some good answers already, but I'd like to add some additional perspective.

Marriage is, legally, a contract. The government defines what the default terms of the contract are going to be. Sometimes the people who want to marry would like to alter the default rules, and they do this by entering into a separate written agreement.

The written agreement can be drafted and executed at any time. But it is often drafted prior to the marriage. If the agreement is drafted before the marriage, it is called a prenuptial agreement ("nuptial" means marriage, "prenuptial" means before marriage).

Some things the couples might like to have a written agreement about:

What happens to premarital debts?

What happens to property either spouse gains during the marriage?

Can either spouse unilaterally sell co-owned assets, or do they need consent of the other spouse?

How much alimony should be paid if there's a divorce?

You can find that same "Screw it. If I die, I die" attitude all throughout history.

Look at how people reacted to prevalent capital punishment back when it was widespread. There are accounts of child pickpockets in London plying their trade amongst audiences gathered to watch other child pickpockets being hanged. In Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast about capital punishment, he reads a letter written by a wealthy French woman describing how her friend did a decent job of not crying or screaming during her beheading for some trivial offense; the letter reads like the beheading was simply a casual affair. In various Roman and Greek historical accounts, people often treat their imminent executions as matter-of-fact chores. Cicero, Socrates, Regulus, and Agrippina come to mind; ditto early Christian martyrs (though they are least believed in an afterlife).

Look at how people treated warfare. For example, in the early gunpowder era there was a volunteer group in most armies called the forlorn hope whose job was to run straight at an entrenched enemy to make them fire their already loaded muskets and cannons. After the forlorn hope did their job as cannon fodder, the rest of the army would advance while the enemy reloaded and reorganized. What's surprising is that the forlorn hope, the name of which made clear how screwed its members were, was an all volunteer job yet frequently saw repeat members. There are letters from some of these repeat volunteers describing the absolute horrors of being in the forlorn hope and watching their friends in front and all around turn into red mist when hit with cannon fire or musket volleys. There were some soldiers who just didn't give a fuck whether they lived or died.

Look at the cold war nihilism, born from a common belief that the whole world was going up in mushroom clouds any day now. There are songs from the time poking fun at the inevitable doom. For examples: https://youtu.be/frAEmhqdLFs and https://youtu.be/KXSUEU7ISfQ and https://youtu.be/8XPzICHxXoQ

And those are just off the top of my head. People in the past were much like us. Any time things got really bad, bad to the point where hope seemed a distant memory, people have been able to put on a "eh, fuck it" face and keep on trudging on autopilot.