1989 + 28

>1989 + 28
>Still no movie or mini-series about a cold war gone hot

youtube.com/watch?v=cQt4Js2u7uw

ASum of All Fears?

but literally every nuclear war movie was about that

this game is so under-rated

its probly the best RTS story campaign in video game history , and arguably the best video game war story

>that comfy fucking ending

What is red dawn

However I do agree OP. I would love to see a USA vs russia set in the late 80's. Cold war aesthetics are top tier and having POV characters from both sides would be awesome

Homeworld would like to have a word with you.

Although I agree, world in conflict is fucking phenomenal.

>I would love to see a USA vs russia set in the late 80's.

Should be in the 80's where Reagan died from the gunshot.

>but literally every nuclear war movie was about that

Yes but every nuclear war movie was about the threat of USA and soviets just launching nukes at each other. A show or movie about a conventional war between the two with multiple pov characters on both sides would be goat

>The Day After (1983)

know nothing pleb. go back to Sup Forums

You mean H Bush's coup d'tat attempt?

OP is talking about something like band of brothers ww3

the cold war could have never been a conventional war because of nuclear weapons. So there was never, at any point, any threat of the cold war becoming a conventional war. The only way a conventional war could've happened is if all nuclear weaponry ceased to exist.

So strangelove, miracle mile, threads, etc, are entirely about the only type of war the cold war could've escalated into.

...

GO BACK TO Sup Forums CHILD

wrong. Most cold war scenarios would be a short and fast conventional military conflict with an escalation of use of nuclear weapons.

ww3 would last a few days to a week before use of nuclear weapons reached a point where countries would unleash their strategic arsenals. But tactical use of nuclear weapons would go on for days.

Honestly the cold part of the Cold War is what even makes it so alluring. Secret agents, secret bunkers, secret weapons research, tensions at every corner. Hot wars are just wars, destruction is the same in every war, it's the permanently lurking danger that set the Cold War apart.

sorry no one appreciated your epic reference
keeping lashing out though please, its funny to me

if you're a bookfag, check this shit out. It's exactly what you just described.

>tactical use of nuclear weapons

This is entirely a fantasy.

>Im so stupid I think I will survive nuclear war

Ah. I love Americans in the morning. Smells like failure.

TOM CALANCY

DOODLODOODLODOODLODOODLO

>muh bug out plan
>muh prepping
>I knew I bought that big pickup truck for a reason

uh no its not retard. in the 80s bombers and fighter planes were outfitted with nuclear weapons to attack military bases , troop movements , and airfields

Its like the most basic bitch understanding of how nuclear war goes down.

Its an escalation of nuclear arms , not a pushing of a button that ends the world

Why the fuck would they waste nukes on airfields? It's just a bunch of concrete.

>the cold war could have never been a conventional war because of nuclear weapons

I was waiting for this fucking comment. IT'S A FUCKING FICTIONAL SHOW. FUCK OFF WITH MUH REALISM. Meanwhile we have shows like GOT with dragons and ice zombies, AHS and stranger things. But no, a fucking ww3 conventional war is apparently too far-fetched and unrealistic for you!

>But user those are fantasy shows!
Well what about man in the high castle a fantasy show about a WHAT IF axis won scenario? Fuck off you fucking faggot and give me my ww3 band of brothers

AIR TO AIR NUCLEAR MISSILES

...

The entire reason the cold war never escalated is because entering into a conventional war, with both sides having enough nuclear weapons to turn the entire planet into a radioactive cinder 400 times over means the instant either side came to believe the war was lost, they'd simply launch everything they had left. The idea being there was no way to negotiate a surrender if the other side always had that one last option. Not to mention the idea that if either side felt their victory was assured, they'd also have no reason to not accelerate their victory and launch everything first, just to prevent the aforementioned scenario.

It's basically the central concept behind the prisoner's dilemma. the moment one side felt they had something to gain or could prevent\reduce loss, instant global thermonuclear war.

Then if you remove nuclear weapons from existence, WW2 doesn't end. Ever.

>tanks on Ellis Island
why are 99% of talented concept artists also retarded?

never let realism stand in the way of creativity

adapt reality to make shit work, not the other way around.

Mark Twain: "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please."

How doesn't WW2 end? The Japanese take over the world? The only part of it that was won with nukes was against Japan. Y'all had the European Theater sorted before we irradiated Hokkaido.

Nice trips. Not that guy, or any of the guys for that matter, but the fact is TURTLE island has enough room for a couple tanks in it. It's not Ellis Island, btw. It's called something else. Turtle island, I think.

...

>reason to build a time machine
>change the course of future events OR...do highquality scans of awesome artwork from the 80s

...

I think this is wrong. unless there was major nuclear escalation i think there would be peace talks before they would end the world

World in Conflict was kino for such a dumb premise. RIP Bannon