No. I think that yearning for the Cold War is very similar to romanticizing the First or Second World War. Great from a vantage point of watching movies and wanting an artificially simplified struggle, but not so great if you are dying at the Somme or Malmedy. I spent most of my teen years growing up under the shadow of nuclear annihilation. Was that reasonable? Possibly not. There is no well defined suggestion that the U.S. was in serious danger of a real nuclear war after 1962. But we read about computer errors like the 1979 Exercise Tape and 1980 Computer Chip failures, and were concerned that a war might start accidentally. We also knew that Soviet systems were technologically inferior to ours and that based on their WWII experience Soviet logicians might potentially consider a catastrophic nuclear war that broke U.S. military power a "win."
When international tensions rose, we feared that there would be a catastrophic war brought about by human failure. I don't think I was as prone to this as others, because I was very familiar with the Cuban Missile Crisis, and knew there were a lot of checks in the loop. But that also meant I was aware of the potential for real misunderstandings, or simply a real conventional war. I'd read Gen. Sir John Hackett's "The Third World War," illustrating a Fulda Gap invasion of Europe. It was also conventional wisdom that if 3 or 4 "hotspots" ever detonated at once, it could trigger an international situation so completely chaotic that a nuclear attack might be expected.
There was tension there because all of us knew two things. We were suburban kids, not survivalists, and we were not going to drive to cabins in West Virginia every time things looked a little rough. None of us wanted to behave like imbeciles. But at the same time we knew that realistically only people who guessed well which crisis would be the "big one" and got out of town were going to live. We lived in the DC suburbs, and there was not going to be any "running away" after a war started. In a way you hoped for the conventional war scenario, because that would give plenty of time to get out of town. I'd planned to meet my friends in Austinville where my grandmother lived, which we felt might be a target because of the lead mines, but we also felt had a lot of mountain coverage that would contain a subsurface blast, so that even a blast that destroyed the mines would probably leave the area habitable.
We hadn't worked these things out in detail but it was understood we might have to if "things got worse." I was also the political kid and basically the person in my peer group that I think people counted on to tell them whether or not things were "bad enough" to warrant "doing something." I never panicked or did anything stupid, but I think we did. Other people might have the bliss of thinking a blast would kill them outright, but we'd all read John Hersey's "Hiroshima" and we knew that at extended range, most of us would live, and it was a coin toss depending on what was a target whether you'd die horribly or be stuck having to live in a world without infrastructure. We knew the bombs were bigger than the Hiroshima blast, but we also knew a lot of them were subsurface penetrators, and smaller warheads...more accurate but less "beefy." Only a small handful of "city busters" were supposed to be deployed.
I'd just entered College when the Soviets shot down a KAL airliner for violating their airspace at Sakhalin Island. I called my girlfriend of the time, and we had many hours of conversation. We all agreed right then that things weren't "really bad" but that they might go south quickly and I made plans to leave school if the situation really deteriorated.
I don't miss not responding to every international crisis by waking up thinking "is something going to start a nuclear war today, and if it does, is enough information going to leak out that I can second guess right, and not give a false alarm and make an ass of myself, but also actually successfully second guess and get out of the way. Even if I do, will it be worth it?"
The nukes are still out there, but nobody seriously thinks they are going to be used. At least not in a big way. There's still Russia-Ukraine or Pakistan-India. That's meant that there is more fighting in the world today. Maybe the nukes were good. They made everybody behave. The U.S. would not have conducted a resource-motivated seizure of Iraq during the Cold War, nor would it have had to. A lot of people in a lot of the world have lived in misery since the Soviet Empire fell apart and every two bit power can fight over the scraps. But...I don't miss not living under the shadow of death, and I think if it came back, very few people around today would be happy about it.