I have to disagree. The lack of nuclear shelter construction in the 1980s was symptomatic of the realisation of the futility of trying to survive a nuclear war. I remember well the peace marches, the women of Greenham Common, the unofficial peace movement in then East Germany ("Schwerter zu Plugscharen" - an admittedly complex phenomenon), etc. of the 1980s. It was treated much more gravely than a single "fun movie narrative",  which is a condescending take on the period. It's not a productive to engage in a "My peak was worse than your peak", or, at least, not here.

What is frightful is that if either antagonist actually thinks that a nuclear engagement can remain tactical, or contained, that will be definitive evidence of their insanity, because the acceleration from tactical to strategic in almost any scenario would be so rapid that there would be no pulling back. Would all nuclear powers be able - strategically, technically, or psychologically - be able to remain uncommitted?