|'Modern History' by XKCD|
It could be argued that all wargames are essentially making entertainment from death and destruction. I don't agree (obviously) but its a conclusion that is all to easy for the outsider to arrive at. This is one of the reasons why I think wargaming conventions and Living History shows are vital. I look on these events as outreach for our hobby, a chance to engage with the general public and show them that we are not weirdo's living in our mom's basements and subsisting on crisps and coke (or Cheetos and Mountain Dew).
My own personal definition of 'Modern' is anything after WWII, and for me the closer you get to current events the more uncomfortable I would be playing a game in that period. I personally would be uncomfortable playing a game based on the current conflict in Afghanistan for instance. Having said that I also have little interest (beyond a current affairs perspective) in modern conflicts and I'm therefore not likely to wargame them.
Wargaming isn't about recreating moral decision making and it is certainly not a simulation of events in graphic detail. I think many gamers would consider their hobby an intellectual exercise and a gateway to history. In essence all wargames are just chess with better playing pieces and nobody suggests that grand masters are warmongers. So what would you consider to be too modern to play? Or are you comfortable playing any conflict?