Do you ever get worried living in a large city like NYC which is the number 1 prime Nuke target if things go south, with Russia and Iran and stuff do you ever get worried

They are more likely to target more strategic locations like military bases where our nuclear weapons are stored. Targeting nyc with a nuke would mean the end of the world for everyone everywhere

(1) No. I am not retarded. Nuclear war is not a real risk.

(2) I would want to be at ground zero. I wouldn't want to survive a nuclear apocalypse. Please drop that nuke right on me. So long as I am nowhere near the USS Nevada I will die and be happy about it.

Let's think about nuclear-capable states, shall we?

• US: Not going to deploy against its own citizens
• UK, France: NATO allies and very close allies of the US
• North Korea: Nuclear missiles would take 40 minutes to reach the US, and it would likely be focused on cities like Los Angeles, Seattle, or San Francisco, not eastern seaboard. 40 minutes gives the US significant time for a reaction or a counter-strike. The nuclear weapons function more as blackmail to keep the US and its allies from preventing aggression against Seoul. North Korea can take adverse actions South Korea and threaten to use the weapons more broadly. The purpose isn't attacking the US; the purpose is blackmailing the US into passively allowing North Korea to take what it wants from South Korea. 
• China: It would be pretty devastating to launch a nuclear attack on your #1 trade partner, don't you think? Same with a hot war.
• Pakistan: US has repeatedly allied with Pakistan over India, so it's unreasonable to assume that they would act against the US
• India: India is much more worried about China than the US given the border situation. The US does not threaten India in the same way China does. India needs the US as a counterweight against China, even if the US puts a fly in the ointment now and then by supporting Pakistan. China and the US are pretty much tied neck-and-neck with being India's #1 trade partner, so India is truly in the middle and playing both sides.
• Israel: Reputedly has nuclear weapons for a last-ditch "Samson" assault that would bring down the house. These badboys are only coming out if there's something truly existential, like Iran launching nuclear weapons of their own after enriching fissile material.
• Russia: This is the most nuanced one. Official Russian nuclear doctrine more or less states that nuclear weapons will only be used if the Russian state itself or its territorial integrity is challenged. No one has invaded Russia. No one wants to invade Russia. Russia also gives itself an out to respond if ballistic weapons are used against allies, so one could construct a hypothetical where Russia launches as retaliation for a bombing of Iran, but Iran is not nearly important enough to Russia for Russia to squander itself on a nuclear attack for their sake. The most viable scenario is a Russian tactical nuclear weapon fired on Ukraine to win the war if conventional means are not enough to take the day. Senators Richard Blumenthal and Lindsey Graham saw the potential for this scenario and gave a joint speech where they said that the Russian army would be "destroyed" and "eviscerated" if a tactical nuclear weapon was used in Ukraine and irradiated Poland as a NATO ally, triggering Article 5 of the NATO Treaty (https://www.c-span.org/video/?528936-1/senators-graham-blumenthal-news-…) (quotation begins at the 6:00 mark). 

Nuclear war with Russia is unlikely and not worth worrying about.