So I've been aware of the "Samson Option" for a long while (bringing the temple down on the heads of everyone with nukes if their survival was threatened) but I didn't know they actually loaded up 13 planes armed with nukes as a very obvious threat if they didn't get their military supplied during the Yom Kippur war.
The NATOpedia page is of course not very descriptive of what the intended targets of those nukes would be.
From this 
thread, there are some jaw-dropping comments (some just taken from the Samson Option Wiki page itself):
If Israel is going down, they'll launch nukes at uninvolved countries as a punishment for anyone who either wasn't supportive enough or Muslim since Islam is the 'enemy.' It's a form of nuclear blackmail.
Rosenbaum also opined that in the "aftermath of a second Holocaust", Israel could "bring down the pillars of the world (attack Moscow and European capitals for instance)" as well as the "holy places of Islam." and that the "abandonment of proportionality is the essence" of the Samson Option.
Van Creveld was quoted in David Hirst's The Gun and the Olive Branch (2003) as saying: We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: 'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.' I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.
So what are the odds that the Israelis have been using this threat (or the subtle perception of it) to get what they want all of the time? Because I'm guessing that number is around 100%.
Would it be possible to snipe a nuke out of midair with some sort of small missile or something prior to detonation?
I, for one, would not want to have to find out.
This is the core concept behind all missile defense systems.
Effectiveness against lower range missiles is much lower than for longer range missiles due to the shorter timeframe involved.
This is not right? Ballistic and ICBMs travel at hypersonic speed, and are extremely difficult to intercept. Iran's attack on Israel and Russia's difficulty with ATACMs are examples of this
Yeah, and it wouldn't explode because nuclear reactions aren't effected by changes in environmental conditions, but don't count too much on it, the Iranian attack showed us how useless Air-Defense is, if someone fired a rediculous number of missiles carrying nuclear warheads even if you shoot down 99% of them, you'll still get nuked
You also end up with radioactive materials all over the place with that.
Well Ukraine hasn't had the most successful time trying to snipe rockets out of the sky with rockets so it'd be hit-or-miss enough to not really be worth the risk of getting crisped up.
Reagan’s Star Wars program which turned out to be completely useless but it did drive the USSR into overspending on defense and precipitated in its downfall, so it was still worth something for the empire.