That the Soviet had plans to nuke about everywhere doesn't mean much. The US had plans to nuke cities and towns in West Germany. War is an ugly business, and one creates plans for a lot of different scenarios.
The traditions of the Soviets tend to be quite brutal and paranoid. But there is an internal logic to it. If nuking France would cripple the war effort of NATO, or a perceived benefit, I don't have any problem with that attack. From the Soviet point of view, taking out the French harbors while still having the ability to do so, might be a long term strategy as well.
France is also quite a power, that have shown itself ready to not care what the rest of the world is thinking. So the Soviets might want them to be weakened, so they won't project that power elsewhere.
Taking out the ability to fly sorties over the Atlantic is a reason to nuke the airbases in Norway. Any harbor in Denmark would probably be targeted. They are already in war with Norway, and Denmark is still a NATO member. But both Sweden and Finland do have high tech industries, but are probably quite insignificant. While being able to knock out the industries and infrastructure, the military forces would be to dispersed to be knocked out. Neither country have any nuclear capability to retaliate with, so any threat would be from conventional measures. Low risk but low reward.
So I find both alternatives to be plausible.
