I was very much a participant in the Falklands punch-up, and spent most of the war airborne south of Ascension in the C130. As I remember, the Nimrod AIM-9 fit was a self-defence measure which was felt necessary because some of their missions went well within range of Argentinian fast-jet operations. While it was unlikely that the Nimrod would score a successful engagement against an A4, Mirage or Etendard, the fact that they had something to shoot back with would hopefully dissuade the Argentinians from attempting a target-of-opportunity kill.
There was little chance of a Nimrod 'happening across' the Argentinian 707 or even the C130, and the idea of using the Nimrod as some kind of ad-hoc interceptor is laughable!
As for aerodynamic performance in a turning situation at low-level, while it's totally hypothetical and faintly ridiculous to envisage such a comparison, the C130 is very much more capable than either of the other two in this environment. Its extremely low stall speed coupled with its relatively high 'G' capability and the fact that it creates its own airflow make it a formidable turning machine - ask any FJ pilot who's tried to turn with it! Both the 707 and, to a lesser extent, the Nimrod have wings optimised for high-level, relatively high-mach cruise. These wings, even with lots of high-lift devices, will not generate the same manoeuvre capability as the C130's wing.