> Torpedos are not bullets, I don't think this is a good analogy.
The point of the analogy is that the enemy platoon / nuclear submarine force would need be to be located and behave in a way that allowed a single shooter to wipe them all out almost simultaneously. This is particularly unlikely for submarines, especially nuclear-armed ones.
I took "nuclear sub" to mean "nuclear powered" (as opposed to e.g. diesel-electric, which are still fairly common), which I think represents a somewhat larger set of submarines, outside the US, than just the set of all non-US "boomer" (nuclear-armed) subs. That is, attack subs without nuke-tipped missiles can still be nuclear subs because they have a nuke plant onboard for power.
Agree - it's not actually clear which type is meant. If boomers then this is a indeed very small number (e.g. only four for the UK, which is one of the few non-US countries (four?) to operate boomers).
I believe my point was that a modern torpedo hitting a ship is a very high kill probability (mobility or other), being it is guided and explosive.
I would say a missile is more similar to a torpedo. We can look to the Falklands as to how dangerous missiles are against ships. This isn't your grandfathers WWII torpedo.
There is only one other case of an anti-ship missile I can think of off hand, in Desert Storm when a Silkworm was shot at a fleet and shot down with a SeaRAM(?) I think.
I am surprised at the downvotes, but I guess also not. Either way, the information is out there. I agree with the article in that military software is generally awful, but I'm guessing it is not easy to innovate.
The point of the analogy is that the enemy platoon / nuclear submarine force would need be to be located and behave in a way that allowed a single shooter to wipe them all out almost simultaneously. This is particularly unlikely for submarines, especially nuclear-armed ones.