>>63946213
>>63946297
While nuclear depth charges threaten submarines, they aren't defenseless. With the louder nature of surface vessels an advanced enemy submarine could get the jump on searching ASW fleets, one nuclear torpedo could sink or otherwise render useless and entire squadron of enemy destroyers. Not to mention it could be delivered with relative secrecy until the weapon detonated (with swim-out propulsion, wire guidance, and other quieting features). Even with a louder torpedo, if the submarine could fire it from far enough out, they could easily stay out of detection range. This would, however, bring a bigger issue, if the torpedo misses, then what?

I suppose a whatever attitude in a war gone hot wouldn't be out of the question, but a nuclear weapon simply being wasted is a very unattractive idea. These torpedoes would also work pretty well on dock facilities, as a close (or direct) explosion against a dock facility could render it inoperable without revealing ones position via a missile launch.