The implication in the original article was that the missile contained a non-nuclear warhead. So you really haven’t added anything new here. The quoted sentence admits that a nuclear warhead could do this. The purpose of my post was that a non-nuclear warhead couldn’t have that yield.
You also state the obvious, i.e. that a nuclear device COULD take out an aircraft carrier. Oddly - the BEST way for such a delivery is for the nuke to go off UNDER the carrier, not above it or near it. The damage to surface vessels even a small distance away from a nuclear detonation can survive at some level. You either have to deliver it right on top or right underneath (which is what nuclear tipped torps do). The nuclear tipped torp will break the keel of any major surface combatant and send it to the bottom instantly.
Exactly right. That’s what supercavitating torpedos were supposed to be designed for (the Soviet Shkval for example)—have a sub come up near a battle group, fire off a nuclear tipped super-high speed torpedo and run like hell.
That certainly makes a hell of a lot more sense than firing a ballistic missile at a carrier group.