Our nuclear submarines would probably be easily tracked with their "listening network" (I don't know anything about it) but diesel-electric submarines, which seem to be making a resurgence although not with the pro-nuclear forces in the navy, are far quieter and harder to detect. Combine that with the sound matting being develop for next gen subs and/or titanium hulls like Russia used to make, and you've got a very formidable submarine capable of high speed travel which will be very hard to detect with passive or active sonar.
For example the Russian Alfas class were so loud when they were going top speed that US listening posts across the atlantic could hear them.
Even better are fuel-cell powered subs. Less range than nuclear subs, but still formidable
Nuclear subs generate noise and vibration from the steam turbines, pipes etc. that can't be completely eliminated.
True, but diesel boats normally run on the surface, and on diesel, because battery life is limited; they generally submerge only to run an attack or to escape an attacker (or briefly at dawn, in case there's an unpleasant surprise out there that wasn't picked up). That's why nuclear submarines were once referred to as the first true submarines, as opposed to mere submersibles.
Carrier's are efficient at that. Unlike fixed bases, they're far more difficult to track and hit. They can launch a large number of aircraft which can hit a larger number of targets with stand off munitions. Drones can be used to delivery, although it is worth noting that most modern cruise missiles effectively are drones themselves with a several hundred pound warhead.
The author completely ignores China's increasingly sophisticated anti-submarine underwater listening network. Just how stealthy are our submarines in comparison to the detection capability of a potential adversary? Furthermore how long with a submarine stay hidden after launching a cruise missile attack? If we're to assume that the range places it within the sphere of A2/AD then it would be just as vulnerable as a surface ship after attacking.
Which then begs the question of how do you deliver payloads? You could opt to instead rely on munitions which can be launched for farther away, but such munitions certainly would be more costly. I would think that the optimal solution in respect to limited resources would be some mix of long range munitions to counter area denial capability followed by the deployment of shorter ranged assets.
But that's just my 5cent as an enthusiast who doesn't actually have any professional experience in the matter. Although from what I read about the author, it appears we're on similar footing in that regard.