From a systems point-of-view the main problem is that there is no redundancy in a single balloon. Once materials are designed that are lightweight, strong and cheap enough to design one of these with many small balloons, they would be less vulnerable, especially in warfare.
It seems to me that with enough bladders made of some kind of lightweight fireproof material that prevented the explosion of one from exploding the others, blimps could still be useful as floating aircraft carriers for drones or other types of aircraft. And equipped with modern laser anti-aircraft weapons I bet they would be less vulnerable to attack in certain military applications as well.
The caveat is that volume and surface area have a cube square relationship, so the smaller you make each lifting bladder the more weight you spend on material vs. what you get in buoyancy. Lots of small balloons are less efficient than one large balloon.
Also, it turns out that it's actually pretty hard to shoot down airships. They don't "pop" like rubber balloon, bullets tend to pass right through the thin skin. Missiles don't detonate because they don't meet enough resistance, etc... you get slow leaks that might eventually doom the airship, but only after its lifting gas reserves are depleted.
Obviously one would use appropriate munitions against such a target.
18th century naval engineers devised chain shot (two half-rounds of a cannonball with a length of chain between them) to wreak havok on masts, rigging, and sails of enemy ships, a target not unlike an airship.
The "flying ginsu" AGM-114R9X Hellfire missile was developed for other missions, but might be the harbinger of specific anti-airship / anti-aerostat munitions. Small bullet holes are one thing, large gaping gashes from a flying knife, and, say, some form of incendiary as an encouragement to hydrogen ignition, would be an entirely different matter.
Even tracer rounds from standard machine-gun fire would probably give a hydrogen-filled aerostat a bad day.
