They are not interrelated IMO.I agree to the most part.
However the two bullet points you mentioned are interrelated .
With limited resources we need to spend them on places where its most needed and effective.
I need food and water to stay alive...if I can afford it...great...I need it for survival.
...if I can't afford it...that's too bad...but still I need it for survival.
The points u r arguing here could very well apply to Pak's nuclear program in general. Pakistan is still a poor country...it was poor when it started its nuclear program...and it was poor for all that time in between...
...but does Pakistan need its nukes? Yes. They are needed for survival...they keep India at bay. If I could rub a genie lamp and wish for Pak to be able to switch place with Switzerland(India as an enemy is not a worry)...I would argue myself that Pak should stop spending money on its nuclear program and spend it on ppl(education, healthcare, uplifting ppl from poverty, and so many more things to list here). However we have to play with the hand we r dealt and survival is of utmost importance. Nukes(and their extension with SSBNs) are one of those strategic things that can keep even the most powerful enemies at bay...and thus they are needed for survival.