If having nuclear power resulted in a country being successful then I’m pretty sure that the remaining 187 countries would’ve been failures. Nuclear Power sure is a good thing if used for good but it does not make any country failed or successful.
Country’s failure or success depends on it’s political, economic and foreign relations’ stability. Pakistan, currently faces terrible political and economic instability. Education is not a big trend in non-urban areas which results in unemployment, less GDP and less infrastructure.
These things have been changing for the past 3 years and Pakistan will be out of the FSI(Fragile/Failed State Index) this year. Terrorist events have halved and Operation Radd-ul-Fasaad has been successfully working in all areas of Pakistan. It’s very rare now a days to hear about a terror event in Pakistan.
As a result, major cricket players have agreed to play matches in Pakistan. Sri Lankan team (even after being attacked in 2009) has now agreed to play in Pakistan.
- What's the risk of a nuclear weapon being accidentally unleashed?
- Pourquoi les capacités et l'expansion nucléaires de l'Afrique du Sud ont-elles été délibérément supprimées?
- Is it unfair to the rest of the world that only certain nations are allowed to have nuclear weapons? What would a country like, Brazil do if it came under attack and needed them?
- Les États-Unis peuvent-ils se permettre de laisser la RPDC acquérir la capacité de lancer des armes nucléaires sur la côte est avant un engagement diplomatique?
- How many nuclear weapons does United States possess now?
In my opinion, Pakistan has a lot more to achieve than just better infrastructure or good security. It needs to focus on education reducing corruption and restoring it’s image in front of the world.