Question: I suspect being economically strong and independent aren't enough to become a super power in today world, I realised that US is slowly losing it's grip as a super power after it starts shifting focus on other research areas and staying away from making nukes. Given today technology, can a nation become a super power without having any nuclear programme? Sorry for my childish thinking but I think people would definitely listen when you can talk at over 250dB.

Answer: 
That is unknown ...
===================

Nuclear weapons have not been used in combat for almost 75 years. Their existence has loomed over geostrategic thinking, but nuclear strategy are all **untested assumptions.**

Once upon a time, [theorists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Kahn) wrote papers where widespread *evacuation* programs were seen as more significant than localized nuclear use. Others [seem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_de_dissuasion) to have thought roughly "any nuke is a nuke" and their very first strike would be a massive [countervalue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countervalue) attack.

I consider it *quite* feasible that a major non-nuclear power could come close to superpower status using trade, cultural influence, and cyber power. Would they actually be a superpower? People would argue endlessly.

Consider virtual arsenals.
==========================

Remember how upset the US are/were about Iraqi, Iranian or North Korean nuclear weapon programs? Well, South Korea, Japan and Germany presumably have no nuclear weapon programs, but their non-existing programs are much closer to the bomb than, say, Iran. And Japan probably could overtake North Korea in a few months, if they wanted to. They are *trusted* not to take that step.

* They have scientists who understand nuclear weapons engineering, if only so that their national security agencies can *evaluate reports* of other countries' programs. They would never rely on intelligence from the P5 alone.
* They have a civilian nuclear industry with plutonium stockpiles.
* They have at least tactical delivery systems.
Power Projection
----------------

There is debate within the political science community as to what defines a super power. However, a good proxy is the ability to project power.

The UK was the dominant world power during the colonial era. Few people would argue this, yet they certainly didn't have nuclear weapons. The UK could, however, blockade ports, draw on a vast empire for soldiers, and support sustained conflict anywhere on the globe.

China Today
-----------

In fact, the lack of blue water naval power is why I would not classify current day (2020) China as a superpower. ICBMs are really the only way that China can threaten countries outside of Asia. Contrast this with the current US capabilities and Cold War Era USSR power projection - either one was able to land and support troops at far removed locations.

Soft Power
----------

Economic pressure is certainly a way to project power - sanctions can hurt. But I think it is insufficient.

Bottom Line
-----------

Can the nation transport and sustain large bodies of soldiers to distant locations in the face of armed resistance?

Nuclear weapons would only play into this definition if we posit that Mutually Assured Destruction is required to prevent the other party from using Nukes to prevent landing or sustaining those troops.