No, you have a different definition then most people.
The Agosta 90B's are Deisel-Electric Submarines.
The US Navy's Submarine force is I believe completely Nuclear driven today (with the exception of some research or possibly rescue type subs).
Calling a submarine Nuclear sub because it can "possibly" carry nuclear weapons is wrong.
By your definition every submarine in the ocean that is in any countries Navy's are nuclear because they can "possibly carry a weapon that can have a nuclear charge. Or by that matter they could just carry a nuclear weapon aboard the sub and become the delivery device.
The classification of a Nuclear sub is given to a submarine that gets its propulsion power from a nuclear power plant.
The Classification of a submarine of diesel-electric means that the submarine gets its propulsion power from a diesel and charges its batteries (electric) prior to submerging or during snorkeling operations. Once the submarine is below periscope depth the submarines propulsion is strictly from the stored energy in the batteries which don't last that long (hours) and have to be recharged. The running of that Diesel engine and the ability to get fuel limit the operational range of this type of submarine.
What do you think the media will call a sub sitting off the cost of the US with nuclear weapons pointed at them?
“It's just a diesel sub with silo’s that could have a nuclear weapon in them”, I doubt it. What do you think they’re going to put in those Ballistic silos, daisies? Why do you think they want to buy subs with silos? Why are they openly saying, this is what they are going to do? Why would you not believe them, they have done this in the past. Whether or not the propulsion power comes from a nuclear plant is irrelevant to what I was saying, the outcome is the same.
If bush knows, this is what they are doing. Then the only conclusion is he wants them to have weapons of mass destruction.