So it equally makes no sense for China to forbid itself from using their own exploits? As long as they can't be sure America isn't benefiting from them, they'd better keep up with the arms race.

Or do you consider America to be special and that it deserves these powers more than other countries? Personally I don't think it's competent to hold them because it has an ongoing history of using its weapons to destroy other countries, property and lives. If I had to choose who wins the arms race, I would prefer a less hostile country like China or Germany to have them instead of America. But really, why not nobody? Exploits are offensive weapons, not defensive ones.

> So it equally makes no sense for China to forbid itself from using their own exploits? As long as they can't be sure America isn't benefiting from them, they'd better keep up with the arms race.

Correct. Same goes for any nation. Since there's no way to be sure that other nations aren't developing zero-day exploits, not developing exploits of your own does nothing more than put you at a disadvantage.

> Or do you consider America to be special and that it deserves these powers more than other countries?

Yes. I know this seems to be a rather unpopular opinion with the HN crowd these days, but the US absolutely deserves to have better military capabilities than nations like Syria or China. (As for Germany, I'd also be mostly okay with them possessing exploits; as they're a democratic nation who I generally trust to act in the best interests of their citizens. I cannot say the same for Syria or China.)

> But really, why not nobody? Exploits are offensive weapons, not defensive ones.

That'd be great, but unfortunately it's not a realistic option. So long as one nation possesses and benefits from zero-day exploits (even secretly) then it makes no strategic sense for any other nation to intentionally put themselves at a disadvantage by not developing exploits of their own.