NSA has dual roles, not only spying on others but also protecting U.S. resources. This creates this tension between keeping exploits secret or informing vendors and others. For a long time, security researchers like Bruce Schneier have advocated for splitting the NSA up, essentially one for offense and one for defense.

> the point of the military isn't protection

I'd argue that it is, if indirectly.

It's true. We're all safer thanks to the enormous success of our military. That's why it's valuable, just like the NSA.

So it leads to the same logical conclusions: If the point of the military is to apply force to an opponent, then the NSA has to have ways of applying force to a digital opponent. Disclosing vulnerabilities would be precisely the opposite of what they should do.

> We're all safer thanks to the enormous success of our military

Examples from the last 50 years?