I'm fully with you regarding nation states, perhaps some more than others, would exploit such situations at their own interest. It's just that the practical implementation seems far fetched to me.Hmmm, I am not sold on the calculated risk argument. It is been reported that the government locked down Wuhan Province
While allowing people to leave China for destinations outside the country. Instead of being the good guy and protecting the world population they shared the virus. Who gains from that, especially when you are the worlds largest medical supplier. Coincidence or calculated risk? Doesn't Sun Tzu talk about defeating an enemy using indirect means? Even if you don’t have the capacity to manufacture a virus that doesn't Mean you can’t exploit it. Nation states exploit situations everyday. I know I sound pessimistic but nation states are not known for their altruism towards a potential adversary. Trust me the US is not immune to this type of behavior either.
Young and upcoming party member: 'XI, we have discovered new infectious virus'. What you want to do about it?
XI: Can we infect Trump with it?
--
Me: mmmm, I see where you're going
Joking aside, they probably already shared the virus before lockdown of Wuhan Province. Locking down the whole country would have cost China MUCH more economically compared to just Wuhan province. Personally I think that what they're trying to hide, is that they f'ed up. They didn't really did such a good job at all and didn't want to have the hard hit to their economy closing the whole country down.
That's bad press and makes them look bad. I'd say 95 vs 5% chance of likeliness compared to 'infect Trump' scenario.
IIRC Sun Tzu's most importantly stressed that the best way to win a war is to win without a fight. Taken very literally you could see 'infecting the world with a virus', as 'not fighting'. However, when things do come out I guess the backlash from it will be probably worse.