Quantum technologies will certainly have a significant impact on geopolitics. Given the changes and challenges already emerging in global and regional geopolitics as a result of the relative shift in the balance of power between the US and China, the impact of quantum technologies is likely to be even more pronounced. In this article I address three broad areas where quantum technologies and geopolitics intersect, which invite analytical attention and policy consideration in coming years.

One area where quantum technologies are likely to have a direct bearing on geopolitics is in how they affect military capabilities. Quantum sensing is identified as the technology that is most ready for military use today. Quantum technology could significantly improve navigation through various positioning systems such as the America’s GPS (Global Positioning System) and China’s Beidou system. This will improve the capacity for military navigation, and because such systems are increasingly used for targeting purposes, it will also potentially represent a major enhancement in the capacity of military forces to attack both fixed and mobile systems. This has implications for survivability of critical nuclear deterrent forces, which have gradually moved towards mobile systems precisely because enhanced sensor and targeting capabilities, even prior to quantum technologies, have made fixed systems (silo-based missiles or bombers based on airfields, for example) vulnerable. This will become an even greater problem if quantum technologies lead to greater transparency in the oceans, because it would remove the one area that nuclear forces could be hidden without much difficulty. Fear of surprise attack would be greater in such a world because if submarines can be detected, they can be attacked which would increase the temptation to launch a surprise attack. The invulnerability of any nuclear force, especially of submarines, is an important basis for nuclear deterrence stability. Thus, this could have significant effect especially on crisis stability.

Quantum technologies could also improve early warning and strategic alert systems, as well as command and control of these systems. This would strengthen nuclear deterrence, both by reducing the fear of surprise attack (because of better early waring) and fear of losing control over retaliatory forces (because of more resilient command and control systems). It is difficult to predict how these will play out, whether the advantage will lead to offense dominance or whether defense will continue to maintain its traditional edge. Given the implications for nuclear stability, this bears close watching.

Another way that quantum technology intersects with geopolitics is through the high barriers to entry to its research and development. This means the technological divide that we have seen in other areas such as ICT is likely to be perpetuated. Only great powers such as the US and China and some of the European countries may be capable of pursuing these technologies and their application because of the hugely capital-intensive nature of quantum as well as availability of quantum materials, and maintenance of certain conditions for research and development such as extreme cold temperatures. These will limit the number of countries who can enter quantum race, perpetuating existing divisions between the haves and the have-nots at the global level. There is of course the likelihood of partnerships among like-minded countries in this regard so that less developed countries that are also keen on this pursuit can also enter this domain. But states have traditionally been wary of sharing the highest levels of technology, for understandable reasons since technological access is an important power resource. But this is an area that also merits close attention so that this technology divide does not persist, and to identify the conditions and potential for quantum technology cooperation.

The geopolitics section of this volume already addresses many of these issues, but it also points out that states continue to be the primary drivers of the technology. It is worth highlighting that, given the significant investment that is required, it may not be possible for states alone to drive quantum development, but rather that there must be a public private partnership. As we have seen in other areas (the pharmaceuticals sector immediately comes to mind), the private sector can be very protective of its intellectual property rights, even in the face of state pressure and conflicting national interests. So, another area that needs to be closely examined is how is such public-private cooperation is evolving, its conditionalities, and effects.

In the quantum world order, it might also be useful to see how we might embark on developing norms so that it does not perpetuate existing technological inequality or a new form of quantum divide. An emerging quantum world order should also say something about what the rule-making exercises are likely to entail. How will the US-China divide or the quantum haves and have nots impact the global regulatory framework? How easy is it to see the emergence of possible rules of the road on quantum? We also need to be mindful of the negative effects and implications of the current pursuit of quantum technology.

China’s goals with regard to quantum also require a more thorough examination. The massive investments that China is making is all about staying ahead of the curve, staying ahead of the US and the West. But there are questions about the defensiveness of China’s military strategy. Many of China’s neighbors will have questions about this. Thus, on the one hand, attributing China’s development of quantum for purely defensive purposes may be misreading the actual use that China may intend for this technology. On the other hand, this raises a larger ‘security dilemma’ driven dynamic in the development of quantum technology. China may think it is pursuing this for defensive purposes but how Beijing conceptualizes what is ‘defensive’ is not how others perceive China’s military strategy. If China thinks it can be safe only if it dominates the domain, that can still lead to some problems and insecurities in the region and globally. China’s naming of its satellite, Micius, does not reassure others of China’s intentions and certainly it should not be mistaken for its goals with regard to China’s vision for quantum in the military and security domain. Because making wrong assumptions about China’s pursuit of quantum or other critical technology can also lead to erroneous conclusions and wrong strategy by others.

Any new technology always brings up questions like relationship between states and societies.  For instance, when information technology, came about, it was thought to be a liberating movement for large parts of the world. Something that would bridge divisions in society by creating a level playing field in terms of access and empowerment.  But we all know how the IT revolution unfolded and how the divisions within societies and between states have possibly even widened.  For example, social media like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and so on play both a useful role in some instances but also a deeply disturbing role by likely widening the chasm that already exists in many societies.

Finally, quantum technology also raises questions about ethics and geopolitics. The emerging great power divide is at least partly an ideological divide that pits democracies against autocracies. There are some obvious problems with such formulations, but at least in its essence, it represents an important facet of the global political divide. So, what do ethics do to democracies?  Or what effects do ethics have on authoritarian regimes?  What about the relationship between citizens and the states?  More technological innovations in the hands of authoritarian regimes has meant more suppression of peoples, violation of basic human dignity and human rights. While these may happen in other societies as well, there are some checks and balances in democracies that provide some cushioning effect in mitigating human vulnerabilities. But in authoritarian states, the absence of such checks and balances has meant that technologies like AI and facial recognition, just to give an example, have been used to persecute certain minorities. The manner in which China has used some of these technologies in perpetuating the divides as well as in targeting minority community such as the Uighurs is a case in point.  There is little doubt that democracies also have to do better and many democratic societies also use these technologies in undemocratic ways such as various forms of surveillance that also undermine individual rights and democratic freedoms. The fact that democracies need to do better does not mean that their records and the dangers they pose are comparable to the potential use of these technologies in the hands of totalitarian regimes that are neither subject to any rule of law nor to democratic process.

There are potentially many other political questions and concerns that quantum technology development generates. But the above should provide at least a starting point for a necessary intervention.

“It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics”.  – Richard Feynman

The phrase “quantum leap” is a curious contradiction. The term began its life in the realm of physics, to describe abrupt transitions, but at a small, discrete scale. Today it is used to describe vastly larger phenomena. Its first application in the social sciences came in a 1956 article on the Cold War, describing the conflict as “the ‘quantum leap’ to a new order of magnitude of destruction.” History, it seems, is again demonstrating its cyclical qualities today, as headlines declare the escalation of the United States’ “new Cold War” with China, and focus in on the quantum dimensions of the conflict.

The current quantum moment is doubtless significant. As a World Economic Forum report notes, “The types of problems that quantum computing is expected to be best at solving (quantum simulation, optimization, quantum linear algebra and prime factorization) underpin the inner workings of many existing technologies.” According to some estimates, the global quantum technology market will reach $53.2 billion by 2028, with quantum computing alone accounting for $17.6 billion, and 41.2% CAGR. On top of private capital, there has been a rush of public funding, with 26 quantum initiatives announced as of January 2023. In India, for instance, in April 2023, the Union Cabinet approved INR 6000 crore (approximately USD 730 million) worth of funding for a national mission on quantum technologies. NASSCOM, an Indian industry body, estimates that quantum technologies can add up to $310 billion to the Indian economy by 2030.

Quantum is also having a major moment in education. Universities in India have introduced courses focusing on advanced quantum computing. The Indian Army established a quantum computing laboratory and an AI centre at a military engineering institute in Madhya Pradesh, backed by the National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS). These are just a few examples: public-private partnerships, universities, startups are all rushing to seize the quantum moment.

While investment grows by quantum leaps and bounds, our understanding of the ethical, political, and social challenges that quantum technologies will bring remains meagre. The shift from linear to quantum causality presents a fundamental challenge that requires a re-evaluation of our understanding of power, ethics, and decision-making processes.

Two possible paths of inquiry have emerged: first, whether we can draw parallels with other paradigm-breaking technologies such as nuclear power and artificial intelligence (AI)? Drawing parallels between quantum technology and previous paradigm-breaking technologies can provide valuable insights into the challenges we may face in shaping its future. From nuclear non-proliferation, we can learn that countries  – when faced with, in kinetic terms, the destructive impact of new technologies – can agree to certain “red lines”. Accordingly, there are certain applications of quantum technology that must be unequivocally and equally condemned across all jurisdictions, as they violate ethical if not legal norms. Examples include the misuse of quantum encryption for criminal activities, hacking, and deliberate harm to civilian infrastructure. Some jurisdictions can retrofit existing regulations for quantum applications, but some may need to evaluate whether amendments are in order.

The politics of non-proliferation, however, is also a reminder that countries that are ahead in the development of revolutionary technologies will not relinquish that advantage easily. In this context, any attempt at meaningful regulation will fall short as it will be perceived by small and emerging powers as great powers creating a powerful club and closing the door behind them. Similarly, we can look to the state of AI governance. It is instructive to examine the limitations of existing multistakeholder processes that are dominated by influential stakeholders or alliances at the industry or state level. Such imbalances can hinder meaningful participation from communities outside the Anglophone world as well as perpetuate epistemic bubbles, creating barriers for non-experts to engage.

The second pathway  is to take a step back and look at who and what is driving the development of quantum applications. For instance, the origin of biometric identification cannot be decoupled from its current use. In 1860, William Herschel assumed the position of Magistrate of Nadia, a district within what is now the Indian state of West Bengal. This period coincided with the Indigo Revolt, a significant farmer uprising against the exploitative practices of the British colonial authorities. It was in this context that Herschel embarked on a series of pioneering experiments that laid the foundation for a novel approach to state governance—the application of biometric identification, specifically through the utilization of fingerprinting techniques.

This transformative development heralded a paradigmatic shift in the state’s capacity to identify and regulate its populace, ushering in an era of enhanced subject recognition and sanctioning. Proponents of modern state-led biometric identification programs argue that these technologies enhance public safety, enable effective crime prevention, and improve overall governance by streamlining processes and reducing administrative costs. Today, many countries require individuals of certain nationalities entering their borders to provide fingerprints. Governments have instituted compulsory national biometric ID programs, and it is quite notable that many – but not all – of these have been instituted under authoritarian or military regimes. The speed and efficiency in data processing and drawing probabilistic inferences, as enabled by quantum computing, could usher in an era of surveillance at an unprecedented scale, compounding existing issues around privacy, discrimination and policing. It is, of course, important to note that the full impact of quantum computing on biometric surveillance is still speculative and largely dependent, for better or for worse, on the advancements in quantum technology itself.

Big tech companies like Google, IBM, Microsoft, and Amazon are investing heavily in quantum technologies, and a race to commercialise quantum applications will come at the cost of caution and ethics. We need only look to Geoffrey Hinton’s prominent exit from Google after 10 years as its top AI engineer as a recent example. Hinton, who stated that he believed Google had been a “proper steward” of AI development until Microsoft’s move to integrate ChatGPT into Bing Search threatened its position as the dominant search engine in the market.  . Of course, present challenges in diversity – both in terms of identity and interdisciplinary thought – will persist in quantum technology as well, unless corrected early on. There is presently a massive demand for quantum skills, driven in part by the hype generated by multi-billion-dollar investment initiatives. At the same time, relatively few universities have master’s degrees with a focus on quantum technologies. Qureca lists 50 such programs, the bulk of which are offered by American and European institutions. None of these quantum courses have modules on ethics.

Image: Master’s degrees in Quantum Technologies, as of April 2023

The dangers of tech companies driving our approach to tech ethics are already well known. The “move fast and break things” culture of tech companies has put open societies at risk and eroded the autonomy of individuals in digital spaces. The revenue model of many digital services platforms, for instance, relies heavily on ad revenue. In 2022, Google Search accounted for USD 162 billion, or nearly 58% of Alphabet’s total revenue. Similarly, Meta generates 97% of its revenue from ads. As entities whose primary obligation is to their shareholders, not their users, the choices leadership at these companies make favour profit, which does not always coincide with public good. This contradiction has in the past led to inaction, and at worst active facilitation through increasingly effective algorithms, in the face of polarising content. Important work on ethical and responsible use of emerging technologies is often side-lined, as an investigative piece by MIT Technology Review detailed, as it does not directly contribute to profit margins.

Returning to the question of who drives the development and use of quantum technologies at the Q5 Symposium, Ole Waever called attention to the dangers of the State getting to quantum supremacy first. In fact, a State that gets there first will be incentivised to do so under the veil of secrecy because quantum computers can potentially break the strongest encryption and give one access to troves of valuable information, with worrying consequences for strategic stability. Similarly, the intertwining of emerging technologies with geopolitical dynamics influences the narrative and shapes our thinking about them. Therefore, actions taken by those seated in Washington, D.C., or Beijing can significantly impact the discourse surrounding quantum technology, through a form of agenda-setting power. Other emerging and critical technologies such as AI have already seen this effect. The EU AI Act was drafted at least partly in reaction to the US-China tech competition. However, the contours of the regulation are narrowed due to the predominance of US expertise:

Given the technology leadership of US DoD-funded projects in the military domain and the vast amounts of funding available from the government, this technology turns into a global benchmark or standard of what ought to be achieved. In this regard, the EU and its member states increasingly become takers of rules that are decided and technologically encoded elsewhere.

Already the Biden Administration is looking to impose export controls to stem China’s progress on quantum computing deeming quantum an area of utmost importance to national security. In a field like quantum computing, where investment and expertise are heavily concentrated in North America, regulations and restrictions will be shaped by the political priorities of the incumbents..

It is therefore essential to critically examine the influence of geopolitical factors on the development and perception of quantum technology.

Conclusion

Quantum technologies are in their infancy, and the relative uncertainty about what shape they would take drive us to look to other transformational technologies, like nuclear and AI. From these, it becomes evident that some of the same challenges – the limits of multilateral and multistakeholder processes, the concentration of expertise in certain geographies, the trade-off between private sector competition and ethics – will affect quantum as well. However, while historical precedents can guide our thinking, the unique characteristics of quantum technology would also necessitate fresh approaches to accountability, explainability, and reconstruction of decision-making processes.

Quantum technologies will be disruptive. The first technological applications of quantum mechanics, like atomic weapons and lasers, had a significant impact on humankind. As the world enters the Second Quantum Revolution, the ability of quantum computers to perform complex calculations in the blink of an eye will greatly reduce computation times and will disrupt life as we know it. In short, quantum technologies will have grave implications for global society and the world economy.

Drawing learnings from the atom bomb, there is a need to ensure that the development of quantum technologies goes hand-in-hand with development of ethical frameworks and practices. However, a single overarching ethical framework for the different applications of quantum technologies might not work. For instance, quantum communication (which may have national security implications) will require a different set of ethical guidelines to those needed for quantum hardware such as quantum computing. Ideally, all the stakeholders of the quantum ecosystem will be involved in designing, developing, and implementing these frameworks. Further, quantum technologies are novel and unlike any other emerging technologies, and their inherent complexity requires a well-rounded understanding of quantum mechanics to regulate them. Consequently, ethical guidelines should be developed with the assistance of physicists and others from the natural and physical sciences.

It is the responsibility of thought leaders, technologists, academics, intergovernmental organisations, governments, and the common man to ensure that quantum technologies do not widen the existing social and economic gaps, or the divide between the countries which are leading the Second Quantum Revolution and those which will end up importing these technologies.

A few Ethical Concerns of Quantum Technologies

Quantum technologies stand out from the rest of the emerging technologies; they will dramatically reduce processing time and exponentially increase compute power. Quantum technologies will also pose a new set of global challenges: present-day encryption will be easily compromised, secure data transfers will be threatened, and the number of cyber-attacks will likely witness a drastic rise. In this scenario, the need for laying down ethical frameworks to ensure the fair use of quantum technologies will be quintessential. To this end, a few ethical concerns that may come up in the quantum era need to be discussed. These are: privacy and security; availability and accessibility; machine and human biases; and State-sponsored surveillance.

Privacy and Security — Quantum technologies can have significant implications for privacy and security. Quantum computers, for example, have the potential to break current encryption algorithms, which could compromise the security of sensitive data. Here, ethical considerations involve developing quantum-resistant encryption methods and ensuring the protection of personal and confidential information. This would not only be relevant for governments and public institutions, but also for large corporations and other organisations.

Availability and Accessibility — As quantum technologies advance, it is essential to address their potential for creating or exacerbating inequalities. Quantum technologies are costly to develop and implement, and there is a risk that only certain individuals or organisations will have access to their benefits. Ethical questions arise regarding the equitable distribution of resources and ensuring that the benefits of quantum technologies are accessible to all. In the quantum era, it will be the responsibility of those who have these technologies to ensure there is equitable access to those who do not have access to them.

Machine and Human Biases — Quantum technologies can enhance machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms, leading to significant advancements. However, with this progress comes ethical concerns related to bias, transparency, and accountability of quantum-enhanced AI systems. Ensuring fairness, avoiding algorithmic bias, and promoting responsible AI use are crucial considerations.

State-Sponsored Surveillance — Quantum communication enables secure transmission of information, but it also raises ethical questions. For example, the use of quantum encryption could have implications for surveillance, censorship, and freedom of expression. Balancing the need for security with individual privacy rights and civil liberties is a crucial ethical challenge.

Laying ethical frameworks for the Quantum ecosystem

Quantum ethical frameworks and guidelines should be designed in such a way that they are applicable to the entire stakeholder ecosystem. They should also be formulated in consultation with all relevant stakeholders so as to encompass the needs and use cases of all of them. Broadly, quantum stakeholders can be broken down into the four categories shown in the figure below.

Fig. 1. Quantum stakeholder ecosystem for shaping ethical frameworks of quantum technologies.

Academia and Scientific Fraternity — Since most of the early quantum applications and technologies will emanate from academia and universities, their role in shaping ethical frameworks is crucial. Scientists, academicians, and researchers should be given a significant role in decision-making processes and, conversely, quantum policymaking must have a significant presence in academia. This will ensure a reciprocal relationship between those who do pure scientific research and those who regulate it.

Governments and Intergovernmental Organisations — Governments and intergovernmental institutions will play a key role in shaping and enforcing quantum ethics. Apart from regulating quantum technologies and their applications, they must also ensure that scientific R&D, national security, and the socio-economic realities of the nation state are aligned. Also, they must ensure that quantum ethical frameworks are rooted in interdisciplinary studies. For instance, while laying down guidelines, subjects like law, philosophy, science, business studies, and sustainability should all be taken into account. Additionally, since quantum technologies will be developed by certain countries earlier than others, governments and intergovernmental organisations like the QUAD and G20 should ensure that socio-economic gap between the haves and the have nots does not widen. Rather, they must work together to develop a common framework which will enable technology sharing and the pooling of resources to build critical technologies.

Industry — Industry plays a critical role when it comes to commercialisation of technologies. Since quantum science will open innovation in both hardware and software technologies, industry will have a key role in shaping and implementing ethical frameworks. Industry will be critical in informing the discourse on the transformative and disruptive nature of the technology and its social, scientific, economic, and environmental implications. Further, industry professionals and the developers of quantum technologies must play a significant role in shaping ethical frameworks which make the technology accountable, accessible, and transparent.

End-Users — Lastly, users and the general public should also be able to voice their opinion while the ethical guidelines are being framed for quantum technologies. For instance, the end-users and civil society organisations can ensure that fundamental human rights are not violated when this technology comes to the fore. Entrepreneurs, technologists, developers et al. can also ensure that these technologies are used to keep up with the social expectations of people. For instance, issues related to gender, religion, sexual preferences, caste, race, and ethnicity are not exacerbated by quantum technologies and applications, rather, are used to identify gaps in social systems. With the use of quantum technologies, these fissures can also be ethically, morally, and legally addressed.

Formulating ethical frameworks for Quantum technologies

With these ethical concerns in mind, there is an urgent need to formulate guidelines and framework for the ethical and legitimate use of quantum technologies. While the normative principles of ethics can be used for laying down these principles and accords, quantum ethics would also need to be designed to accommodate the underlying principles and fundamentals of quantum physics, like tunnelling, superposition, and entanglement. Further, these necessary accords and frameworks will vary depending on quantum applications. For instance, ethical principles for the fintech industry would widely vary from those used in the medical and pharmaceutical industries. Regulating quantum technologies will require a cross-disciplinary approach where natural sciences and social sciences must be blended together to design accords for their legitimate, moral, and ethical use.

Concluding remarks

Quantum ethics is a complex and evolving field of study that explores the ethical implications of advancements in quantum science and technology. Quantum technologies, such as quantum computing, quantum communication, and quantum cryptography, have the potential to revolutionise various industries and fields, but they also raise ethical considerations that need to be addressed. Addressing these ethical concerns requires collaboration between scientists, policymakers, industry leaders, and social scientists. Developing ethical frameworks, regulations, and guidelines can help ensure the responsible development and use of quantum technologies while minimising potential harm and maximising societal benefits. It is an ongoing process that will continue to evolve alongside the advancements in quantum science and technology.