Quantum Computing in US-China Competition
28:40 Share

I'm Bonnie Glaser, Managing Director of the Indo-Pacific Program at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. Welcome to another episode of the China Global Podcast. Quantum computing uses quantum mechanics to perform fast and complex calculations. It's often described as a disruptive technology, and it's among the advanced technologies at the forefront of the U.S.-China competition.

Although the United States has been in the lead in the development and applications of quantum technology, China's making rapid strides. Earlier this year, China's independently developed quantum computer, Origin Wukong, named after the Monkey King, a famous character from Chinese mythology, made the country the third in the world to develop this state-of-the-art machine.

Quantum computing has many potential applications, including financial modeling, artificial intelligence and scientific research, as well as in defense areas such as undersea warfare and military communications networks. A new report from the Center for New American Security, CNAS, titled "The Quest for Qubits: Assessing US-China Competition in Quantum Computing"

explains the quantum strategies being pursued by the United States and China, and it makes recommendations for the U.S. to strengthen its position in its competition with China in quantum computing. So I'm joined today by the report's author. Very excited to have Sam Howell with us.

And she is an adjunct associate fellow with the Technology and National Security Program at CNAS. And her research interests include quantum information science, semiconductors, STEM workforce issues, and the use of emerging technologies to enhance human performance. Thanks so much for joining us today, Sam. Thank you for having me.

So for those of us who aren't scientists, including me, can you explain in layman's terms what is quantum computing? Absolutely. Quantum computing is a subset of a broader field called quantum information science that harnesses the laws of quantum mechanics to solve really large and complex problems that classical computers lack the capacity to tackle.

So in other words, quantum computers leverage the behavior of nature on a really tiny scale to generate unparalleled speed and processing power. And there are two unique properties that afford quantum computers these advantages: superposition and entanglement. So superposition refers to the ability to exist in multiple computational states simultaneously.

So while classical computers are based on binary bits that switch on and off and can only exist in states of either zero or one, quantum computers are based on qubits which can represent zero, one, or any combination of the two. This means that the number of possible states for a qubit far exceed those possible for binary bits

which gives quantum computers greater power and capacity to absorb and process information. And then entanglement refers to qubits' ability to function as a connected system or unit. So entangled qubits can influence each other's behavior and really rapidly interact and communicate with one another.

So as a result, quantum systems can process exponentially higher volumes of information and at faster speeds than classical counterparts. So in summary, quantum computing is just a process that uses quantum mechanical phenomena to solve super complicated problems.

So why does quantum computing occupy a central role in U.S.-China competition? And maybe you could also compare it to some of the other aspects of technology that are very central to this U.S.-China competition and technology. Sure. Well, quantum computing has become really a key facet of U.S.-China technology competition

Generally, because it's a technology area that holds the potential to really tip the scales of geopolitical power. And I think what distinguishes quantum from some of these other tech areas like semiconductors or even AI is that quantum has very broad and far reaching conceivable applications and

and could be used to dramatically enhance a country's economic and military power and kind of just their overall national competitiveness. So quantum computers could be used, for example, to design new weapon systems or break in adversaries' encryption methods or develop new surveillance techniques. And at the same time, they could also be used to discover new medications and vaccines or

build better green energy technologies, or improve weather forecasting. So quantum computing stands to benefit pretty much any industry that's dependent on speed and processing power. And that means that falling behind in quantum doesn't just mean trailing in one niche technology area. It really means falling behind in pretty much every facet of modern life.

In your report, you go into the strengths and weaknesses of the United States and China. So could you elaborate a bit on that? Like, where is China catching up? Are there areas that they are ahead or areas where their system will enable them to have advantages going forward? That's a great question. And I think there are a few quantifiable metrics we can use to assess each country's performance and potential in China.

quantum computing. I think the most illuminating ones right now are total R&D expenditures, the total number of patents a country has, and the total number of research publications.

So total R&D expenditures are one of China's primary strengths. Most estimates indicate that the Chinese government outspends the U.S. government on quantum R&D by quite a bit. China has reportedly earmarked a total of about $15.3 billion for quantum technology.

which places it well ahead of the United States, roughly $1.9 billion in planned public funding. The U.S. does have a higher level of private investment, however, and a much more robust quantum industry than China. U.S. quantum companies consistently receive the highest share of private funds globally,

And five of the eight top funded quantum tech companies in 2022 were headquartered in the U.S. So this investment has fostered a U.S. quantum industry that's very diverse and broad, which is a critical strength and will become even more of a strength as quantum tech begins to move from the lab to the market.

China's quantum industry is comparatively quite small and appears to be heavily controlled or influenced by the CCP, which could potentially hinder China's progress, especially when it's time to begin the technology commercialization process. The U.S. also has a leg up in terms of total quantum computing patent applications,

the US Patent Office received more than 1,800 quantum computing patent applications between 2010 and 2022, and China received only about 900 during the same period. So this indicates that US entities are innovating at a really quick pace and are really at the frontier of quantum R&D. And then finally, when we look at research publications,

This appears at first glance to be an advantage for China. China produces the highest volume of quantum computing research and accounts for about 23% of research globally. But when we dig a little bit deeper, the U.S. seems to have the advantage in terms of research quality. So though the U.S. produces fewer publications than China, those publications are cited more frequently, which suggests that they are maybe of a higher quality.

So taken together, these quantifiable metrics indicate that the U.S. probably has a slight edge over China at this point. But that lead is modest. China is definitely a stiff competitor. What about other countries in this quantum computing field? Are there other countries?

other actors that are really in competition with the United States in China? And if so, are they able to maybe work together as aligned allies to really sustain the lead that the United States currently has over China?

Yes, thank you for this question, because although the conversation in Washington around quantum tends to focus on the US-China dynamic, there are other actors making significant advancements in the field. So the pool of countries pursuing quantum is still relatively small. There are only about 17 or 18 countries in the world that have adopted national quantum strategies.

But many of these are US allies who are performing quite well and have signed either bilateral or trilateral agreements with the US to promote cooperation on quantum R&D. So Germany and the UK, for example, are the US allies with the highest level of government investment in quantum R&D.

And there are also the two countries behind China and the US that produce the highest output of scientific research. Germany and the UK also play important roles in the quantum technology supply chain as kind of the key sources of some critical components like lasers, synthetic diamonds, and dilution refrigerators.

Other U.S. allies with robust quantum tech ecosystems include Australia, Japan, the Netherlands. And I think moving forward, we can expect to see a heightened focus on international collaboration on quantum R&D, particularly within the framework of existing partnerships like AUKUS or the budding Japan-South Korea-U.S. trilateral relationship.

There's been in the past a great deal of scientific cooperation between the United States and China, and some of that continues. And in some very sensitive technologies, it has really been circumscribed in recent years for obvious reasons.

although I think scientists around the world in many ways do want to continue to collaborate. So in the field of quantum computing, has there been much collaboration between Americans and Chinese? And if so, is that likely to be cut off in the future? Or are there areas in which you think it's likely to continue? Do we have laws that will actually be able to ensure that

are secrets that to the extent that we need to protect them will be protected. There has been cooperation between the US and China on quantum computing, in part because quantum research at this very early stage of development is highly international.

So despite increasingly difficult relations between the US and China, collaborative research between them has remained pretty resilient in the quantum realm. In fact, when we look at the share of US quantum-related publications that have an author based in another country, China is the United States' top collaborating country.

And this presents a really difficult challenge for US policymakers because there are benefits to US-China cooperation on quantum. China has a lot of technical expertise and is actually ahead of the US in some other subsets of quantum information science, like quantum communications, as an example.

So the U.S. could really learn some things from collaborating with China. At the same time, though, there are very real intellectual property and technology leakage risks that we need to take seriously. So in my view, at this stage of technology development, the potential benefits to collaboration probably outweigh the risks associated

But once the US has a secure and definitive lead over China in quantum, or it acquires a really significant capability that it wants to protect, I think that balance would probably tip. Yeah.

China and particularly, of course, its leader, Xi Jinping, has been focused on technological self-sufficiency. And I think that I mentioned in my introduction, Arjun Wukong as being an example of this effort. So what are the strategic and security implications of China's self-sufficiency in quantum? Can they achieve it?

And then what would be the implications if they are able to have their own self-sufficiency where they don't need to collaborate with scientists in the United States or elsewhere, and they're able to take advantage of, as you say, the commercialization, which would be challenging, but eventually they could get there. And in terms of applications, is this something they can do on their own? And then what does that mean if they can't?

Yes, self-sufficiency in quantum is a priority we see reflected in multiple Chinese strategy documents and even in speeches from Xi Jinping and high-ranking party officials. So I think the CCP views self-sufficiency and technological independence as kind of a necessary condition towards achieving its goals.

broader objectives of reasserting Chinese military and economic leadership and really leading a new round of industrial transformation. So China clearly has a vision of becoming the global science and technology power of the 21st century. And I think quantum is a key component of fulfilling that vision.

So as a result, China is placing a lot of emphasis on creating a quantum ecosystem that is self-sustaining and resilient to external pressure in the form of export controls or other economic tools.

But admittedly, this will be difficult for them to achieve. Quantum systems are expensive to operate and it's very difficult to build an entirely domestic supply chain for quantum. So in some ways, it might be too soon to truly understand the implications of China's drive for self-sufficiency for the United States. But in general,

The more self-sufficient China becomes, the more difficult it will be for the United States to exert influence over or potentially even degrade China's quantum capabilities. If China really prioritizes technological independence in quantum specifically, it might have fewer vulnerabilities that the United States can exploit to its own advantage.

And this probably means that the best approach to promoting U.S. competitiveness in quantum is to emphasize policies that accelerate U.S. progress at a rate that's difficult for China to keep up with, rather than spending a lot of time crafting protective regimes that are unlikely to have much of an impact on such an insulated Chinese quantum ecosystem.

In your report, Sam, you recommend that the United States needs to build a robust quantum technology supply chain. And specifically, you cite China's advantage and leverage in the rare earth industry as a potential risk. So maybe you can talk a little bit about that. And what can the U.S. do to mitigate this risk?

Developing a secure and resilient supply chain with limited dependence on foreign competitors is critical to U.S. economic and national security and U.S. leadership in quantum. So right now, the quantum supply chain is global and highly specialized with many single points of failure.

So a lot of US quantum companies, for example, are reliant on a single supplier located in a foreign country for their most essential components and materials, which is pretty risky. So thankfully, the US doesn't currently have any significant dependencies on foreign competitors like China. But as you mentioned, there is potential for those vulnerabilities to emerge.

So as an example, rare earth elements have a role to play in the quantum supply chain like they do in most technology areas. And China dominates the mining, processing and production of rare earths and has already demonstrated a willingness to use this dominance as geopolitical leverage. So as recently as 2023,

Chinese officials reportedly considered banning the export of certain rare earth processing and refining technologies to the U.S. And a loss of access like this would be really detrimental to U.S. technological progress and innovation. So it's important for the U.S. to try to diversify the quantum supply chain and understand where its risks lie.

An entirely domestic U.S. supply chain is unrealistic. It would be prohibitively expensive. But because the quantum supply chain is still unfolding, the U.S. has a real opportunity to choose where to accept risk.

And that's why in the report, we recommend that the White House start by conducting a comprehensive supply chain review and establishing processes for continuous supply chain mapping. Because this will allow U.S. policymakers to identify where the key choke points are located. And it will also enable them to use financial tools like

the Defense Production Act or the Small Business Innovation Research Program to promote domestic production of the products and materials that are deemed too sensitive to reside outside of the U.S.

A good example, I think, of China's restrictions on the export of critical minerals is gallium, where we've actually seen an increase in their supply to Germany, but a pretty significant decrease in their supply to Japan.

So it's part of their diplomacy and their strategic approach to using economic statecraft, if you will, and the leverage, the tools that they have to influence other countries' policies.

And the United States, Japan, so many countries in Europe are very heavily dependent, as you say, on critical minerals. So a big challenge, I think, for the U.S. going forward.

The other recommendation that you offered that I found really interesting is that the US should foster a quantum technology workforce. And I assume there's data that you're familiar with as to how advanced China is in STEM areas. Of course, there's differences in how people assess maybe the quality of their engineering degrees because they have so many graduates.

Some of the graduates probably are very high standard, but maybe not all of them are. But nonetheless, there's no doubt that the Chinese have really high level global

globally competitive programs that train people in some of these areas of science. So why is it that the U.S. has struggled to build its quantum talent pool? And is this something that you think we will be able to narrow the gap in with China? Or do you think we will really continue to struggle going forward in this area?

Well, the United States has a very well-documented shortage of STEM talent that is only expected to worsen in the years ahead, unfortunately. And this is a challenge that is adversely affecting every technology industry, not just the quantum industry.

Many of the companies that have received CHIPS Act funding to construct new semiconductor fabs in the U.S., for example, are struggling to find the talent needed to build those fabs and keep them operational. So we found that there are a few reasons for this growing shortage of general STEM talent. One is that U.S. students historically perform better

quite poorly on national and international standardized STEM tests and also maintain pretty low STEM degree completion rates. U.S. students also face significant disparities in access to STEM resources and opportunities based on socioeconomic status, race and ethnicity, and sex.

which means that there are pretty large pools of Americans who could become STEM professionals, but kind of lack the means to fulfill their potential. Another big factor is that the U.S. quantum industry often has to compete with other high-profile, high-paying technology areas like AI for talent that is already in short supply.

And we also have to compete with other countries. In fact, most quantum specific talent, think folks with kind of PhD level expertise, are educated and reside outside of the U.S. And even within the U.S., the majority of PhD level quantum experts are foreign born.

So this is a really big problem and vulnerability because we need talent not only to invent and develop new quantum technologies, but to successfully deploy them and ensure that they're used responsibly. But this is a challenge that isn't unique to the United States. Every country pursuing quantum, including China, is having a hard time securing access to the right people.

So looking ahead, Sam, how do you predict that the US-China competition in quantum computing will unfold other than talent? What are the really key variables that will shape the outcome of this competition? Yeah, that's the million dollar question. But I think that over the next

few months and years, we're going to see a big push from both China and the United States to begin the technology commercialization process and really trying to move quantum technologies out of the lab and onto the market. There's been a lot of hype around quantum, but it's still a largely academic and theoretical field with no

concrete proof that it can deliver on its full potential when applied to the real world. So I think the focus right now is on building quantum systems that are large and stable enough to reach the deployment stage of production.

And the first country to do that, to successfully embed quantum technologies kind of throughout society, will have a real leg up in terms of establishing market dominance and setting standards and governance frameworks for the technology.

So I think some things to look out for moving forward would be to focus on the number of error-corrected qubits that a country can produce. The media tends to focus on the number of qubits alone.

to kind of assess the size and capability of a new quantum computer. But that doesn't mean that it's capable of executing really complex algorithms. In order to kind of deliver on those most promising potential applications, we need to be looking at the error correction rate more than just the number of qubits alone.

Wow, that's fascinating. We've been talking with Sam Howell, who is an Adjunct Associate Fellow at the Center for New American Security in the Technology and National Security Program. And once again, I want to just tell our listeners the title of her recent report, which is called The Quest for Qubits, Assessing U.S.-China Competition in Quantum Computing. Thanks so much for joining us, Sam.

Thank you for having me.