Quantum Leap: Power, Peril, Politics
The global race for quantum computers promises breakthroughs in science and tech, but also brings security risks and geopolitical shifts.
Topics: technology, science, politics
Example
In October 2019, Google said its Sycamore processor had achieved 'quantum supremacy' by finishing a task in 200 seconds that would take a supercomputer 10,000 years; IBM disputed this, saying a supercomputer could do it in about 2.5 days. On 9 December 2024, Google announced Willow, a 105-qubit chip that reduced errors as it grew. In March 2025, Chinese scientists reported that their 105-qubit Zuchongzhi 3.0 was a million times faster than Sycamore on a similar test. Large, error-free quantum computers could one day break today's encryption, which is why the US and China treat the race as strategic.
Key facts
- On 9 December 2024 Google announced Willow, a 105-qubit chip that reduced errors as it scaled up.
- In March 2025 Chinese researchers reported that the 105-qubit Zuchongzhi 3.0 was about a million times faster than Sycamore on a sampling task.
Limitations
- Benchmark tasks used in these claims have no practical use; no quantum computer has yet solved a useful real-world problem faster than classical computers, and speed claims are often disputed.
Evaluations
technology evaluation
Support
Willow's falling error rates as it grew addressed the main obstacle to useful quantum computers, a genuine milestone.
Counterargument
IBM's rebuttal of the 2019 claim shows that 'supremacy' headlines depend on carefully chosen tasks and assumptions.
Rebuttal
Each claim may be overstated, but steady progress by several teams shows the field is advancing, not stalling.
Additional support
Governments are already moving to 'post-quantum' encryption standards, published by the US in 2024, preparing for future machines.
science evaluation
Support
Quantum computers could simulate molecules for drug and materials research in ways classical computers cannot.
Counterargument
Those uses need far larger, error-corrected machines than exist today, possibly a decade or more away.
Rebuttal
Basic research often pays off on long timelines; the case shows ambition and uncertainty side by side.
Additional support
Rival Chinese and American teams publishing in peer-reviewed journals lets scientists check each other's claims.
politics evaluation
Support
Because quantum computers could break encryption, the US and China treat leadership as a national security issue, with export controls on related technology.
Counterargument
Science is also collaborative, and over-securitising research could slow progress for everyone.
Rebuttal
States can protect sensitive work while keeping open basic research, a balance many already attempt.
Additional support
Head-to-head speed claims, such as Zuchongzhi 3.0 against Sycamore, show national prestige riding on the race.
Sources
- Fortune (2019-10-23): Google claims quantum supremacy; IBM disagrees
- Google (2024-12-09): Meet Willow, our state-of-the-art quantum chip
- The Quantum Insider (2025-03-04): Chinese Team Officially Report on Zuchongzhi 3.0, Claims Million Times Speedup Over Google's Sycamore