Why Quantum Matters for National Security

There we go. Great. Now it's on. Hi

everybody.

Well, I am here to welcome you to this very very important panel on quantum and its implications for national security.

I am Matt Canella the CEO of inflection and I am going to start with a number and that number is 90 and it's a percentage 90%.

That is the percentage of US military and commercial systems that are in some way, shape or form reliant on GPS.

And GPS, unfortunately, while having been infallible historically, is becoming increasingly prone to deniability and spoofing.

And GPS is not just a navigation system.

It's a position, navigation, and timing system. P and T system. And in many

system. P and T system. And in many ways, timing is the unsung hero in that uh we don't think of this on a day-to-day basis, but without the timing that we get from the GPS network, we

wouldn't have the synchronization of the electricity grid. We wouldn't have

electricity grid. We wouldn't have financial trades. We wouldn't have RF

financial trades. We wouldn't have RF communication. And so, a lot of our

communication. And so, a lot of our national resilience, let alone our national security, is indeed reliant upon approximately 30 satellites that

circle the Earth and were put up there in the '90s. And so at Inflection, one of the things we do, and I've used this prop several times, so I apologize if you're getting tired of it, but we, you know, use our quantum core here, and we

use this to build technologies that help with these national security issues. And

those technologies range from quantum atomic clocks that can give you better than GPS timing locally in an unjammable fashion. Quantum RF antennas that can

fashion. Quantum RF antennas that can receive the entire electromagnetic spectrum in a device this size as opposed to a device that often has to approximate the size of the wavelength

that you're receiving. And so soldiers that are out in the field that are receiving very low frequency, long wavelength signals have to have very large antennas which make them susceptible to being targeted. Um and of

course the computer that we announced that we'll be building here in Chicago.

Um all based on that neutron technology.

So we're going to hear more about the implications of national security from our panel members and you'll [snorts] be in very good hands. Our moderator is Isabelle Bisque, a journalist with the

Wall Street Journal. She's written about [clears throat] deep tech and made it understandable in her reporting and so she'll be a great jungle guide through this. So with that, I'll turn it over to

this. So with that, I'll turn it over to Isabelle. [applause]

Isabelle. [applause] [applause] All right, thanks Matt for that great intro. Um, yeah, my name is Isabelle.

intro. Um, yeah, my name is Isabelle.

I'm a reporter at the journal. Um, you

know, I've covered quantum a little bit.

I don't think there's any reporter who today is a quantum reporter. So, I'm

going to do my best. But um yeah, I mean today we're here to talk about the natur uh national security implications which is um you know obviously hugely important and there is a lot we're going

to dig into but um I will start by just having the panelists um you know briefly introduce themselves and maybe just uh you know give us a line about how you

have uh worked or uh thought about quantum.

Uh my name is Nick Warner. I'm on the Australian board of sight quantum. About

six months ago, they were looking for a an Australian with national security uh background. Any any of you who've been

background. Any any of you who've been here for the last few days will have noticed a hell of a lot of Australian accents. Uh mine's only one of one of

accents. Uh mine's only one of one of one of many. Uh my background uh is I ran a couple of Australia's intelligence agencies. is our secretary of our

agencies. is our secretary of our defense department and deputy secretary of our foreign affairs department. Uh

I'll hand up as a sign of the US Australia alliance's strength. We're sharing a microphone. So

strength. We're sharing a microphone. So

let it let it not be said that we can't share. [clears throat] Well, um I'm

share. [clears throat] Well, um I'm Kathleen Hicks. I was most recently the

Kathleen Hicks. I was most recently the deputy secretary of defense for the United States. Um my background in and

United States. Um my background in and out of government is national security and uh during my tenure as deputy secretary very focused on leveraging

emerging and emergent uh technology to include quantum and AI in order to uh help provide the United States decisive advantage.

Uh hi I'm Evo Dalder. Um I don't know anything about quantum.

Um but then I think that's true for a lot of people who are sitting here. So

uh we're we're sharing in our uh ignorance. Um, the reason I'm here, uh,

ignorance. Um, the reason I'm here, uh, aside from the fact that until recently I ran the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, which is one of the co-sponsors, is that, uh, one of the

other co-sponsors, heads, Brad, uh, Henderson, uh, and I, uh, about a year ago decided that it would be a good idea for the people working on quantum here

in Illinois, starting at the at the park itself, to start a conversation with people in Washington about the national security and policy implications [clears throat] of the technology that's being developed. And so we we started

being developed. And so we we started going to Washington and introducing uh the Washington National Security Community uh to this this emerging

reality of uh what what I like to call the uh the uh Manhattan project of quantum uh that is here in Chicago uh and in Illinois and to start learning

about the national security impact and implications uh both for the United States but also for the community to start learning about what was happening here. Uh, and that's one of the reasons

here. Uh, and that's one of the reasons I think we're we're we're have this conference here today. So, I will I'm happy to talk about anything that has nothing to do with cubits. Um, but as

long uh but broader national security implications, we can talk. Thanks.

Uh, good afternoon. Uh, I'm Matt Kohler.

Uh, my background, uh, five years ago, I retired after 36 years of service in the United States Navy. Uh, my last job was multi-hited. I was the director of naval

multi-hited. I was the director of naval intelligence running one of u the intelligence communities 18 agencies was the director of information warfare

responsible for all things from cyber to intelligence to IT uh to even meteorology oceanographic all the Navy's information based capabilities and also

as deputy CIO uh spent a career as an avian intel officer but uh my my slant was always technical um and always on the edge of new technologies and helping

bring that into the foray back in um early technology networking to uh what

became cyber uh in AI and certainly um quantum was a uh uh an item often most spoken about as something that was

coming uh here and and I think our discussions here is is those discussions that were always years five or 10 years next five or 10 years coming uh are changing dramatically because it's now

uh no longer 10 years down the road.

It's much closer to us. And I think this is why we're having our conversations today. Uh look forward to getting to a

today. Uh look forward to getting to a point we can hear your questions to start thinking about uh the hard questions you can direct towards Kath and Nick. I had dinner with Nick last

and Nick. I had dinner with Nick last night when we first started talking. I I

thought he was from Texas with that accent. Um eventually over overcame that

accent. Um eventually over overcame that we have a lot of uh cross intersections over time. So look forward to our

over time. So look forward to our discussions here over the next hour.

All right. Okay. I'm glad we sorted that out. Um

out. Um so yeah, I mean, you know, we've heard a lot about cubits the last day or two.

We've heard a lot about, you know, potential business applications. Um what

this is going to mean for the economy.

Um but it matters a lot for national security. And um maybe we could just

security. And um maybe we could just start by just sort of demystifying why why is it so important? Um Kath maybe we'll start with you but you know others

feel free to jump in.

Sure. So I'm going to first of all apologize to those who uh may have seen the panel that Evo and I did yesterday.

I'm going to repeat a little bit of that but just uh to regroup a little bit. Um

the main areas of interest for national security at the broad level are not different from from other sectors. We

care about quantum for sensing, for its ability uh as Matt mentioned wherever Matt went um at the beginning to uh have quantum help us overcome challenges to

for instance GPS or jamming environments like the Russians are doing in Ukraine etc. Also there's unique sensing capabilities of quantum that have real application

for defense and I mentioned yesterday undersea um uh detection of submarines under sea is another example to the communication side where the Chinese are much more invested than the United

States to build out uh stronger better encrypted I guess how they were more secure is a better way to put it um communications networks in their own hope presumably to be able to overcome

any quantum uh decryption capability. Um

and then our uh compute concerns which is the area where the US has been heavily invested more so than China alongside other really important um

allies and partners uh all of which can help um catalyze many different areas of interest for defense and national security. And I would just note one of

security. And I would just note one of those big areas is the AI intersection um with the compute capacity and the data synthetic data generation

capability of quantum which uh really helps us make even more real the advantages we have on again what we call decision um superiority or decision

advantage. So those are sort of the

advantage. So those are sort of the opportunities. the the risk areas are if

opportunities. the the risk areas are if someone else could do any of those things I just mentioned or in particular not having our systems that we have

built up over many decades and are a multitude of different encryption approaches have them uh be resistant to quantum in the hands of an adversary or

other actor who might seek to either take harvested data in the moment or new data and uh be able to unencrypt Yeah, I think we hear a lot about um you

know the the fear of um you know quantum sort of breaking encryption a lot but this idea [clears throat] of harvest now decrypt later is uh kind of scary. Is

there anything that uh businesses uh or the government can do now to sort of inhibit that threat? Um

Matt?

Yeah. Um, thanks for throwing that hard question. [laughter]

question. [laughter] Um, uh, so many, uh, points that Kath made. Um, we can we can pulse on. I I

made. Um, we can we can pulse on. I I

think, um, what I'd like to [cough] open, apart from the fact that, um, I think these stools were outlawed by the Gene Geneva Convention. So, if you see me squirming up here in the seat, just

because I'm a 6'6 guy, just sit on these things. Um

things. Um so to answer the question directly um uh the quantum computing capability when we talk about encryption I mean it just

it's cut cuts across so many different areas in terms of of its impact uh probably um the most challenging is this harvest now decrypt later kind of approach and

it certainly a big concern in DoD spaces but it's many other areas I mean think about healthcare information think about intellectual property. Um all that

intellectual property. Um all that information that has been moving very securely across encrypted communications could could be decrypted at a later

point. Um there there's a large part of

point. Um there there's a large part of this where the answer is less than satisfactory where the house the horse is really literally out of the barn on this. Um and it really [clears throat]

this. Um and it really [clears throat] comes into what steps do you take this what's now and how do you deal with it.

This is not unlike uh many instances where we've had compromises of sensitive material. We just have to do a damage

material. We just have to do a damage assessment and kind of work this through. The scale is hugely different

through. The scale is hugely different on this one and it is just a real challenge uh on how to deal with it. um

I would offer on the the the multitude of um I'll call them use cases or fields where uh where Cather so eloquent on the

different quantum sensing and um the quantum communications quantum computing uh that we can certainly talk about and so this is in the panels about why this

matters to national security I I think we're also at a very important part of this conversation is it's how does it matter to national security. So um again

it's it's here now or in the very near future where we have to start really grappling with how do we get it from in its current place is more in labs and

geek tech spaces and I mean that in the most positive way um into a place where key decision makers can make that whatever fields they're in for defense it's bringing into uh ways that the the

machine inside the Pentagon that that Cath and I spend a lot of time working you know how does that bring it to priority levels that are meaningful um and and into a space that uh brings it

into reality. So, it's one piece I think

into reality. So, it's one piece I think that is worthy of some some conversation here today.

You know, Isabelle, I understand why you're asking about encryption and it's really going to be vitally important going ahead, but we're probably talking about Gen 3, you know, maybe if we're

unlucky or lucky, uh Gen two, but it's in the future. And there are uh many other serious implications that quantum

is going to have uh on national security. you know, as we as we master

security. you know, as we as we master um and I think Jeremy O'Brien was saying this earlier, as we master uh chemistry

and physics and we begin to uh design rather than just discover and we design materials uh and quantum sensing uh

becomes much more of a of a thing. Um

almost everything in the future militaries of our countries uh is going to be impacted.

Anything our militaries fly, anything they drive, anything they encrypt, anything they uh launch, uh anything

they drive are going to be impacted by by quantum.

And if you put quantum together with the other aspects of the tech revolution uh that you've been writing about uh whether it's AI, nanotechnology,

synthetic biology and all of the rest of them uh quantum and those things are going to revolutionize the battlefield

of uh of the future. And in respect of quantum, I thought it was summed up really nicely by I think her name was uh the Pentagon spokesman uh Lisa Hernandez

who said quantum supremacy, whoever has quantum supremacy uh will write the rules of 21st century warfare.

That sums up to me uh the national security consequences, implications of quantum.

Yeah, that's a really good point. And I

know one of the things we talked about earlier was you know sort of using quantum to simulate um different scenarios um in war. You know quantum it

can take in exponential number of variables uh simulate almost infinite number of outcomes tell you what the most sort of optimal solution is. Um,

and the ability to use that in warfare, um, seems like a gamecher, but then you're also thinking about scenarios where humans are acting on what this,

uh, quantum machine is telling them to do. Um, are we comfortable with that or

do. Um, are we comfortable with that or do we need a human to sort of, um, you know, check its work? Um, Eva, what are your thoughts?

So let me uh before I get to that sort of broaden out to to sort of the big issues that we need to figure out how to deal with and one of them is the how do

you move from the science of understanding what quantum can do to ensuring it's integrated into the application in a way that you can control.

Um and and again we talked about this a little bit yesterday in in in the other panel. The United States is

panel. The United States is extraordinarily good culturally uh because of its economic and ecosystem of figuring out of developing new

technology, coming up with new ideas. Um

its ability particularly in a bureaucratic setting like the US government and DoD to take technology, integrate it into existing systems and

exploit it for uh um for positive purpose is slower than one would like. I

think that's a understatement of this conference. Um, and as a result,

conference. Um, and as a result, thinking through how you absorb technology into the culture of an

organization like the defense department divided among five services, all of whom have their own uh cultures that they

bring to the service is a tremendous challenge. And the hope is that our

challenge. And the hope is that our diverse decentralized system does this better than the very homog homogeneous

centralized system that our principal adversary China has.

But we don't know whether that's the case. And so that is a challenge that I

case. And so that is a challenge that I think we we we all need to uh need to focus on. Then to the question that you

focus on. Then to the question that you pose uh which is as technology gets smarter

uh and the speed at which it uh it it operates gets faster uh it starts to outpace the collective

capabilities of the human brain. I mean

this is what AGI and everything about.

Combine AGI and and and quantum computing and you you accelerate that even more. And so we have a fundamental

even more. And so we have a fundamental ethical, moral and political discussion that we need to have. At what stage do you allow and enable machines to make

life and death decisions uh without human control?

And the temptation is to say we will do human control, but what if the other guy doesn't?

And warfare is by definition something you don't do to yourself. but that you engage with others and it is the decisions that others make that will have an impact on how you think about

what you can make and that is I think a challenge that we confront already dayto-day and then and and uh uh Matt and Mark and and and Kath have done that in their in their business you know when

I was in NATO I didn't have to worry about any of those stuff because we we are defensive alliance we didn't think about warfare certainly not in 2012 um now we do all of a sudden I don't know why but in 2012 Well, we didn't think a

lot about that. So, this this is I I think it's a critical the question you ask is a critical question, but much more so than it has been almost any time in our in our history because the speed

at with which uh we can now operate is far beyond anything that even a collective group of human beings can operate at that speed. Now maybe smarter fact I would argue probably is the

collective group of of human beings but its ability that group's ability to make the decisions in the time frame it needs to do particularly [clears throat] if facing an advers adversary is not as

morally uh worried about this. I'm not

saying the Chinese aren't just saying if they were uh we have an issue.

Yeah, I I do want to follow up on what you mentioned about um you know the US's uh free market innovationdriven system.

Um you know earlier you were saying that you feel like um that hasn't necessarily um delivered success to us in you know

previous technology waves. You know you mentioned you actually think we're falling behind in AI compared to China.

Um can you say a little bit more about that?

I don't know whether we're falling behind. Uh but I I I think we sometimes

behind. Uh but I I I think we sometimes overestimate the uniqueness of our system versus that of others. And it is so and it's particularly true when you get to the applied system. Um other

countries tend to think more in applied settings than in in in scientific innovation settings. So if you have a

innovation settings. So if you have a bottom-up approach, I have no doubt particularly given the ecosystem that we have developed of corporate scientific and government funding uh over the last

80 years. I have no doubt that our

80 years. I have no doubt that our capacity to generate innovation is higher than any other country in the world. It's the question of taking that

world. It's the question of taking that innovation and applying it to particular issues where I'm not sure we've necessarily always succeeded. And in

some ways, I think the Chinese are outpacing us in a variety of ways, not in all ways and perhaps not in defense and national security. Um, I mean the New York Times today has a wonderful

article uh uh since we're talking about GPS and and and uh uh about how the the Chinese are way way behind in the space race because they don't have a reusable

rocket uh quite apart from other things.

But you know there 134 uh satellites in low earth orbit and we have you know the US Starlink alone has 8,000 uh that's a that's a delta that is that is that is

worrisome. So it's not true in every in

worrisome. So it's not true in every in every situation. And so us getting

every situation. And so us getting better at turning innovation to applied circumstances is critical to stay ahead uh of this race. So we can win the

quantum science race, but if we don't win the quantum application race, you can't uh and and that's the race ultimately we're in. We need to be able to be good at both sides.

Yeah. I'd love to hear from the rest of the panel if you guys agree and and just broadly how you think we're doing compared to China. M maybe or C.

Yeah, I can I can get us started. Um

I've alluded to some of it [clears throat] already which is that on quant quantum communications the Chinese are ahead. Um that's very clear. they've

are ahead. Um that's very clear. they've

applied it and uh built quite an internal to China um over a thousand mile um link to include satellite capability uh for communications through

quantum. So that's far beyond where we

quantum. So that's far beyond where we are now. It's also not a priority area

are now. It's also not a priority area for us. I just want to make clear this

for us. I just want to make clear this is not an arms race. So this not not everything that they do is something we necessarily need to prioritize.

Quantum sensing much more closer to commercial application. Um I think

commercial application. Um I think that's you know, in rough parody. And I

think Evo's points are extremely well taken in terms of making sure we actually do that commercialization and application. Um, and I'll just pause on

application. Um, and I'll just pause on that to say more generally, the difference, the biggest strategic difference between China and the United States is a network of allies and partners to work with. So we are not

alone. So we have the Germans, we have

alone. So we have the Germans, we have the Australians, we have the Danes who were with us on stage yesterday. Um the

Canadians, others who are very invested uh all throughout um the world in these spaces. And the good news is if we tap

spaces. And the good news is if we tap into that and realize that potential versus pushing them away, uh that gives us an inherent advantage collectively.

And then the last and most tricky area of course is compute. It's tricky

because it has I think the greatest potential. It's the furthest out for

potential. It's the furthest out for everyone and right now it does look like the US is ahead but because we are not uh you know probably within the next

three years going to see that I think we need to stay on that um course uh the application capability here across quantum science is immense. The Defense

Department in its most recent budget request um this being under the Trump administration identified that there were more than 40 programs research and development

programs that had a link to quantum science. That's probably an

science. That's probably an underestimate frankly and because it's it's an unclassified number. Uh but also it gives you a sense of just how

incredibly uh supportive undergurtding this technology is. It is not a technology that is going to be at the end the pointy end of the spear of human

control. It is an enabling technology, a

control. It is an enabling technology, a general purpose technology. And I'll

just end on the point you began with at the at the first question, which is um we have to make sure that humans remain in control overall, that human judgment

is involved in the use of force. And

that's an incredibly important set of questions to stay on top of, but it is such a subset of what we're even talking about here that I I would hate to lose

the potentiality and some of the risks on quantum if we just narrowed to that issue.

Can I make an uh public service announcement? There are number of seats

announcement? There are number of seats up front here for the people standing on this the side.

I hate standing, so I know how you feel.

They're they go for a premium $10 a seat.

[laughter] But he promises won't be awkward.

You know, Matt Matt would change his his uh big seat for a small seat.

I I would will agree. Um I I think it's a fascinating question. I um I consider myself very much an amateur historian, but um I I would think if if they were

writing history 50 years in the future, um when we talk about this competition that we're in across a broad front uh

nationally, um was, you know, what were the right decisions that were made, what were the wrong decisions that were made. Um, and we're in this space

were made. Um, and we're in this space where we are, and Cath made a great point. We're not going toe-to-toe on

point. We're not going toe-to-toe on every piece of technology. Um, that

might be the right answer or the wrong answer. It seems um on the quantum

answer. It seems um on the quantum communications uh while there is an effort here on the west side um it feels like they're going towards a a

postquantum encryption kind of standard approach to it. Uh it's it's it's a it's a kind of a a competition of you know who makes the right decision in the

right technologies. Um that did that

right technologies. Um that did that work out or about how did that work for them? Um and so um I certainly we've

them? Um and so um I certainly we've been in in a competition um and and we're not winning at all fronts and and nor do I think it's uh it makes sense to

it certainly doesn't make sense financially even to try and do that at that scale. We have to pick the right

that scale. We have to pick the right courses and hope that we're on the right path. Uh clearly quantum computing is

path. Uh clearly quantum computing is something that is uh absolutely vital.

Um the use case is cut across so many different areas. on military application

different areas. on military application from materials to supported decision science. Um I would offer that as vital

science. Um I would offer that as vital uh as it is we um quantum needs to be one of those key technologies that we absolutely uh get to first if there's if

there's a if there's a place of getting to first or at least staying ahead. U

but it's often the convergence of technologies that are really the game changers. I mean historically look it's

changers. I mean historically look it's not just one piece of technology. I mean

it was it wasn't just the printing press that that that changed everything. It

was the relocatable type as well as you know paper technology. All those came together at the same time that created that. uh the industrial revolution came

that. uh the industrial revolution came together at the same time with steam and metal ver and other type of technologies that really really came [clears throat] together at one point in time and the

kind of convergence we're seeing here where quantum will be so vital will be which is I think in a sense your question where's that merge with AI in terms of giving us a a decision

superiority [clears throat] u edge um I I think is really where we are so I think we need to be paying attention to multiple technologies coming together.

Quantum being certainly uh at a forefront. Um and that's a challenge

forefront. Um and that's a challenge back to my first point of you know why it matters national security. It's how

it's how we deal with the multitude of priorities that we're dealing in the national security space. Um do we have those priorities set right? Are we

investing in the right things that's going to get us to that point that's going to deliver for us?

uh the first useful quantum computers we built in Brisbane and Australia and in Chicago in the next three or four years.

I think we are 5 to seven to 10 years in front of China but China on figures that I've heard is spending about four times

as much as the United States on quantum computing research.

Uh, and I think it's I think I'm right in saying 52% of the patents on quantum that were produced last year come from

China. So, they're catching up. Uh, and

China. So, they're catching up. Uh, and

as I said before, this is not a race that uh we can we the west can afford to to lose.

There are lots of advantages that a dictatorship, a communistrun country, an autocracy uh brings in being able to

focus resources and effort. But we

should never fail to understand there are all sorts of weaknesses uh in the communist uh regime in in China. And

when America, seems to me as an Australian actually begins to understand a problem and focuses on a problem that

is vitally important and importantly works with allies like Australia and others. Uh you find a way uh to get to

others. Uh you find a way uh to get to the finish line uh to the right point first. You know like to add my stock

first. You know like to add my stock booker always reminds me the past performance does not denote the future type of payoff. Um so we have a western

model and our our strengths are absolutely our allies and our innovative approach and our public private type of

of of uh venture capital kind of um u process that is unique with all of our western partners against uh you know a competitor that doesn't quite approach

that. uh in quantum computer, Nick's

that. uh in quantum computer, Nick's nailed all of them. I mean, you can as as measurable as they can be. They seem

to have invested uh a whole lot more into quantum computing. They have a quantity of research papers that are that are daunting. Um balance that against well there's a quality of their

research is where we have less the quality is is deemed to be higher. um

this mix of innovating [clears throat] um whereas you know competitor may have put money down on a particular technology and they're going with it that may win I think we're still placing bets across multiple technologies to see

which one's going to be successful for us so again I I think you know it 50 years in the future we'll see what works we think this that has been worked for

us for many decades uh is still a good process I agree with EVO it does not guarantee a successful outcome um I don't think there is is a guaranteed winner in this one. It's it's a

hard-fought competition. Um, and I think

hard-fought competition. Um, and I think the winner, I think, will show that brought all of its capabilities forward.

This is, you know, Nick, I'm I'm in that partner space. So, I I I agree. And let

partner space. So, I I I agree. And let

me just put on the table what Jeff sort of said. Uh, under our uh under in quiet

of said. Uh, under our uh under in quiet voices, there are two pieces to our success in the past.

among others that are being threatened right now. One is partner

right now. One is partner to be honest when you talk about partners as countries that you need to become the 51st state to talk about our

Canadian friends or indeed any other partnerships that we're having. We're

shooting ourselves not just in the foot but in the head which last time I looked when you do tend not to survive. The

second piece, so allies and partners, [clears throat] which is the absolute core of our competitive strength versus with everybody else, uh need to be part of that process. And the fact that you

were sitting here with a former US ambassador to NATO, an Australian uh uh intelligence officer, and we could have made this and we had a Danish diplomat

there. just underscores that the

there. just underscores that the strength of the United States is it's inclusive of its like-minded Western friends and understands that that is core and there are questions being

raised whether that will continue in the past. That is a politically polite way

past. That is a politically polite way to say that we're about to screw that up.

The second core piece is that that innovative ecosystem that we [clears throat] have developed over the last 80 years has combined

scientific capability in particularly in the in the research universities funded by the federal government and tied closely into private enterprise.

And as the funding of the federal government is starting to become a question, we are looking at financing that is first and foremost commercial

and private. There's a lot of it, but it

and private. There's a lot of it, but it has a different uh a different set of interests

than publicly funded research. And so as we think about the future of the research university funded by public and federal government dollars because that's what it is, which is the

innovation that Vanderver Bush took from the Manhattan project which I talked about yesterday. Vanver Bush the future

about yesterday. Vanver Bush the future president then of of MIT. That is the key to our success. [snorts]

And so we are in an inflection point not only in the technology race that we're into but whether we can to use the stock broker's analogy whether the market that

we have created will be the same in the future as it was in the past. And that

is what this is about. This is not about Democrats versus Republicans. It's not

political. It's about how we do business successfully in one of the most important technological innovations uh

of what the last 50 years, the last 100 years uh when it comes to quantum.

Yeah, you bring up the Manhattan project and I know when we were um you know talking to prepare for this panel, the analogy of comparing this to the nuclear arms race is one that came up a lot and

I'm curious to hear from you guys. Uh is

that a fair and accurate analogy and and why or why not Matt or Kath either one? [laughter]

I think the I think the idea of thinking [clears throat] intersectionally of a major project that draws the highest attention and the greatest minds is a really good analogy. Here's where the

analogy shouldn't take people. Again,

quantum is not a weapon. It is not uh best run from the defense department um o over to others on the Manhattan whether the Manhattan project was particularly wellrun um out of the

defense department. But uh I think

defense department. But uh I think that's where that starts to break down a little bit. So um and I think you need a

little bit. So um and I think you need a problem statement. So maybe that's

problem statement. So maybe that's around if if it's a if it's an olive government um quantum important that's one thing I

think that is that is good. uh better is here's a particular problem in a moonshot or Manhattan project like right here is a particular problem set or

challenge set or goal that we want to achieve to focus the mind um and let's bring our resources together after that I think that is if framed that way that

could be quite successful yeah I uh all analogies are are you know fail at some point um I I I think the

discussion is is uh the the effect of this introduction of this new technology kind of going forward how how how impactful that was u I think we're talking similar space than with quantum

right it's just the the introduction of that and how disruptive it is uh disruptive technologies it's it's it's a hard thing um it it changes and upends

orders as people know them and it's it's very uncomfortable Um, and I think that's a a fair analogy with that approach. Uh, I would not lose what

approach. Uh, I would not lose what allowed us to be successful in that space. Um, the minds that came together

space. Um, the minds that came together at the Fairmy Labs here locally and others, these weren't just people that came out of US schools. They came out of

our partners globally that brought the best minds we could to this plant. So I

I mean again it just receded back on what are the ingredients that allow us to be successful in this space that we can't lose. Um in the uh National

can't lose. Um in the uh National Defense Authorization Act language um there's a calling for a center of excellence for quantum to come together.

This is on the DoD side which I think is a great move. It seems to be uh Chicago would be a perfect place to put that center.

Perfect. Uh I I think it's drawing together the work that's being done also in the DoD side. Uh Kath mentioned the 40ome different programs on the R&D

space that are all in different locations but bringing it together um into something much more cohesive that allows us to deal with it more effectively. Um so I think

effectively. Um so I think organizationally we're kind of there. I

couldn't I will never disagree with Evo's comment about anything the government's been known for is to to do things very quickly. Uh sometimes

there's some successes there. Um but uh there has to be a sense of urgency, a sense that we really are in a race here.

Uh and maybe you know a combination of what we found with um the Manhattan project and the space race. Kind of a combination of those to me is a is a fair kind of analogy of looking at what

what uh what we might be looking at here for a comp a competition in the quantum space.

So, I like uh Evo's Manhattan Project [clears throat] uh analogy. Uh but stepping back from

uh analogy. Uh but stepping back from that, you know, we we're living in a new era

and that new era is being influenced and informed by a whole bunch of factors including great power, competition, um

but also a whole range of transnational issues. Uh and the tech revolution is

issues. Uh and the tech revolution is one really important part of that and quantum is one really important part of the tech revolution. But there's

demographic change, climate uh climate change and a whole range of uh of other significant issues. And if you if you

significant issues. And if you if you boil all that down, uh the world that we were born into and has lived in is gone

and it's not coming back. and it's not coming back partly but not exclusively because of quantum. Uh so I think we

need to be focusing uh on all of these issues. uh

issues. uh they all require the sort of Manhattan approach, focus and attention uh from

the United States, from Australia uh and other countries. If we're going to uh if

other countries. If we're going to uh if this new era era is going to be successful, if we're going to work out the rules that govern the new era so

that it is positive, positive, prosperous, and leads to progress, I think we're gonna um have time for some audience questions if anyone has a

question. Yeah, over here.

question. Yeah, over here.

Um have any of you read Admiral Stere's novels 2034 204? And please tell me your thoughts.

You're going to get in trouble if you say no. So you want me to throw myself

say no. So you want me to throw myself in front of you or something?

I I know Amos. I worked for Abrius. Uh

we all work for even we didn't. He thought he thought he worked for him.

Yeah. Uh I He was an amazing leader. Um

loved working for him and he's the kind of guy that if you met him today [clears throat] 10 years from now when you ran across each other in the street, he would just

know you by name. Uh just amazing. So

maybe my response is biased. Um I

thought the books were good. I don't

think they were the best books I ever read.

Please, if this is press here, don't no put that in press for me. I didn't want to stay out of here. Um it it essentially uh framed kind of the era

that we're in and what uh what could be in a confront confrontation with time.

Um it canvased a lot of different areas uh that brought multiple kind of technologies and other things together.

There was an earlier novel I would reference uh it's barely dated now maybe it's 10 years old is called Ghost Fleet um that did something very similar um in

terms of the latest breaking issues of the day then that are still relevant uh supply chain issues all all kinds of things that were brought together and painted a picture that was just

compelling. Um, and I actually I really

compelling. Um, and I actually I really like your question because we could really use that type of approach on painting the canvas here that says what

does this look like whether it is in three or four years or as the time frame that Nick is is is talking about you know a little bit further out. Um what

does you know a conflict or a competition look like after the introduction of quantum? Um I I find that to be very compelling. I'm deep

reader from way back my youngest years and I I find that very useful uh of explaining to people why it's so important. Um I'm still in this mode of

important. Um I'm still in this mode of saying we have to tell this story. This

is what this to me this conference is about. We're telling a story about not

about. We're telling a story about not the details. I don't think there's

the details. I don't think there's anyone here who's technically steeped in quantum is going to get any smarter technically here. We're talking about

technically here. We're talking about expanding the audience space here for people who understand quantum and what it can possibly mean and and why is it compelling. And I I think this back to

compelling. And I I think this back to your question I think these novels that landscape that kind of allows these kind of technical things to make sense to people that aren't technical or less technical.

If I could just build on that sorry um first of all to reinforce that Jim Stritus is a national treasure and an incredibly kind human being. Um but that

idea of narrative um for those of you who are in the business sector, you can't imagine how valuable that is for your customers to include in the national security space.

It is not the case that your national security customer is going to completely understand how quantum is going to affect them or where it best applies or

how to think about it. and your ability to weave that narrative goes a long way to that uptake on adoption. And I think

books like Jim has put out, Ghostly's another great example, uh really help to speed innovation in the national security sector because folks just they don't have the background all the time

to know exactly how to apply the science.

Um yeah, a question over there.

Okay. One is where the Chinese in terms of a lot investment.

And the second question around a lot And the question becomes that um if you kind of look at this in that moment and

let's let's think about Microsoft for a second right down the room hey we're all switching on the dime

we practice things like rapid deployment etc. Um why can we not get an advant of this to engage their mind differently

and position it as that kind of moment and you know more warming like strategy with people who are

connected inside small iterating the importance of laying out the vision but saying this will be Yeah, I'll I'll take the first part of that and one I am just so thrilled that

you thought that I actually made a point.

So, um I don't you can hear her question two part questions. One was the first on entanglement that I'll let someone else answer on this panel because I don't know uh or the Chinese are on on

entanglement. Uh the question is is our

entanglement. Uh the question is is our adoption of space. Um I I feel your frustration in this space. I frankly

there's I think there's no uh professional that I've worked with military or civilian through my 36 years don't feel a sense of frustration of not

being able to do this fast enough. Uh my

experience is is across my career. I

mean literally when networking was new I'm sorry this is back in the 80s you know I I was the tech guy the organizations that was trying to introduce technology. I did not invented

introduce technology. I did not invented the internet, but it did introduce it and it was disrupted that you know in places that would work and it were not

like well like God. Um when cyber came along um the conversations we started to have in the later you know like single

digit 2000s you know it it was in the space as Cath talked about it was hard for people to kind understand and I found myself being the translator into

making what is a complex arcane topic into something more meaningful. Um and I was became part of the standup of cybercom as a result in that kind of path. AI was not dissimilar. It had big

path. AI was not dissimilar. It had big promises, you know, and started to deliver and it was oversold and found kind of found its path. Um, and I think

quantum can learn from that maybe most recent AI piece where you know what what can it what is it really good for? Where

is it? How can we apply it in the space?

Um and I'll just say it's just u we've all worked in, you know, as we became more senior here, all of us, you know, it it became harder running large bureaucracy

organizations of competing priorities.

It's it's not because people are trying to deliberately not make good decisions.

It's where are we in the space? uh

clearly on the national defense space or national priority space the gold dome southern border um in in even the DoD including Navy it's ship building it's

it's all of these these priorities that that very important emerging capabilities are having a hard time finding their way into just bandwidth

space of senior leaders to to think about uh back to the question on the books this is this is a where some of these ideas actually take roots in that

space. So um with the best path forward

space. So um with the best path forward on to me is as quantum is you know we're seeing increasing language promising language of NDA language that says let's

get a a center of excellence let's start working these to draw this key technology out of the R&D space into the applied space bring it out um

before its arrival as it gets here there are things that we need to be doing that actually prepare prepare for its arrival. The air the algorithm

arrival. The air the algorithm development that starts to understand how we can apply key use cases. So we

don't like wow we got the computer the computing capacity it's here now what do we do that would be the place we don't want to be we should be ready with all the other ecosystem supporting it uh on

key focus areas would be an ideal space um and the ability to engage in having those conversations I think is critical there's no one-stop shopping unfortunately to kind of go to one place

in the US government not one place in the DoD to have that conversation it's multiple places that has to occur And I think that engagement is happening. Um,

and I'm I'm hopeful that we'll gain some traction. I don't know if they answer

traction. I don't know if they answer your question, but that was my best attempt at it.

Uh, just one point from me. Governments

and defense departments are not very good anywhere in the world at uh at moving fast of uh thinking laterally.

uh and that includes the Australian government usually and the Australian Department of uh of defense. But with

quantum uh to its credit, the Australian government about two years ago saw the uh the importance of quantum uh and bet

on its utility by putting a billion dollars together with the Queensland state government uh to squantum as I said before to build the first useful uh

quantum computer in Brisbane.

Yeah, I I so I actually uh I mean the question is [clears throat] is core and in this area some of our allies are just better.

Um there are many governments that now have quantum strategies even though there's no quantum technology at the scale that they can actually apply them. So they're

actually doing exactly what you're trying to do. And I think to the Biden administration's credit started to do the same thing. Um and and John uh yesterday talked a little bit about John

Feiner a little bit about how uh the national security apparatus writ large was trying to bring together the various parts of the US government to start

thinking about how do we anticipate the arrival and in both its negative and in its positive. That is what is the threat that this may create that we need

to counter and what is the uh opportunity that is created by the technology that to allow us to do things that otherwise we couldn't do or even to think about problem solving in a way

that we haven't done. um

all governments, all organizations uh that are large, the urgent crowds out the important. Um and it is the

the important. Um and it is the challenge of every leader in every organization to give space to the important to be able to uh to work it

out. And that that that happens in some

out. And that that that happens in some governments more than in others. And um

we have a very strange political system uh unlike so many others where not only does the leadership change, but a a

large amount of politically uh appointed people also change. And that one that makes continuity across strategy setting of the important versus the urgent much

much more difficult. uh uh and that is a that's a problem of our political system which doesn't really exist in most uh of our fellow democracies where it is only the top leadership that changes but the

rest of the government remains the same and therefore can plan better uh not necessarily perfectly uh but better and planning is and planning and

strategizing and wargaming and and and just to one point that I think a lot of us have said but Kath put it right in in in this knowing where you want to go. What's

your goal? What are we trying to achieve? Uh in, you know, it's one thing

achieve? Uh in, you know, it's one thing to win the race, to win the race for what? Not just in the technology person,

what? Not just in the technology person, but what is it that you're grabbing at?

That's what this the moonshot did. It's

getting to the moon before the end of the decade. That was a goal that drove

the decade. That was a goal that drove innovation and set and government to in into motion just as the negative goal making sure we get the bomb before the

bad guys do was a way to motivate and and generate things. So we needing in tech technology that's more difficult but needing something that grabs grabs

the uh imagination and can then motivate an organization to move is really critical.

All right. Um maybe one more question.

Yeah.

Did anyone have any I don't know if we have the answer to that on the stage right now.

Does does anybody in the audience know the answer to that question that can get what the they ask her after the session?

Question was they know where China is on entanglement.

I know one thing about it.

All right.

Very specific data. Only Matt can answer the question. Matt can answer this

the question. Matt can answer this question. This is a very specific data

question. This is a very specific data point. What the Chinese have shown is

point. What the Chinese have shown is entanglement from the earth's surface to space. Um and we have not shown that in

space. Um and we have not shown that in the United States.

Yeah, they have as Kathy and Matt's highlighted. I mean the Chinese have uh

highlighted. I mean the Chinese have uh gone into this space this entanglement piece to it and they on the comm space they both you know they moved ahead in

the network space. So um there were a couple of really smart uh physicists and others that I know were down at the Mexican floor. Uh Nick and I talked to a

Mexican floor. Uh Nick and I talked to a couple of them. One was a young fellow who just graduated from University of Chicago. I was looking for a job. I bet

Chicago. I was looking for a job. I bet

he can answer your question.

So, but only if you give him job [laughter] at least look at his resume.

All right. Um, last question. Yes.

First of all, thank you to the gathering. My question in terms of some

gathering. My question in terms of some of the initial first order activities that many of us will take back with us as we start to think about about the initiatives. You know, being in

initiatives. You know, being in financial services, one of the first areas of laser focus for us has been post. In other words, how do you protect

post. In other words, how do you protect yourself from the technologies that will emerge over time? And one of the observations for how I would offer is

the challenge in our field is not so much the ability to implement a particular algorithm whenever that algorithm is chosen. It's the ability to re-engineer your systems to have the

flexibility to update more frequently these algorithms over time, which is not always something that's been built. And

in an environment like the one we rely on in this country where we are built on partnerships, the more the number of apps and connections there tend to be

that rely on each other, the slower things can sometimes get to happen. My

question for you is, you know, There's been a tremendous amount of emphasis in the financial services world around preparing for quantum and postquantum cryptography. And I guess I would

cryptography. And I guess I would appreciate the panel's thoughts on given that according to Arvin we are just the high schoolers right now. We we're not even in the in the major leagues as far

as quantum technologies go yet. How

ready are some of these algorithms? How

ready are we to put some of these things into practice given the significant resources and and work that lies ahead in [clears throat] order to make it

happen?

Well, let me um maybe kick this one off.

So, just stepping back to the last panel before lunch just to reinforce what the DARPA I think it was the DARPA rep said there. there are the four released NIST

there. there are the four released NIST has released the four um you know approved algorithmic approaches um so and more to come uh clearly so that

there's a process underway to then uh push those out with the public sector I think I'll then talk DoD and then more broadly on the DoD side and the federal

government side to Evo's point about the bid administration movement the national security memorandum 10 which is from 2022 directs all federal agencies with

how quickly to be prepared. The defense

department is required to be prepared. I

want to say 2033. It may be 2035 but let's say for the moment it's 2033.

So they are off looking at exactly the super complicated massive number of systems massive interdependencies different owners of different systems

and that's just within DoD which which is itself many thiefs. Um so that's a huge challenge set right there but is on

track for that 2033 timeline. So, a lot of this comes down to this issue of do do we have the timeline right or are we going to end up here having to speed up

everybody? Then you get to the much more

everybody? Then you get to the much more complicated reality of the public private makeup of our critical infrastructure. Um, and that most of

infrastructure. Um, and that most of that ownership and the finance sector is an outstanding example is held on the private sector side. Um and that takes a

huge amount of coordination and uh trust and movement to get that system forward as opposed to a status top-down Chinese

model for example. So we really are we have a lot more flexibility in our system that can be a good thing. Um you

know but the resiliency question is a really difficult one. Uh and I don't think we have a good handle frankly across the country. We have again for DoD I think I have a sense of how it's

going there. Just solving that is not

going there. Just solving that is not solving the national security problem.

you have energy, water, finance, and you of course have the other um important components of the federal government. Um

and then allies and partners.

I would I think it's a very valid question without a complete answer. I

mean uh to add to Cass's uh comments um you know that under the Biden administration they also established

uh NIST standards um for postquantum encryption. So the right planks are

encryption. So the right planks are being laid in place here. There's not

really launch a ship anywhere soon but um the pieces are in place. The path is there. It's recognized urgencies but um

there. It's recognized urgencies but um I I think this goes into if we talk about you know the impact of of I I'll say the west not getting first to this

technology um who gets there first also gets to kind of dictate the next standards right

um so getting to that place first that person's that entity nation uh group of nations will kind of own those standards you know think of the race over the 4G,

5G, you know, China's beat everybody, not just in the technology, but the standards. Um, that's more challenging

standards. Um, that's more challenging than the technology itself in in my my perspective. And so, it's it's just kind

perspective. And so, it's it's just kind of more wood for the fire of of why we need to get to that technology first.

It's all that that comes with it that it, you know, if if we shoot behind the duck and say, "Come up with the standard, it's too late. Who cares?

We've already moved and that ship has sailed." Um, so again, more emphasis why

sailed." Um, so again, more emphasis why we need to get there first.

All right, I think that's all we have time for, but I just want to thank the panelists for a great conversation and um yeah, we'll let Matt get off his stool now. So, thank you [applause]

stool now. So, thank you [applause]