The Infrastructure Crisis Threatening U.S. Supremacy in the Quantum Race

Envision a breakthrough machine that deciphers encrypted secrets in moments, detects stealth submarines with pinpoint accuracy from orbit, or optimizes global supply chains instantaneously. Quantum computing stands at this precipice, poised to redefine technological dominance. These are the capabilities of a quantum computing system. However, they demand the electricity of a small city and cooling colder than outer space to function where temperatures plummet to near absolute zero, and the slightest vibration could unravel computations that redefine warfare. This scene captures the essence of quantum computing facilities, yet the U.S. teeters on the brink of failing to build them.   

Quantum computers promise to solve problems that are arduous for classical systems, from optimizing logistics to breaking encryption. However, their infrastructure demands—vast power, extreme cooling, expansive space, and unyielding stability—far exceed current capabilities. Facilities must maintain environments in which qubits, the building blocks of quantum computation, operate without disruption from external interference. 

Quantum mechanics holds profound implications for the Intelligence Community (IC). Quantum advancements could enable adversaries to decrypt classified communications, undermining intelligence operations, and national defense strategies. Delays in developing robust quantum infrastructure could erode the U.S. technological advantage, allowing nations such as China to achieve quantum supremacy and access sensitive intelligence. This paper examines the overwhelming infrastructure requirements for quantum computing facilities, critiques governmental inaction, and underscores the urgency for the IC to advocate for accelerated funding and development. By addressing these challenges, the U.S. can ensure continued dominance in information warfare and secure economic advantages tied to quantum innovations. 

Historical Context of Quantum Computing Development 

Quantum computing traces its roots to the 1980s when physicists like Richard Feynman proposed harnessing quantum mechanics for computation.¹ Early theoretical work focused on algorithms such as Shor’s for factoring large numbers, threatening classical encryption.²  The 1990s saw initial experimental qubits using nuclear magnetic resonance, but scalability remained elusive due to decoherence, which is when environmental interaction causes degradation or loss of system quantum capabilities.³ By the 2000s, superconducting qubits emerged as a viable platform, with companies like D-Wave introducing annealing systems for optimization problems, a process that lets a system reach a more steady state without quantum fluctuations using minimum energy.⁴ Governments recognized strategic implications, leading to initiatives like the U.S. National Quantum Initiative Act in 2018.⁵

Advancements accelerated in the 2020s. Google claimed quantum supremacy in 2019, followed by a Chinese team in 2020.⁶ Striking milestones include China’s expansive 12,000 km quantum network, integrating terrestrial links with the Micius satellite for groundbreaking intercontinental quantum key distribution (QKD) demonstrations.⁷ These milestones exposed infrastructure gaps, as systems required an increase in sophisticated support. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted supply chain vulnerabilities for cryogenic cooling systems, prompting calls for resilient facilities.⁸ By 2024, international competition intensified, with the U.S. and China allocating billions for quantum research and development.⁹ While investing billions in infrastructure may seem excessive, historical trends indicate that early investments lead to lasting advantages, as seen in the development of classical computing.¹⁰  

Quantum infrastructure demands evolved alongside technology. Early experiments used classical computers, but scaling necessitated dedicated centers with controlled environments. Power consumption grew “linearly proportional” with qubit count, while power-hungry cooling systems progressed.¹¹  Stability requirements advanced to include cryogenic facilities and underground shielding to mitigate ionizing radiation and cosmic ray interference.¹² This historical trajectory illustrates the transition from lab curiosities to industrial-scale machines, setting the stage for current challenges. 

The Fundamentals of Quantum Computing Infrastructure 

Quantum computers harness principles such as superposition and entanglement to perform calculations exponentially faster than their classical counterparts. Superconducting qubits require cryogenic environments to function. Facilities demand specialized cryostats that house these qubits, isolating them from external disturbances.¹³ Cryostats occupy significant volume, scaling with the number of qubits as systems grow.¹⁴ The volume per qubit influences overall space needs, particularly when interconnections complicate layouts.¹⁵   

Power consumption presents another hurdle. Quantum systems draw energy primarily for cooling rather than computation itself. Total power required scales with qubit count and the distribution of electronics between cryogenic and ambient environments.¹⁶ Power per qubit includes contributions from both cryogenic and electronic components.¹⁷ Transitioning to larger systems amplifies these demands, straining existing electrical grids. 

Cooling systems dominate energy budgets as quantum processors operate at temperatures from 10 millikelvins to 10 kelvins, far colder than conventional data centers.¹⁸ Efficiency of cooling technologies varies with large-scale helium systems, while chip-scale and laser cooling methods lag at 1 to 3 percent efficiency.¹⁹ Such low efficiencies inflate power requirements, making cooling the primary energy consumer in quantum facilities. 

Stability ensures qubit coherence, as qubits prove sensitive to temperature fluctuations and external heat transfer.²⁰ Integrating mechanical equipment to control the air cleanliness and temperature could result in a greater potential for acoustical noise and vibration interferences.²¹ Regulating the temperature of the floor using either hydronic or electrical systems can result in vibration or electromagnetic fields.²² Facilities must incorporate vibration isolation platforms and electromagnetic shielding to mitigate these risks, adding complexity to design.

Quantum computing facilities exemplify emerging critical infrastructure. Federal agencies are directed to prioritize investments in critical infrastructure and testbeds to enable next-generation quantum devices.²³  As quantum facilities grow, their power and cooling demands will increasingly strain energy grids, while facility stability requirements are crucial for accurate computations that could address critical problems.  Although quantum facilities and their capabilities have the potential to revolutionize modern computing, they could also introduce significant risks. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security identifies the rise of cryptographically relevant quantum computers as an evolving risk to sensitive data across critical infrastructure sectors, calling for updated guidance in risk management.²⁴ 

Power Demands: Straining the Grid 

Quantum facilities consume power in ways that challenge national energy infrastructure.  Cooling alone accounts for the majority of energy use, reversing the paradigm of classical computing, where cooling comprises only 10 to 30 percent of total power.²⁵ In quantum setups, this proportion swells dramatically.  Maintaining low temperatures consumes substantial energy, though quantum systems may solve certain problems more efficiently than classical counterparts. 

As qubit numbers increase, power usage escalates. Systems aiming for 105 to 108 qubits, for applications like factoring large numbers or simulating chemical processes, exacerbate these energy demands.²⁶ The placement of electronics inside or outside the cryostat influences power efficiency.²⁷ Increasing the electronics into the cryostat increases volume and cooling needs, while reducing electronics in the cryostat may reduce cooling and thus power but hinder controlling the qubits effectively. ²⁸ Optimizing qubit types, such as ion-trap systems at 4 kelvins versus superconducting at 10 millikelvins, offers potential efficiency gains.²⁹ Optimizing efficiencies and evolving configurations will continue to warrant devotion as quantum data centers will contribute to increase demands on power, with total power scaling linearly with the number of physical qubits.  

Energy implications extend to national scales. Quantum data centers could contribute significantly to global energy consumption if scaled widely. Data centers, including those supporting quantum technologies, consumed 4.4 percent of U.S. electricity in 2023.³⁰ Estimates suggest this could rise to 6.7 to 12 percent by 2030, driven partly by advanced computing demands.³¹ Upgrades to communications infrastructure, such as quantum based repeaters and fiber networks, further amplify energy requirements.³² U.S. policymakers must address these energy vampires because failure to plan risks operational downtime, which will hinder research progress.   

Quantum computing infrastructure in the U.S. demands substantial power, driven by cooling and scaling needs.  Investments in national facilities address these challenges, but projections indicate increasing electricity consumption.  For the IC, quantum technologies offer both opportunities and risks, necessitating strategic preparation to safeguard national interests. 

Cooling Requirements: The Cryogenic Imperative 

As stated previously, quantum computing represents a paradigm shift in computational capabilities, leveraging qubits to perform complex calculations beyond the reach of classical computers. The operation of quantum systems necessitates precise environmental controls to maintain qubit stability. Cooling plays a critical role in this process, as the slightest temperature increase can disrupt quantum states.  Superconducting qubit systems require sub-Kelvin temperatures to minimize “noise” from atomic and molecular movement.³³    

Cryogenic cooling is essential for quantum computing, where components operate at varying temperatures. Multi-stage cryocoolers can achieve tens to hundreds of millikelvins, which is colder than deep space.³⁴ To reach such profoundly low temperatures, a series of cooling phases is necessary, with each phase becoming successively colder than the one before it.³⁵ A cryogenic cooler’s general design usually features several temperature zones, where each zone holds a coolant that chills the subsequent zone further.³⁶ The quantum system is comprised of different computing components, which are strategically placed within each of these different temperature zones.  

Achieving such low temperatures poses challenges, including stability, vibration-free operation, and high cooling power.  Power consumption in cryogenic systems is a critical concern, with refrigeration accounting for substantial portions of total energy use.  Non-optimized cryogenic computing systems at the lowest temperatures can consume over 1.6 MW of power.³⁷  Developing quantum infrastructure and optimization frameworks to reduce power and heat in multi-temperature systems is crucial. 

Space and Stability Challenges: Beyond Conventional Designs 

Quantum data centers differ fundamentally from classical data centers because qubits and quantum control hardware require stable, ultra-low-noise, and cryogenic and electromagnetically isolated environments. Integrating quantum machines into data centers, as shared by Equinix, involves addressing key requirements such as advanced cooling, sound, and electromagnetic shielding to minimize external interference; dedicated space for large systems with proper loading and access; high-speed, low-latency connectivity; robust security against unauthorized access and attacks; compatibility with existing infrastructure through necessary modifications; and seamless ecosystem access to cloud platforms.³⁸  A quantum data center for example, must integrate a cryogenic cooling system that can support millikelvin temperatures. Traditional data centers do not need such extreme cooling. The requirement for vibration isolation, electromagnetic shielding, and precise thermal stability means that the lab facility or data center layout must be engineered for low mechanical resonance and isolation from external vibrations (e.g. air handling systems, nearby road traffic, aircraft overflight, building elevators, and facility supply deliveries). 

Quantum computing demands unique infrastructure designs. Cryogen computing systems depend on liquid helium or nitrogen to maintain the extreme cold temperatures. To host liquid helium and nitrogen, pipes would need to be installed, potentially under a raised floor.³⁹ Shielding is also essential for safeguarding electronics against external noise that may compromise the integrity of quantum calculations. Given the high sensitivity of quantum processing units to electromagnetic interference, robust shielding measures are required throughout a quantum data center to maintain precise and reliable quantum operations.⁴⁰ An example of such shielding is the QUIET facility at Fermilab, which is an underground research center situated 100 meters beneath the surface.  It is expressly designed for the investigation of superconducting quantum qubits within an environment that is shielded from cosmic rays, thereby minimizing decoherence and information loss in quantum systems.⁴¹ The spatial requirements of these facilities correlate directly with the cryostat volume, which grows as the number of qubits increases.⁴² Geometric limitations and intricate interconnections further augment this demand.⁴³ The unique and intricate requirements for quantum systems necessitate expansive and adaptable facility layouts.   

As stated, quantum states prove fragile and easily disrupted by environmental factors.  As quantum computing moves toward enterprise-scale deployment, quantum infrastructure demands will increasingly drive facility design decisions. The preparatory work required for site selection, vibration control, electromagnetic shielding, cryogenic support, power quality, and modular pipes is nontrivial and fundamentally different from classical data center design. This fragility limits deployment outside controlled laboratory settings, posing challenges for field applications in intelligence contexts. 

Scaling Challenges in Prototypes 

Quantum prototypes in 2024-2025 reveal scaling hurdles. Although quantum systems have been developed with up to 1,088 qubits, scaling to millions of qubits remains challenging due to persistent error rates and hardware limitations.⁴⁴ Advancements in quantum algorithms, software, and error correction are required to achieve scalable systems, with preliminary encryption-breaking prototypes anticipated between 2030 and 2040.⁴⁵  Achieving 1,000 physical qubits with error suppression is an important milestone, but it is still unclear when quantum systems will pose a significant threat to national security.  

Current trends indicate progress in quantum capabilities; however, significant opportunities for further enhancement remain. China’s Zuchongzhi 3.0 and Google’s Willow processor, processes quantum random circuit sampling tasks at a speed quadrillion times faster than the world’s most powerful supercomputer; however, they need to substantially improve qubit control precision, integration scale, and error corrections.^46,47 Although hardware is still developing, it shows great potential. For example, quantum repeaters, specialized devices that boost signals, are specifically engineered for quantum systems to communicate at long distances.⁴⁸ Achieving robust error tolerance and enabling reliable long-distance communication in quantum technology systems are critical steps towards attaining the stability and precision required for large-scale deployment of quantum applications.  

Government Inaction: Funding Shortfalls and Strategic Risks 

Federal funding supports quantum research, yet gaps in infrastructure investment persist. The U.S. government has developed documents outlining a strategy for quantum threats, focusing on standardizing post-quantum cryptography (PQC) and evolving systems. The National Quantum Initiative (NQI) Act directs the National Science Foundation (NSF) to fund quantum centers and align key programs to drive quantum breakthroughs.⁴⁹ However, these lack comprehensive elements, such as full risk assessments and clear milestones.⁵⁰ Additionally, there is no central federal agency responsible for overseeing a comprehensive strategy for quantum computing, resulting in uncoordinated efforts. Although the Office of the National Cyber Director has the potential to take the lead, it has not yet fully acted on recommendations. ⁵¹   

Funding for quantum infrastructure lags, with investments not matching the scale of requirements. A lack of action creates vulnerabilities in the supply chain, particularly when it relies on foreign-sourced components such as rare-earth elements.⁵² Strategic plans omitted any intermediate benchmarks to steer federal agencies through their transition to PQC. In particular, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)’s Report on PQC estimated a $7.1 billion expense for transitioning high-priority federal systems to PQC from 2025 through 2035.⁵³ Without a concentrated investment strategy, the U.S. will fall behind in fabricating at scale, thus ceding ground to competitors.  

The China Threat: Ceding Quantum Supremacy 

China’s investments threaten U.S. quantum dominance as they are outspending globally in computing and communications. Quantum communication is essential for secure command-and-control in contested environments, including electronic warfare and satellite synchronization.⁵⁴ China has invested approximately $15 billion in public funding for quantum technologies and excels in quantum communication, boasting the world’s largest quantum key distribution (QKD) network.⁵⁵ As part of a megaproject in quantum communication, China launched two quantum satellites (Micius in 2016, Jinan-1 in 2022) with plans to launch a third satellite in 2026.⁵⁶ Quantum communication, functioning as an essential infrastructure project, depends on government and military endorsement, driving the need for increased funding to sustain and amplify America’s dominance across the quantum technology landscape.  U.S. inaction enables China to dominate quantum communication, risking economic and security advantages. 

Conclusion: Urgency for the IC 

Quantum infrastructure demands overwhelm current capabilities, requiring immediate action. Quantum computing facilities impose overwhelming demands, from cryogenic cooling to shielded spaces, outstripping current infrastructure.  Power, cooling, space, and stability needs scale dramatically, straining resources.  Scaling prototypes in 2024-2025 highlights energy strains and stability needs, while government funding gaps exacerbate delays. Government inaction compounds risks, potentially handing supremacy to China. Ceding ground to China endangers U.S. national security, as quantum breakthroughs could shatter encryption and military advantages. 

The IC plays a pivotal role in advocating for funding and coordination. By prioritizing quantum infrastructure, the U.S safeguards national secrets and maintains technological dominance. Accelerated development is essential to ensure that the U.S. leads in the quantum era and protects military and economic interests. Urgent action to invest, secure supplies, and devote resources to quantum infrastructure and supporting infrastructure is essential to maintain supremacy. The IC must boldly lead these efforts, unlocking quantum innovation to cement strategic and economic dominance.  

The author is responsible for the content of this article. The views expressed do not reflect the official policy or position of the National Intelligence University, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the U.S. Intelligence Community, or the U.S. Government. 

References

1. Edd Gent, “History of Quantum Computing: 12 Key Moments That Shaped the Future of Computers,” Live Science, September 30, 2024, https://www.livescience.com/technology/computing/history-of-quantum-computing-key-moments-that-shaped-the-future-of-computing. 
2. Gent, “History of Quantum Computing.”  
3. Edward Parker, “U.S.-Allied Militaries Must Prepare for the Quantum Threat to Cryptography” (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2025), https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2025/06/us-allied-militaries-must-prepare-for-the-quantum-threat.html. 
4. Parker, “U.S.-Allied Militaries Must Prepare.”  
5. Hodan Omaar and Martin Makaryan, “How Innovative Is China in Quantum?” (Washington, DC: Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, 2024), https://itif.org/publications/2024/09/09/how-innovative-is-china-in-quantum/. 
6. Michal Krelina, “Military and Security Dimensions of Quantum Technologies: A Primer,” Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, July 2025, 7, https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2025-07/0725_military_and_security_dimensions_of_quantum_technologies_0.pdf. 
7. Krelina, “Military and Security Dimensions,” 12-15. 
8. Axidio, “Quantum Computing: The Key to Next-Gen Supply Chain Efficiency,” Axidio Blog, 2024, https://axidio.com/blog/quantum-computing-in-scm-2024. 
9. Omaar and Makaryan, “How Innovative Is China in Quantum?”  
10. William Childs, “How Public and Private Enterprise Have Built American Infrastructure,” Origins, n.d., https://origins.osu.edu/article/how-public-and-private-enterprise-have-built-american-infrastructure. 
11. Jeremy Hsu, “How Much Power Will Quantum Computing Need?,” IEEE Spectrum, October 5, 2015, https://spectrum.ieee.org/how-much-power-will-quantum-computing-need. 
12. Subcommittee on Quantum Information Science, National Science and Technology Council, National Quantum Initiative Supplement to the President’s FY 2025 Budget (Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, 2024), https://www.quantum.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/NQI-Annual-Report-FY2025.pdf, 52.  
13. Michael James Martin et al., “Energy Use in Quantum Data Centers: Scaling the Impact of Computer Architecture, Qubit Performance, Size, and Thermal Parameters,” IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Computing 7, no. 4 (Oct.–Dec. 2022): 867, https://doi.org/10.1109/TSUSC.2022.3190242. 
14. Martin et al., “Energy Use in Quantum Data Centers,” 866.
15. Martin et al., “Energy Use in Quantum Data Centers,” 865. 
16. Martin et al., “Energy Use in Quantum Data Centers,” 866. 
17. Martin et al., “Energy Use in Quantum Data Centers,” 868. 
18. Martin et al., “Energy Use in Quantum Data Centers,” 866-867. 
19. Martin et al., “Energy Use in Quantum Data Centers,” 868. 
20. Martin et al., “Energy Use in Quantum Data Centers,” 864. 
21. Martin et al., “Energy Use in Quantum Data Centers,” 867. 
22. Martin et al., “Energy Use in Quantum Data Centers,” 865-866. 
23. Office of Management and Budget and Office of Science and Technology Policy, “Fiscal Year 2027 Administration Research and Development Budget Priorities and Cross-Cutting Actions,” memorandum M-25-34, September 23, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/M-25-34-NSTM-2-Fiscal-Year-FY-2027-Administration-Research-and-Development-Budget-Priorities-and-Cross-Cutting-Actions.pdf 
24. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Strategic Guidance: National Priorities for U.S. Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2024), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-06/24_0620_sec_2024-strategic-guidance-national-priorities-u-s-critical-infrastructure-security-resilience.pdf. 
25. Martin et al., “Energy Use in Quantum Data Centers,” 864. 
26. Martin et al., “Energy Use in Quantum Data Centers,” 864. 
27. Martin et al., “Energy Use in Quantum Data Centers,” 867. 
28. Martin et al., “Energy Use in Quantum Data Centers,” 869. 
29. Martin et al., “Energy Use in Quantum Data Centers,” 867. 
30. U.S. Department of Energy, “DOE Releases New Report Evaluating Increase in Electricity Demand from Data Centers,” December 20, 2024, https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-releases-new-report-evaluating-increase-electricity-demand-data-centers. 
31. U.S. Department of Energy, “DOE Releases New Report.” 
32. Masoud Mohseni et al., “How to Build a Quantum Supercomputer: Scaling from Hundreds to Millions of Qubits,” arXiv:2411.10406v2 [quant-ph], last modified January 31, 2025, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.10406, 57. 
33. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “Sub-Kelvin Cooling Systems for Quantum Computers” (Washington, DC: NASA Technical Reports Server, 2019), 4.
34. Nurzhan Zhuldassov, Rassul Bairamkulov, and Eby G. Friedman, “Heat Load Efficiency in Multi-Temperature Cryogenic Computing Systems,” Cryogenics 146 (2025): 104013, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cryogenics.2024.104013, 2. 
35. Zhuldassov, Bairamkulov, and Friedman, “Heat Load Efficiency,” 2. 
36. Zhuldassov, Bairamkulov, and Friedman, “Heat Load Efficiency,” 2. 
37. Zhuldassov, Bairamkulov, and Friedman, “Heat Load Efficiency,” 6. 
38. Cliff Grossner, “Understanding the Emerging Quantum Data Center Opportunity,” Open Compute Project (blog), May 14, 2024, https://www.opencompute.org/blog/understanding-the-emerging-quantum-data-center-opportunity.  
39. Dan Swinhoe, “Inside a Quantum Data Center,” Data Center Dynamics, August 26, 2025, https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/analysis/inside-a-quantum-data-center/. 
40. John Lester, “Quantum Computing Enters the Data Center: New Infrastructure Possible Requirements,” AnD Cable Products, n.d., https://andcable.com/data-center-trends/quantum-computing-data-center/. 
41. “QUIET: A Place to Study Qubits Shielded from the Effects of Cosmic Rays,” Fermilab News, May 2024, https://news.fnal.gov/2024/05/quiet-a-place-to-study-qubits-shielded-from-the-effects-of-cosmic-rays/ 
42. Martin et al., “Energy Use in Quantum Data Centers,” 867. 
43. Martin et al., “Energy Use in Quantum Data Centers,” 866. 
44. Congressional Research Service, Defense Primer: Quantum Technology, IF11836 (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, updated November 4, 2024), https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11836, 1. 
45. Congressional Research Service, “Defense Primer: Quantum Technology,” 1,2. 
46. Chinese Academy of Sciences, “China Hits New Landmark in Global Quantum Computing Race,” Chinese Academy of Sciences, March 4, 2025, https://english.cas.cn/newsroom/cas_media/202503/t20250304_903076.shtml. 
47. Barry C. Sanders, “Superconducting Quantum Computing Beyond 100 Qubits,” Physics 18, no. 45 (2025), https://physics.aps.org/articles/v18/45. 
48. McKinsey & Company, The Year of Quantum: From Concept to Reality in 2025, McKinsey & Company, June 23, 2025, https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/the-year-of-quantum-from-concept-to-reality-in-2025 
49. Subcommittee on Quantum Information Science, Committee on Science, National Science and Technology Council, National Quantum Initiative Supplement to the President’s FY 2025 Budget (Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, 2024), https://www.quantum.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/NQI-Annual-Report-FY2025.pdf. 
50. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Quantum Computing: Leadership Needed to Coordinate Cyber Threat Mitigation Strategy: Statement of Marisol Cruz Cain, Director, Information Technology and Cybersecurity, GAO-25-108590 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2025), https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-25-108590.pdf, 1. 
51. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Quantum Computing, 14. 
52. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Quantum Computing, 9. 
53. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Quantum Computing, 13. 
54. Krelina, “Military and Security Dimensions,” 15. 
55. Krelina, “Military and Security Dimensions,” 12-15. 
56. Mercator Institute for China Studies (MERICS), “China’s Long View on Quantum Tech Has the US and EU Playing Catch-Up,” December 12, 2024, https://merics.org/en/report/chinas-long-view-quantum-tech-has-us-and-eu-playing-catch