Ayanna Prakash
I’ve always been fascinated by global politics and diplomacy. The negotiation of power, the architecture of alliances, and the ethical dilemmas of emerging technology have long captured my interest. As a Batch of 2027 student, I know I want to work on problems that are not only scientifically complex but politically consequential.
Quantum computing—once the domain of physics labs—is now a central node in the future of international security. And quantum cybersecurity, in particular, is redefining how states understand control, surveillance, encryption, and deterrence.
What began as a project on quantum AI turned into a deep investigation of what happens when entangled particles meet entangled interests. When I first began teading about quantum computing, I wasn’t thinking about espionage or geopolitical rivalries. I was thinking about knowledge: how civilizations remember, how they forget, and how quantum AI systems might help us reimagine memory and intelligence.
But very quickly, I ran into something deeper. As I explored the architecture behind quantum AI, I began to see its shadow: quantum cybersecurity—the layer of encryption, secrecy, and surveillance that governs the digital world. And I realized that the same tools I was exploring to model lost knowledge could also be used to decode classified data, intercept intelligence, or build invisible command systems.
That’s when my research took a turn.
I became interested not just in quantum information science, but in its strategic and diplomatic implications. If AI and quantum computing are the engines of the future, who controls them? And what happens when they’re used not to understand the past, but to dominate the future?
This led me to study what many now call the Quantum Cold War—a rising global standoff where the weapons are not missiles, but algorithms and photons. Unlike nuclear bombs, quantum cyberweapons don’t leave craters. They don’t need satellites or missile silos. A 100-qubit computer can sit silently in a lab, its power completely invisible to the outside world. But its implications? Absolutely massive.
At the heart of this is quantum computing’s ability to break encryption. Algorithms like Shor’s (1994) can, in theory, decrypt RSA and ECC—the cryptographic backbone of global banking, military communication, and personal privacy. The day such a machine becomes operational is the day most of the world’s digital infrastructure becomes vulnerable. Governments know this. That’s why they’ve already started preparing—not with bombs, but with Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) networks, Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) standards, and quiet investments in quantum simulation and sensing.
But here’s the twist: unlike nuclear weapons, quantum capabilities are unverifiable. No inspections. No treaties. No satellites to count qubits. This creates a new kind of danger—strategic ambiguity. States can bluff, exaggerate, or conceal their true capabilities. And in cyberspace, you never really know who’s watching, or what they’re capable of breaking.
I found that this isn’t a future problem—it’s a current one.
China has already demonstrated space-based QKD with its Micius satellite and built a 2,000 km quantum communication backbone.
The United States is leading private-sector quantum innovation through companies like Google, IBM, and Microsoft, while its Department of Defense quietly integrates quantum into battlefield systems and navigation.
India, through its ₹6000 crore National Quantum Mission, is building secure QKD networks and quantum radars to protect military and nuclear assets.
Europe emphasizes ethical governance with projects like EuroQCI, while Russia uses quantum tools for asymmetric advantage in hybrid warfare.
NATO, Israel, Japan, and Canada are forming a second strategic layer—quietly shaping global standards and securing niche advantages.
Every country sees quantum not just as a science, but as strategy. One of the most unsettling insights from my research was just how easy it is for technology to cross the line from innovation to militarisation. Quantum computing, like AI or GPS before it, was born in the lab. But once governments saw its potential, it was quickly drafted into the playbook of cyber defense, strategic deception, and digital sovereignty.
Quantum radar can detect stealth aircraft. Quantum magnetometers can track submarines. Quantum-secured communication can create tamper-proof command networks for nuclear weapons. Even AI powered by quantum simulations could reshape military logistics, surveillance, and psychological warfare. And all of this can happen without a single shot being fired. The Cold War had nuclear deterrence. This new era has Mutually Assured Decryption—or worse, Unilaterally Assured Denial, where one state controls global encryption while others fall into silence.
What troubled me most was the regulatory vacuum. There’s no Geneva Convention for quantum code. No equivalent of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The UN’s cyber norms barely scratch the surface.
This opens the door for injustices where rich nations impose cryptographic standards on poorer ones, where perception outweighs possession, where unverifiable attacks trigger real-world conflict, and where developing countries can’t afford to upgrade, and remain exposed
And this is what finally brought my research full circle.
What began as a project to reconstruct histories using quantum AI turned into a study of how the future itself is being contested—quietly, invisibly, and without global consent.
But not all is dark. Quantum technologies also offer unprecedented opportunities for secure governance: tamper-proof elections, encrypted human rights documentation, and leak-proof diplomacy. The key lies in framing. Will we treat quantum as a zero-sum weapon? Or as a shared infrastructure for digital trust?
I believe the future demands a Quantum Framework for Global Stability—a treaty or cooperative mechanism that acknowledges encryption as a civic necessity, not a strategic luxury.
Countries like India, with its tradition of non-alignment and push for technological autonomy, have a unique opportunity to lead. A coalition of middle powers—India, Brazil, South Africa, Japan—can offer an alternative to the U.S.-China techno-bloc rivalry. One rooted in equity, interoperability, and ethical governance.
Quantum entanglement teaches us something beautiful: two particles, once connected, remain linked no matter how far apart they drift.
Maybe that’s the metaphor we need most in geopolitics: none of us is secure until all of us are.
In the end, the true power of quantum isn’t in how many qubits we control—but in how responsibly we use them.
About the contributor: Ayanna Prakash is a fellow at DFPGYF Diplomacy, Foreign Policy & Geopolitics Youth Fellow at IMPRI and is a a person driven by and drawn to creativity and science-most specifically the logical connections between all things which interlink even the seemingly unrelated topics.
Disclaimer: All views expressed in the article belong solely to the author and not necessarily to the organisation.
Read more at IMPRI:
GVA over GDP: Understanding the real growth of Indian economy
Acknowledgment: This article was posted by Bhaktiba Jadeja, visiting researcher and assistant editor at IMPRI.
