Category Archives: Quantum Computing

Tales of experiments gone wrong are a staple of science fiction, filled with depictions of scientists flexing their abilities and resources for personal reasons. Motives range from a thirst for power to a savior complex stemming from an incident closer to home. The common thread of the latter includes parents doing everything in their power to save their child. When combined with great intellect the ramifications of this drive can be far-reaching.

This is the case in the recent Alex Garland sci-fi limited series Devs, which grapples with free will versus determinism via the overreach of tech companies, and those pulling the strings. Depicting a version of the near future that doesn't look too dissimilar to the current proliferation of controlling Silicon Valley moguls, Devs portrays the development of secret quantum technology and its potential impact on moral the fabric of society. Fitting into a larger narrative of parents, technology, and the loss of a child, CEO Forest (Nick Offerman) sits alongside the likes Fringe's Walter Bishop (John Noble) and Amy Adams as linguist Louise Banks in Arrival. Trauma implicitly shapes us and informs future actions, which is magnified further when the person suffering is also in possession of the power to change this outcome. Who will play God to save their loved ones?

Spoilers ahead for Devs.

Motives clouded by individual stakes are often more dangerous because it becomes impossible to put any sense of reasoning or distance on a decision that includes an emotional tether. The first episode of Devs reveals that Amaya boss Forest will do anything including murder to protect the secrets being held in the belly of the woodland area of the sprawling tech company campus. A creepy statue of his daughter (also called Amaya) towers over the redwood trees, her hands expectedly cupped as if she is waiting for a giant ball to be tossed toward her.

Midway through the series, it is revealed that Amaya (Amaya Mizuno-Andr), along with Forest's wife Lianne (Georgia King) died in a car accident, which occurred while Lianne was on the phone to her husband, chastising him for calling when they were so close to home. The theme of a scientist using their prowess to alter events to avoid a tragedy is another repeated theme, which Alex Garland's series explores from a quantum physics and philosophical perspective. Forest isn't attempting time travel, but he does want to go back to a version of reality before this incident.

Most people would probably do anything to change a life-altering event like this one. Beyond wishful thinking, this is not something most people can contemplate. However, Forest is reminiscent of Fringe's Walter Bishop in his attempt to save his child. Both men possess the necessary scientific acumen to aid their quest, even if it has wider implications on the nature of existence. Taking on the masculine attribute of fixing things, these two men will alter the fabric of existence to reach a satisfactory solution. In contrast, Louise Banks learns of a language that changes how she perceives time but doesn't use this knowledge to save her heart. The memories peppering Arrival of her sick daughter who died are "recollections" of events that have yet to occur. She has the power to stop this from ever happening, but at what cost?

Hubris is a factor that ensures men like Forest and Walter believe what they are doing is for the greater good when it only serves themselves. Louise knows her daughter will die and her husband will leave her but chooses to keep her secret and do nothing to change it. She is a time traveler without having to ever time travel; instead, she is privy to information that could determine how she acts in the present. She takes on a god-like sensibility because she is omniscient a power she uses to stop an intergalactic war but never wields to save her marriage or the child she knows will die from an incurable illness.

"Despite knowing the journey and where it leads, I embrace it. And I welcome every moment of it," she says without a flicker of regret. As a mother she is going to fight for her child; similarly, she is not going to not have this baby because she knows her life will be cut short. If she does, she will lose every precious second spent with Hannah. Rather, she cherishes their short time together, rather than fighting for a version of events that doesn't and will never exist. It might read as defeatist or selfish, but her heartbreaking choice is full of love for her daughter. If Forest and Walter are adamant about fixing their dilemma, Louise is leaning into the nurturing stereotype of mothers. She cares for her sick daughter rather than finding a cure to an incurable illness.

In Fringe, after Walter's son Peter dies from a genetic disease, he dedicates his time to watching his parallel universe doppelganger, Walternate, attempt to find a cure for his son. Circumstances lead Walter to travel through a portal to this other reality to save the boy who is not his son. He thought this was the right thing but his stubborn refusal to listen to others has far-reaching and long-term effects that far outweigh the risk he took. Nina Sharp (Blair Brown) and his lab assistant Carla Warren (Jenni Blong) try to stop him but their attempts are futile Nina loses an arm for her troubles. After Peter's mother sees the boy she thinks Walter has brought back to life, his difficult decision to return him to his world becomes impossible. His arrogance and lies he told thereafter will haunt him throughout the series, testing the bond between father and son further.

Unlike Walter, Forest doesn't believe there is a multi-verse with another version of his family running around; his theory is predicated on one world with one set of events occurring. The Devs team is working on a top-secret quantum computing project that will eventually allow them to see any moment in history. Imagine watching a high-def recorded version of events including the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and Marilyn Monroe sleeping with husband Arthur Miller. Guidelines are put in place to stop violations of privacy (such as the latter) or skipping ahead to events that have yet to happen; however, both rules are broken by various members of the team.

A machine with this capability will put to bed (or prove) countless conspiracy theories; the ripple effect of the secrets this system possesses is huge. In the wrong hands, this computer could be weaponized and its capacity to be used for an act of tyranny is great. Deciding who holds the power is not a debate in this company because Forest sits at the top of the chain. Nevertheless, his grief ensures his actions are clouded by emotion rather than rational an argument often leveled as a reason why a woman would make a bad leader. Grief is not gendered and the actions of each protagonist in Devs, Arrival, and Fringe suggest the fathers are far more likely to wield their scientific ability as a battle cry against the circle of life. Forest adds credence to the latter theory because his actions are influenced by the desire to be with his family again, no matter the cost.

An underlying debate throughout Devs is whether we have free will or not. Forest is firmly on the deterministic side of the argument, believing everything is predetermined. His family was always going to die in that car accident, he was always going to make the phone kill that distracted his wife. This takes away his responsibility and assuages his guilt while giving him hope he can be reunited with them in some form.

Rather than placing all bets on the afterlife, his computer exists as his personal time machine, sending him back to before his world changed. At first, it lets him watch his daughter as he remembered her blowing bubbles and playing, but it is much more than a sophisticated DVR player with every moment in history available to binge-watch.

For Forest to successfully bring his plan to fruition he needs to ensure his secret does not get out. Similarly, any theory that suggests he is incorrect is in opposition to his endgame and that person will also have to go which is why Lyndon (Cailee Spaeny) is fired. In Episode 5, Garland portrays multiple versions of the timeline; in some, the crash never happened, in others it did but it was less severe. If this was indeed the case, free will is still on the table, and therefore these deaths were preventable. Lily tossing the gun out of the lift reveals his hypothesis is incorrect, even if he ultimately gets his happy ending. The complexity of this powerful machine is not lost on the other workers who have conflicting theories and cannot risk what will happen if Forest maintains power over it.

"If Ex Machina is about a man who is trying to act as if he's God via technology and science, I thought there's a companion story, which is about people not trying to act as if they're God, but trying to create God," Alex Garland explained in a recent interview with Rolling Stone. Forest still thinks he can use his resources to bend the fabric of existence to his whim but he is reframing his role, not as creator but as a martyr to the machine he dies to enter. He also tells Lily in the finale that Devs is a cheeky play on the Latin word "Deus," which means deity or God. The gold production design is also an homage to a different form of creation, a location Garland calls a "strange, twilight, gold, womb-space." Family is the big driving force and linking back to biology further emphasizes this, even if Forest's resurrection of his deceased loved ones is far from a natural event in human evolution.

In this sampling of TV and film scientists using their abilities to alter the fabric of reality or leaning into their fate, the gender line is drawn dividing fathers who will literally destroy the matter of all things, and a mother who has accepted her future without defying quantum physics. However, in the recent season of Outlander, Claire Fraser (Caitriona Balfe) uses her skills as a physician and knowledge of life-saving treatments beyond simple tips and tricks. In "discovering" penicillin over a century before it was actually discovered, she is playing God and her hubris is comparable to Forest and Walter's. The impact her choices have on the future is minimal so far, but in Season 5 this looks set to change. This hasn't been done to save her daughter, but rather it shows how deeply conflicted she is as a doctor flung out of time and underscores her nurturing abilities that exist beyond her role as a mother.

Possessing the knowledge from a future timeline to save lives is one conundrum, but these narratives demonstrate it is far more complex when your own flesh and blood are in peril. As Devs and Fringe suggest, even time and space cannot stand in the way of this moral quandary when a figure is willing to play God. Not every expert will rip a hole in the world under the banner of being a parent (and that's OK).

Go here to read the rest:
Playing God and parental drive in Devs, Fringe and Arrival - SYFY WIRE

Seeqc, the Digital Quantum Computing company, today announced its UK team has been selected to receive two British grants totaling 1.8 million from Innovate UKs Industrial Challenge Strategy Fund.

We are looking forward to applying our deep expertise in design, testing and manufacturing of quantum-ready superconductors, along with our resource-efficient approach to qubit control and readout to this collaborative development of quantum circuits.

Quantum Foundry

The first 800,000 grant from Innovate UK is part of a 7M project dedicated to advancing the commercialization of superconducting technology. Its goal is to bring quantum computing closer to business-applicable solutions, cost-efficiently and at scale.

Seeqc UK is joining six UK-based companies and universities in a consortium to collaborate on the initiative. This is the first concerted effort to bring all leading experts across industry and academia together to advance the development of quantum technologies in the UK.

Other grant recipients include Oxford Quantum Circuits, Oxford Instruments, Kelvin Nanotechnology, University of Glasgow and the Royal Holloway University of London.

Quantum Operating System

The second 1 million grant is part of a 7.6 million seven-organization consortium dedicated to advancing the commercialization of quantum computers in the UK by building a highly innovative quantum operating system. A quantum operating system, Deltaflow.OS, will be installed on all quantum computers in the UK in order to accelerate the commercialization and collaboration of the British quantum computing community. The universal operating system promises to greatly increase the performance and accessibility of quantum computers in the UK.

Seeqc UK is joined by other grant recipients, Riverlane, Hitachi Europe, Universal Quantum, Duality Quantum Photonics, Oxford Ionics, and Oxford Quantum Circuits, along with UK-based chip designer, ARM, and the National Physical Laboratory.

Advancing Digital Quantum Computing

Seeqc owns and operates a multi-layer superconductive electronics chip fabrication facility, which is among the most advanced in the world. The foundry serves as a testing and benchmarking facility for Seeqc and the global quantum community to deliver quantum technologies for specific use cases. This foundry and expertise will be critical to the success of the grants. Seeqcs Digital Quantum Computing solution is designed to manage and control qubits in quantum computers in a way that is cost-efficient and scalable for real-world business applications in industries such as pharmaceuticals, logistics and chemical manufacturing.

Seeqcs participation in these new industry-leading British grants accelerates our work in making quantum computing useful, commercially and at scale, said Dr. Matthew Hutchings, chief product officer and co-founder at Seeqc, Inc. We are looking forward to applying our deep expertise in design, testing and manufacturing of quantum-ready superconductors, along with our resource-efficient approach to qubit control and readout to this collaborative development of quantum circuits.

We strongly support the Deltaflow.OS initiative and believe Seeqc can provide a strong contribution to both consortiums work and advance quantum technologies from the lab and into the hands of businesses via ultra-focused and problem-specific quantum computers, continued Hutchings.

Seeqcs solution combines classical and quantum computing to form an all-digital architecture through a system-on-a-chip design that utilizes 10-40 GHz superconductive classical co-processing to address the efficiency, stability and cost issues endemic to quantum computing systems.

Seeqc is receiving the nearly $2.3 million in grant funding weeks after closing its $6.8 million seed round from investors including BlueYard Capital, Cambium, NewLab and the Partnership Fund for New York City. The recent funding round is in addition to a $5 million investment from M Ventures, the strategic corporate venture capital arm of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.

Read the original here:
Seeqc UK Awarded 1.8M In Grants To Advance Quantum Computing Initiatives - Quantaneo, the Quantum Computing Source

The coronavirus is proving that we have to move faster in identifying and mitigating epidemics before they become pandemics because, in todays global world, viruses spread much faster, further, and more frequently than ever before.

If COVID-19 has taught us anything, its that while our ability to identify and treat pandemics has improved greatly since the outbreak of the Spanish Flu in 1918, there is still a lot of room for improvement. Over the past few decades, weve taken huge strides to improve quick detection capabilities. It took a mere 12 days to map the outer spike protein of the COVID-19 virus using new techniques. In the 1980s, a similar structural analysis for HIV took four years.

But developing a cure or vaccine still takes a long time and involves such high costs that big pharma doesnt always have incentive to try.

Drug discovery entrepreneur Prof. Noor Shaker posited that Whenever a disease is identified, a new journey into the chemical space starts seeking a medicine that could become useful in contending diseases. The journey takes approximately 15 years and costs $2.6 billion, and starts with a process to filter millions of molecules to identify the promising hundreds with high potential to become medicines. Around 99% of selected leads fail later in the process due to inaccurate prediction of behavior and the limited pool from which they were sampled.

Prof. Shaker highlights one of the main problems with our current drug discovery process: The development of pharmaceuticals is highly empirical. Molecules are made and then tested, without being able to accurately predict performance beforehand. The testing process itself is long, tedious, cumbersome, and may not predict future complications that will surface only when the molecule is deployed at scale, further eroding the cost/benefit ratio of the field. And while AI/ML tools are already being developed and implemented to optimize certain processes, theres a limit to their efficiency at key tasks in the process.

Ideally, a great way to cut down the time and cost would be to transfer the discovery and testing from the expensive and time-inefficient laboratory process (in-vitro) we utilize today, to computer simulations (in-silico). Databases of molecules are already available to us today. If we had infinite computing power we could simply scan these databases and calculate whether each molecule could serve as a cure or vaccine to the COVID-19 virus. We would simply input our factors into the simulation and screen the chemical space for a solution to our problem.

In principle, this is possible. After all, chemical structures can be measured, and the laws of physics governing chemistry are well known. However, as the great British physicist Paul Dirac observed: The underlying physical laws necessary for the mathematical theory of a large part of physics and the whole of chemistry are thus completely known, and the difficulty is only that the exact application of these laws leads to equations much too complicated to be soluble.

In other words, we simply dont have the computing power to solve the equations, and if we stick to classical computers we never will.

This is a bit of a simplification, but the fundamental problem of chemistry is to figure out where electrons sit inside a molecule and calculate the total energy of such a configuration. With this data, one could calculate the properties of a molecule and predict its behavior. Accurate calculations of these properties will allow the screening of molecular databases for compounds that exhibit particular functions, such as a drug molecule that is able to attach to the coronavirus spike and attack it. Essentially, if we could use a computer to accurately calculate the properties of a molecule and predict its behavior in a given situation, it would speed up the process of identifying a cure and improve its efficiency.

Why are quantum computers much better than classical computers at simulating molecules?

Electrons spread out over the molecule in a strongly correlated fashion, and the characteristics of each electron depend greatly on those of its neighbors. These quantum correlations (or entanglement) are at the heart of the quantum theory and make simulating electrons with a classical computer very tricky.

The electrons of the COVID-19 virus, for example, must be treated in general as being part of a single entity having many degrees of freedom, and the description of this ensemble cannot be divided into the sum of its individual, distinguishable electrons. The electrons, due to their strong correlations, have lost their individuality and must be treated as a whole. So to solve the equations, you need to take into account all of the electrons simultaneously. Although classical computers can in principle simulate such molecules, every multi-electron configuration must be stored in memory separately.

Lets say you have a molecule with only 10 electrons (forget the rest of the atom for now), and each electron can be in two different positions within the molecule. Essentially, you have 2^10=1024 different configurations to keep track of rather just 10 electrons which would have been the case if the electrons were individual, distinguishable entities. Youd need 1024 classical bits to store the state of this molecule. Quantum computers, on the other hand, have quantum bits (qubits), which can be made to strongly correlate with one another in the same way electrons within molecules do. So in principle, you would need only about 10 such qubits to represent the strongly correlated electrons in this model system.

The exponentially large parameter space of electron configurations in molecules is exactly the space qubits naturally occupy. Thus, qubits are much more adapted to the simulation of quantum phenomena. This scaling difference between classical and quantum computation gets very big very quickly. For instance, simulating penicillin, a molecule with 41 atoms (and many more electrons) will require 10^86 classical bits, or more bits than the number of atoms in the universe. With a quantum computer, you would only need about 286 qubits. This is still far more qubits than we have today, but certainly a more reasonable and achievable number.The COVID-19 virus outer spike protein, for comparison, contains many thousands of atoms and is thus completely intractable for classical computation. The size of proteins makes them intractable to classical simulation with any degree of accuracy even on todays most powerful supercomputers. Chemists and pharma companies do simulate molecules with supercomputers (albeit not as large as the proteins), but they must resort to making very rough molecule models that dont capture the details a full simulation would, leading to large errors in estimation.

It might take several decades until a sufficiently large quantum computer capable of simulating molecules as large as proteins will emerge. But when such a computer is available, it will mean a complete revolution in the way the pharma and the chemical industries operate.

The holy grail end-to-end in-silico drug discovery involves evaluating and breaking down the entire chemical structures of the virus and the cure.

The continued development of quantum computers, if successful, will allow for end-to-end in-silico drug discovery and the discovery of procedures to fabricate the drug. Several decades from now, with the right technology in place, we could move the entire process into a computer simulation, allowing us to reach results with amazing speed. Computer simulations could eliminate 99.9% of false leads in a fraction of the time it now takes with in-vitro methods. With the appearance of a new epidemic, scientists could identify and develop a potential vaccine/drug in a matter of days.

The bottleneck for drug development would then move from drug discovery to the human testing phases including toxicity and other safety tests. Eventually, even these last stage tests could potentially be expedited with the help of a large scale quantum computer, but that would require an even greater level of quantum computing than described here. Tests at this level would require a quantum computer with enough power to contain a simulation of the human body (or part thereof) that will screen candidate compounds and simulate their impact on the human body.

Achieving all of these dreams will demand a continuous investment into the development of quantum computing as a technology. As Prof. Shohini Ghose said in her 2018 Ted Talk: You cannot build a light bulb by building better and better candles. A light bulb is a different technology based on a deeper scientific understanding. Todays computers are marvels of modern technology and will continue to improve as we move forward. However, we will not be able to solve this task with a more powerful classical computer. It requires new technology, more suited for the task.

(Special thanks Dr. Ilan Richter, MD MPH for assuring the accuracy of the medical details in this article.)

Ramon Szmuk is a Quantum Hardware Engineer at Quantum Machines.

See the original post:
Quantum computing will (eventually) help us discover vaccines in days - VentureBeat

1qb Information Technologies

Quantum Computing Market Competitive Analysis:

In addition, the projections offered in this report were derived using proven research assumptions and methods. In this way, the Quantum Computing research study offers a collection of information and analysis for every facet of the Quantum Computing market such as technology, regional markets, applications and types. The Quantum Computing market report also offers some market presentations and illustrations that include pie charts, diagrams and charts that show the percentage of different strategies implemented by service providers in the Quantum Computing market. In addition, the report was created using complete surveys, primary research interviews, observations and secondary research.

In addition, the Quantum Computing market report introduced the market through various factors such as classifications, definitions, market overview, product specifications, cost structures, manufacturing processes, raw materials and applications. This report also provides key data on SWOT analysis, return data for investments and feasibility analysis for investments. The Quantum Computing market study also highlights the extremely lucrative market opportunities that are influencing the growth of the global market. In addition, the study offers a complete analysis of market size, segmentation and market share. In addition, the Quantum Computing report contains market dynamics such as market restrictions, growth drivers, opportunities, service providers, stakeholders, investors, important market participants, profile assessment and challenges of the global market.

Quantum Computing Market Segments:

The report also underscores their strategics planning including mergers, acquisitions, ventures, partnerships, product launches, and brand developments. Additionally, the report renders the exhaustive analysis of crucial market segments, which includes Quantum Computing types, applications, and regions. The segmentation sections cover analytical and forecast details of each segment based on their profitability, global demand, current revue, and development prospects. The report further scrutinizes diverse regions including North America, Asia Pacific, Europe, Middle East, and Africa, and South America. The report eventually helps clients in driving their Quantum Computing business wisely and building superior strategies for their Quantum Computing businesses.

To get Incredible Discounts on this Premium Report, Click Here @ https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/ask-for-discount/?rid=24845&utm_source=COD&utm_medium=003

Table of Content

1 Introduction of Quantum Computing Market

1.1 Overview of the Market1.2 Scope of Report1.3 Assumptions

2 Executive Summary

3 Research Methodology

3.1 Data Mining3.2 Validation3.3 Primary Interviews3.4 List of Data Sources

4 Quantum Computing Market Outlook

4.1 Overview4.2 Market Dynamics4.2.1 Drivers4.2.2 Restraints4.2.3 Opportunities4.3 Porters Five Force Model4.4 Value Chain Analysis

5 Quantum Computing Market, By Deployment Model

5.1 Overview

6 Quantum Computing Market, By Solution

6.1 Overview

7 Quantum Computing Market, By Vertical

7.1 Overview

8 Quantum Computing Market, By Geography

8.1 Overview8.2 North America8.2.1 U.S.8.2.2 Canada8.2.3 Mexico8.3 Europe8.3.1 Germany8.3.2 U.K.8.3.3 France8.3.4 Rest of Europe8.4 Asia Pacific8.4.1 China8.4.2 Japan8.4.3 India8.4.4 Rest of Asia Pacific8.5 Rest of the World8.5.1 Latin America8.5.2 Middle East

9 Quantum Computing Market Competitive Landscape

9.1 Overview9.2 Company Market Ranking9.3 Key Development Strategies

10 Company Profiles

10.1.1 Overview10.1.2 Financial Performance10.1.3 Product Outlook10.1.4 Key Developments

11 Appendix

11.1 Related Research

Get Complete Report @ https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/product/Quantum-Computing-Market/?utm_source=COD&utm_medium=003

About us:

Verified Market Research is a leading Global Research and Consulting firm servicing over 5000+ customers. Verified Market Research provides advanced analytical research solutions while offering information enriched research studies. We offer insight into strategic and growth analyses, Data necessary to achieve corporate goals and critical revenue decisions.

Our 250 Analysts and SMEs offer a high level of expertise in data collection and governance use industrial techniques to collect and analyse data on more than 15,000 high impact and niche markets. Our analysts are trained to combine modern data collection techniques, superior research methodology, expertise and years of collective experience to produce informative and accurate research.

We study 14+ categories from Semiconductor & Electronics, Chemicals, Advanced Materials, Aerospace & Defence, Energy & Power, Healthcare, Pharmaceuticals, Automotive & Transportation, Information & Communication Technology, Software & Services, Information Security, Mining, Minerals & Metals, Building & construction, Agriculture industry and Medical Devices from over 100 countries.

Contact us:

Mr. Edwyne Fernandes

US: +1 (650)-781-4080UK: +44 (203)-411-9686APAC: +91 (902)-863-5784US Toll Free: +1 (800)-7821768

Email: [emailprotected]

Tags: Quantum Computing Market Size, Quantum Computing Market Trends, Quantum Computing Market Growth, Quantum Computing Market Forecast, Quantum Computing Market Analysis NMK, Majhi Naukri, Sarkari Naukri, Sarkari Result

Our Trending Reports

Rugged Display Market Size, Growth Analysis, Opportunities, Business Outlook and Forecast to 2026

Quantum Computing Market Size, Growth Analysis, Opportunities, Business Outlook and Forecast to 2026

Read this article:
Quantum Computing Market Research Report 2020 By Size, Share, Trends, Analysis and Forecast to 2026 - Cole of Duty

Atos, a global leader in digital transformation, introduced the worlds first commercially available quantum simulator capable of simulating up to 40 quantum bits, or Qubits, which translates to very fucking fast.

The simulator, named Atos Quantum Learning Machine, is powered by an ultra-compact supercomputer and a universal programming language.

Quantum computing is a key priority for Japan. It launched a dedicated ten-year, 30 billion yen (.. aka US$280 million / AUD$433 million) quantum research program in 2017, followed by a 100 billion yen (.. aka US$900 million / AUD $1 billion) investment into its Moonshot R&D Program one focus of which will be to create a fault-tolerant universal quantum computer to revolutionise the economy, industry, and security sectors by 2050.

Were delighted to have sold our first QLM in Japan, thanks to our strong working partnership with Intelligent Wave Inc.. We are proud to be part of this growing momentum as the country plans to boost innovation through quantum

Combining a high-powered, ultra-compact machine with a universal programming language, the Atos Quantum Learning Machine (enables researchers and engineers to develop an experiment with quantum software. It is the worlds only quantum software development and simulation appliance for the coming quantum computer era.

It simulates the laws of physics, which are at the very heart of quantum computing, to compute the exact execution of a quantum program with double-digit precision.

Read the original:
Highest-performing quantum simulator IN THE WORLD delivered to Japan - TechGeek

It had been a bedrock belief of U.S. policy for 40 years that it was possible to bring the People's Republic of China smoothly into the family of nationsand now, one of the architects of that policy was finally acknowledging the obvious.

In a speech six months ago, former World Bank President and Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick reminded listeners of his own famous 2005 call on Beijing to become a "responsible stakeholder." He ticked off a few of the ways in which China had done just that: voting for sanctions on North Korea and limiting missile exports, for instance. But he acknowledged that the project had gone off the rails.

"Xi Jinping's leadership," Zoellick said of the PRC president, "has prioritized the Communist Party and restricted openness and debate in China. China hurts itself by forging a role model for dystopian societies of intrusive technologies and reeducation camps." He added: "The rule of law and openness upon which Hong Kong's 'One Country, Two Systems' model rests may topple or be trampled. If China crushes Hong Kong, China will wound itselfeconomically and psychologicallyfor a long time."

Zoellick had that right. A global pandemic has brought relations between Beijing and Washington to its lowest point since China reopened to the world in 1978even lower even than in those extraordinary days following the 1989 Tiananmen massacre.

What had been a more confrontational, trade-centric relationship since the start of President Donald Trump's term, has now descended into bitterness in the midst of a presidential reelection campaign Trump fears is slipping away. Any chance that the pandemic might spur Washington and Beijing to set differences aside and work together on treatments and other aspects of the pandemicsuch as how exactly it startedis long gone.

Read more

Last week, the Trump administration moved to block shipments of semiconductors to Huawei Technologies. The Commerce Department said it was amending an export rule to "strategically target Huawei's acquisition of semiconductors that are the direct product of certain U.S. software and technology." Previously on May 13, the FBI announced an investigation into Chinese hackers that it believes are targeting American health care and pharmaceutical companies in an effort to steal intellectual property relating to coronavirus medicines. Without specifying how, the Bureau said the hacks may be disrupting progress on medical research.

President Trump had already made it clear just how bitter he is at Beijing on May 7 when meeting with reporters at the White House. "We went through the worst attack we've ever had on our country," he said, "this is the worst attack we've ever had. This is worse than Pearl Harbor, this is worse than the World Trade Center. There's never been an attack like this. And it should have never happened. Could've been stopped at the source. Could've been stopped in China...And it wasn't."

The comparison of a virus, which originated in China and then spread globally, to the two most infamous attacks in U.S. history, stunned Trump's foreign policy adviserseven Beijing hard-liners. It will be impossible, U.S. officials acknowledge, for Trump to soften his hard line toward Beijing should he win reelection in November.

The president is right to reach for historical metaphor, given the weight of the moment. But the aftermath of the Wuhan outbreak more closely resembles the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961 than either Pearl Harbor or 9/11. What follows will not be a sharp burst of savage conflict, but a global scramble to shape the new order rising from the rubble of old. As with the Wall, the forces that led to the dispute over the Wuhan outbreak were unleashed years before the events that made history. And the change they represent is likely irreversible, no matter who sits in the White House.

Though Joe Biden has on occasion downplayed Beijing's rise as a threat to the U.S., and for sure would not be so rhetorically reckless as Trump, his foreign policy advisers acknowledge there's no turning back. Since Xi Jinping came to power seven years ago, China has imprisoned more than one million ethnic Muslims in "reeducation" camps, imposed an ever-tightening surveillance state on its own citizens and cracked down on all dissent. Overseas, Beijing's goal is to entice authoritarian regimes in the developing world to view it as a "model'' to be followed. And, of course, selling the technology those leaders need to create their own surveillance states.

"No one on either side of the political aisle in Washington is ignoring any of that," says one Biden adviser. "The era of hope that China might evolve into a normal country is over. No one with any brains denies that."

That notion has fully settled in here. Sixty-six percent of Americans now have a negative view of China, according to a recent Pew Research poll. At the same time, in China, state-owned media and a government-controlled internet whip up nationalism and anti-Americanism to levels unseen since the U.S. accidentally bombed Beijing's embassy in Belgrade during the Balkan wars in 1999.The world's two most powerful nations are now competing in every realm possible: militarily, for one, with constant cat-and-mouse games in the South China Sea and cyber warfare. The competition to dominate the key technologies of the 21st century is intensifying, too. This type of rivalry hasn't been seen since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

Thus, a growing number of policymakers, current and former, and China hands old and new, acknowledge the obvious: Cold War 2.0 is here. To the generation of Americans who remember duck-and-cover drills in elementary school at the peak of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, the new global struggle will look very different. It will also, many U.S. strategists believe, be much harder for the West to wage successfully. "Another long twilight struggle may be upon us," says former Pentagon China planner Joseph Bosco, "and it may make the last one look easy."Now, U.S. policymakers are trying to discern what that struggle will look like, and how to win it.

New-Age War

The first major difference in the coming Cold War with Beijing is in the military realm. Beijing spends far less than the U.S. on its military, though its annual rate of spending is fast increasing. According to the Center For Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, Beijing spent $50 billion on its military in 2001, the year it joined the World Trade Organization. In 2019 it spent $240 billion, compared to the U.S.' $633 billion.

For a few decades at least, the U.S.-China military competition will look vastly different from the hair-trigger nuclear standoff with Moscow. Instead, China will seek asymmetric advantages, rooted where possible in technology. It has, for example, already developed an arsenal of hypersonic missiles, which fly low and are hard for radar to detect. They are known as "carrier killers" because of their ability to strike U.S. aircraft carriers in the Pacific from long distances. These weapons could be critical in "area denial" operations, as military planners put it. For example, should the day come when Beijing seeks to take Taiwan by force, hyper-sonics could keep U.S. carriers far from the island nation once a war began.

China's pursuit of preeminence across a wide range of technologies, in areas like quantum computing and artificial intelligence, are central to the economic clash with the U.S. But they also have significant military components. Since the 1990s, when Chinese military planners were stunned by the U.S.' lightning victory in the first Iraq war, they have consistently focused their efforts on developing war-fighting capabilities relevant to their immediate strategic goalsTaiwan is an examplewhile creating the ability to one day leapfrog U.S. military technologies.That may be drawing nearer. Quantum computing is an example. In an era in which digital networks underpin virtually every aspect of war, "quantum is king," says Elsa Kania, a former DOD official who is now a Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security. Take cyber warfarethe ability to protect against an enemy disrupting your own networks, while maintaining the ability to disrupt the adversary's. Quantum networks are far more secure against cyber espionage, and Kania believes China's "future quantum capacity has the potential to leapfrog U.S. cyber capabilities."

That's not the only advantage of quantum technology. Beijing is also exploring the potential for quantum-based radar systems that can defeat stealth technology, a critical U.S. war-fighting advantage. "These disruptive technologiesquantum communications, quantum computing and potentially quantum radarmay have the potential to undermine cornerstones of U.S. technological dominance in information-age warfare, its sophisticated intelligence apparatus, satellites and secure communications networks and stealth technologies," says Kania. "China's concentrated pursuit of quantum technologies could have much more far-reaching impacts than the asymmetric approach to defense that has characterized its strategic posture thus far." That is a big reason why Pan Jianwei, the father of China's quantum computing research effort, has said the nation's goal is nothing less than "quantum supremacy."

Washington, and its allies in East Asia and Europe, are paying attention. In a just-published bookThe Dragons and the Snakes: How the Rest Learned to Fight the WestDavid Kilcullen, a former Australian military officer who served as special adviser to U.S. General David Petraeus in Iraq, writes: "our enemies have caught up or overtaken us in critical technologies, or have expanded their concept of war beyond the narrow boundaries within which our traditional approach can be brought to bear. They have adapted, and unless we too adapt, our decline is only a matter of time."

The book is being widely read in U.S. national security circles.China is not yet a "peer power," as U.S. national defense analysts put it. But the steadily aggressive pursuit of quantum technologiesand a wide array of others that also have dual-use applicationsincreasingly convince Pentagon planners that Beijing will one day be one. China, says Michael Pillsbury, one of Trump's key informal advisers on relations with Beijing, "is nothing if not patient." The year 2049 will mark the Chinese Communist Party's 100th anniversary of taking power in Beijing. That's the year Chinese propaganda outlets have said will see the completion of China's rise to the dominant power on earth.

An Economic Divorce?

The most significant difference in the emerging geopolitical standoff between Washington and Beijing is obvious: China is economically powerful, and deeply integrated with both the developed and developing worlds. That was never the case with the former Soviet Union, which was largely isolated economically, trading only with its east bloc neighbors. China, by contrast, trades with everyone, and it continues to grow richer. It is sophisticated across a wide range of critical technologies, including telecommunications and artificial intelligence. It has set as a national goalin its so-called Made in China 2025 planpreeminence not just in quantum computing and AI, but in biotech, advanced telecommunications, green energy and a host of others.

But the U.S. and the rest of the world have problems in the present as well. The pandemic has exposed the vulnerability of locating supply chains for personal protective equipment as well as pharmaceutical supplies in China. That's a significant strategic vulnerability. If China shut the door on exports of medicines and their key ingredients and raw material, U.S. hospitals, military hospitals and clinics would cease to function within months if not days, says Rosemary Gibson, author of a book on the subject, China Rx. Late last month, Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton introduced legislation mandating that U.S. pharmaceutical companies bring production back from China to the U.S.

China's explicit desire to dominate the industries of the future is bad news for foreign multinational companies that have staked so much on the allure of the China market. If China's steep rise up the technology ladder continues, American and other foreign multinationals are likely to get turfed out of the market entirely. "China 2025 is all about replacing anything that American companies sell of any value, just taking the Americans out of that," says Stewart Paterson, author of China, Trade and Power, Why the West's Economic Engagement Has Failed.Donald Trump's tariffs, and China's public desire to dominate key industries, have pushed American multinational and U.S. policymakers to ask: should the U.S. get an economic divorce from Beijing? And if so, what would that look like?

The COVID-19 outbreak and China's response to it has greatly intensified that debate. Trump's trade war had triggered a slow-motion move toward an economic "decoupling," as companies in low-tech, low- margin industries began to move production out of China to avoid tariffs. The textile, footwear and furniture business have all seen significant movement out of China so far. But pre-pandemic, there was no mad rush for the exits and there was no reason to expect one anytime soon. As recently as last October, 66 percent of American companies operating in China surveyed by the American Chamber of Commerce in Beijing said "decoupling" would be impossible, so interlinked are the world's two largest economies.

Things have changed. The number who now believe decoupling is impossible, according to the same survey, has dropped to 44 percent. If reelected, Trump's advisers say, the president will likely pressure other industries beyond pharmaceuticals and medical equipment to bring back production. How he would actually do that is unclear, but aides are looking at the example of Japan. The Japanese legislature recently approved a program in which the government will offer subsidiesup to $2.25 billion worthto any company that brings its supply chain back home.

As negative perceptions of China harden in the U.S., executives are faced with a stark choice: as Paterson puts it, "do you really want to be seen doing business with an adversary?"

The answer isn't that easy. In the U.S., a lot of companies simply do not want to reduce their exposure to China. They spent yearsand billionsbuilding up supply lines and are loath to give them up. Consider the semiconductor industry, a critical area in which the U.S. is still technologically more advanced than China. A complete cessation of semiconductor sales to China would mean U.S. firms lose about 18 percent of their global market shareand an estimated 37 percent of overall revenues. That in turn would likely force reductions in research and development. The U.S. spent $312 billion on R&D over the last decade, more than double the amount spent by its foreign competitorsand it's that R&D which allows them to stay ahead of competitors.

Paterson argues that the costs of total divorce from China is often overstated. He calculates that about 2 percent of U.S. corporate profits come from sales in the Chinese market, mostly from companies that manufacture there in order to sell there. Corporate profits overall are 10 percent of U.S. GDP. Eliminating the China portion of that "is a rounding error," he says.

But getting companies such as Caterpillar Inc., which operates 30 factories in China and gets 10 percent of its annual revenue from sales there, is an uphill lift. There are scores of companies like Caterpillar, who have no intention of leaving China, even if relations between Washington and Beijing are at new lows. And there are also scores of companies like Starbucks, which operates 42,000 stores across China, or Walmart, whose revenue in the country is more than $10 billion annually. Those companies don't have critical technology to steal and may be little worry to the U.S. if they continue to operate in China.

But other companies do. Tesla, to take one example, is a company whose advanced technology should be protected at all costs. Which is why some in Washington are scratching their heads at both Elon Musk and the Trump administration. Musk said on May 10th that he was so angry at the shutdown orders in the state of California, he might move the Tesla factory in Fremont to Texas. Meanwhile, he manufactures his cars in Shanghai, which is an obvious target for intellectual property theft and industrial espionage, given that electric vehicles are one of the industries targeted in the China 2025 plan. "California bad, Shanghai good is not a formulation that's going to hold up well in the post-COVID environment," says Paterson.

A smarter U.S. strategy than "divorce" is "economic distancing," says John Lee, a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, a Washington think tank. The goal of U.S. industrial policy should be "ensuring that China is not in a position to dominate key technologies and assume the leading role in dominating supply and value chains for these emerging technologies," he says. Rationing access to large and advanced markets is critical. "It becomes much more challenging [for Beijing] if China's access to markets in the U.S. Europe and East Asia is restricted, and it is denied key inputs from those areas."

That presumes coordination with allies, which has not been a Trump administration strong suit. But that would change under a President Joe Biden. Even before the pandemic, key European and Asian allies were souring on their relations with China. That includes Canada as well. A former senior Canadian official said Ottawa wanted to work with Trump and the Europeans to map out a tougher, united front on trade. The only problem? "You were sanctioning our steel exports on 'national security grounds,'" this official says. "We are a NATO ally, for godssake!"

The opportunity to work more closely to form a united front versus Beijing is something Biden advisers are intent on doing. A reconfigured Trans Pacific Partnership, which Barack Obama pushed, is likely the first order of business in a Biden administrationthis time more explicitly targeted at excluding Beijing from free trade deals among U.S. allies.That is, if there is a Biden administration.

What's Next?

In the context of the new Cold War, the move toward a smart economic distancing, as Hudson's Lee and others call for, will gain momentum. "Washington put too much faith in its power to shape China's trajectory. All sides of the policy debate [in the U.S.] erred," says Kurt Campbell, former assistant secretary of state under Obama. Biden's people are already spreading the word that there will be no return to the laissez faire attitudes that governed Washington's approach to China. The U.S. may also have to overtly subsidize companies in the Made in China 2025 industries that Beijing has targeted.

Beijing had resisted suspending its own industrial subsidies to state-owned industries in the Trump trade negotiations and had shown few signs of backing off from the goals expressed in Made in China 2025. In the wake of the global fury kicked up by the coronavirus, an economic rapprochement appears unthinkable.Militarily and geopolitically, no matter who wins the next election, the U.S. will work hard to bring India, which has hedged its bets between Washington and Beijing as China rose, more closely into the fold of a "free and open Indo-Pacific," as the Trump administration has called its policy toward Asia. The ability to work more closely with allies, both in East Asia and in Europe, in creating a united front against Beijing has never been stronger.

"No one that we talk to is happy," says Rand Corporation's Scott Harold.

What many look for is steadier and clearer public messaging from Washington. As Harold puts it, as the ideological competition with Beijing intensifies, "the defenders of the liberal international order, like-minded democracies, should grow more active in defense of their interests and values.''

In the wake of the pandemic, the U.S. is suffering a defeat that should be unthinkable: it is losing the propaganda war, particularly in the developing world. Both internally and abroad, the Chinese Communist party's propaganda outlets, digital and broadcast, are trumpeting Xi Jinping's handling of COVID-19, and contrasting it with the Trump administration's shambolic efforts to deal with the virus. State media outlets chronicled how badly the U.S. and others have managed the crisis. Their message: Those countries should copy China's model.

As competition between the United States and China grows, the information wars will be critical. In this, the "America First" Trump administration has been mostly AWOLthe President has not been able to rouse himself to support pro-democracy demonstrators in Hong Kong, so desperate was he for a trade deal with Xi Jinping. But, Trump and Biden have some good role models and, thus, there's hope. U.S. presidents have defended the country's values quite well, and steadily, throughout the last Cold War, none more ably than Ronald Reagan, who left office a year before the Berlin Wall came down.

We will see, of course, if the next administration is up for the fight. Washington has at least recognized, as Kurt Campbell observes, that it overvalued its ability to influence China's development" Presumably it won't make that mistake again. Instead, Washington and its allies need to focus more on how to cope effectively with a powerful rival.

The mission: Wage the 21st century's Cold War, while ensuring it never turns hot.

See the original post here:
America Is in a New Cold War and This Time the Communists Might Win - Newsweek