Some countries are increasingly using export controls on quantum technologies not only as a protective measure but also as an element of industrial strategy, according to an analysis by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).
The authors suggest that the U.S. and its partners are not just aiming to limit competitors’ access to sensitive developments, but also to influence the future structure of the quantum industry. The IISS describes this approach as “preemptive deterrence,” noting that it involves dual-use technologies.
Control Shifts to Supply Chains
Unlike traditional export controls, these restrictions are imposed before a mature commercial market forms, the analysts noted. They affect not only finished quantum computers but also equipment, materials, software, and technical knowledge.
IISS identifies key pressure points in supply chains, such as cryogenic systems, isotopically enriched silicon-28, control electronics, and other components produced by a limited number of suppliers.
For instance, superconducting quantum computers require cooling to temperatures near absolute zero. Such systems are produced on an industrial scale by only a few companies, including Finland’s Bluefors and the UK’s Oxford Instruments.
According to IISS, these “critical nodes” enable more effective application of licensing restrictions. However, no single country controls the entire quantum supply chain.
Limitations Don’t Solve Everything
The authors believe that export controls can slow competitors’ access to certain technologies but cannot stop their development. The broader the supplier base, the more these restrictions act as sources of delays and additional costs rather than outright bans.
IISS also pointed out the risk of a reverse effect: barriers encourage competitors to develop their own alternatives. For example, Chinese organizations have accelerated work on domestic dilution refrigerators and materials for quantum applications.
Therefore, export controls alone do not guarantee technological leadership, the analysts emphasized. They need to be combined with industrial policy, investment screening, and support for companies occupying strategic positions in the supply chain.
“The decisive question is no longer which technologies to ban, but which nodes of one’s own ecosystem to support,” the analysis states.
China Establishes Standards
In June, China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology established the MIIT/TC10 Quantum Information Standardization Committee. According to the document, it will develop and revise industry standards in basic quantum technologies, quantum computing, quantum communication, and high-precision measurements.
As noted by The Quantum Insider, the creation of the committee fits into China’s broader strategy: the country is developing not only research but also technical regulations that may be needed for the commercialization and industrial implementation of quantum technologies.
Standards are crucial for equipment compatibility, terminology, testing, and procurement. Internationally, they also allow states and companies to influence how future technologies will be designed and used.
Previously, analysts from the Special Competitive Studies Project concluded that the U.S. maintains a slight advantage over China in the quantum race, but the gap is narrowing. They linked the countries’ positions not only to scientific achievements but also to industrial potential, workforce, market, and government leverage.
In July, IBM urged governments to expand quantum strategies to consider not only computing but also communication, sensors, post-quantum cryptography, workforce, and supply chains.
