Operate, Don’t Wait: The Quantum Mission Test

I spent over 20 years in clandestine work. In all that time, not a single operation was risk-free. Risk is in the DNA. The decisive question was always the same: after we mitigated all possible risk with tradecraft, did the expected gain justify the risk? That isn’t recklessness; it’s discipline. We identify risks, mitigate what we can, and take action in pursuit of mission success. The U.S. Defense and Intelligence Community should approach quantum the same way.

Too many conversations treat quantum as binary: interesting concepts today, miraculous machines tomorrow. That view is wrong, and costly. Between those poles is a wide corridor where “good enough, faster” creates real advantage, especially when time, cost, or access is the constraint. Holding out for fault-tolerant perfection cedes tempo to adversaries who are already experimenting.

My advice: Think like an operator. In ops, we start with the mission test: does this reduce time-to-decision or cost-to-decision on problems that matter, routing assets, tasking sensors, triaging signals, estimating risk? If the answer is plausibly yes, the standard isn’t “Is it flawless?” It’s “Is it reliable enough, soon enough, to change an outcome?” In other words: do expected gains outweigh the risk?

In practice, that looks like much of what we are seeing in quantum research, and also how we should be viewing our own preparations for the quantum future.

For example, consider Google’s recent advancements with Willow that “performed a standard benchmark computation in under five minutes that would have taken one of today’s fastest supercomputers 10 septillion years – a number that vastly exceeds the age of the universe.”  You don’t need more proof of quantum beating a supercomputer; you need to make a risk based decision on what will happen once breakthroughs change workflows. What will it mean when new methods of quantum computing can optimize logistics, transform intelligence, or better plan resource deployment? What risk do you incur because you did not plan for it? And what will the risk be if a quantum computer can break legacy encryption?

In operations, we compartmentalize and keep a burn list. This is just a habit of a good case officer or mission manager. We assess, act, measure, iterate.

How does this apply to the coming age of quantum computing? Measure what matters. Stop asking, “Is it better faultless and in all ways better than a supercomputer?” Most of the time that’s the wrong contest. Ask instead: When will it allow workflows to be done in new ways? When will results come that matter to me? Did it cost fewer dollars or analyst hours? Across what ranges, problem size, noise level, constraint set, does performance hold? Most importantly, did it enable mission success or improve outcomes: better decisions, safer routes, higher collection yield, faster triage?

Now is the time to experiment. Recommendation: Over the next 120 days, select a handful of workflows where speed or cost moves the needle and work with the maturing quantum community to assess how your operations will change once the quantum computers can run more advanced workloads. It may be too early to run real pilots, but that day will come soon and you will want to be ready.

Why now? Because the environment is moving with or without you. Our adversaries are investing and integrating to platform roadmaps that forecast concrete advantage within 12–18 months. If you aren’t experimenting this year, you’re ceding tempo to those who are.

The choice is clear: adopt a disciplined, operational posture or accept the false comfort of perfect, late. In the field, if we waited for perfect operations, there would be no operations. The potential gains with quantum today justify the risk.