By Brad Niblett, Josiah Witherspoon, and John M Scott
Abstract / Executive Summary
Quantum computing and AI are collapsing the warning time that once anchored the execution of geopolitical strategy. For centuries, power behaved in vector form: states projected military force, capital, communications and political influence outward in visible directions, giving rivals time to anticipate and respond. As core state functions migrate into shared clouds, advanced models, and orbital infrastructure, power is shifting toward a scalar form - latent, distributed across systems, and capable of collapsing into decisive action faster than human institutions can orient.
This paper argues that this shift makes a state's architectural coherence - not the size of its assets -- the decisive variable of its geopolitical power. We introduce two concepts to explain why. Scalar power is the ability of a state's technical and institutional systems to convert latent capacity into decisive action faster than an adversary can perceive or react. The sovereignty multiplier ('S') measures how effectively a state or alliance can preserve or expand decision-time as quantum and AI technologies compress it.
To identify what determines 'S', we outline a five-layer sovereignty architecture: cryptographic, cognitive, metabolic (energy--compute), spatial (orbital and networks), and adaptive (institutional). These layers collate to form a nested holarchy, each dependent on the others' integrity while in aggregate they now project something new -- scalar power. The coherence across these layers determines a state's sovereignty multiplier, and therefore its real strategic power.
The Integrated Power Model (IPM) formalizes this view by defining realizable power as the product of traditional power pillars and this new coherence factor, with quantum and AI serving as an asymmetric apex that reshapes every classical lever of power into a holarchy. In the Integrated Power Model, realized power is therefore expressed as the product of the classical pillars and this scalar coherence factor 'S', with quantum and AI forming an asymmetric apex that modifies every term. We conclude with strategic implications for deterrence, alliances, markets, and with a practical claim: in the quantum-AI era, sovereignty is no longer a legal status but an architectural discipline - and a prerequisite for geo-political power and alliances.
Keywords: scalar power; sovereignty multiplier (S); digital sovereignty; temporal collapse; quantum computing; agentic AI; Integrated Power Model (IPM); post-quantum cryptography (PQC); sovereignty architecture; holarchy.
Introduction: Why the Architecture of Power Is Changing
Quantum computing and AI are collapsing the warning time and the judgement time that once structured geopolitical strategy. Power has, and will continue to be exercised as a vector: directed force moving through time and space in ways that create observable signatures. Carrier groups sailing, armies mobilizing, sanctions being enforced, missiles hitting targets; digital environments processing serially all telegraph intent and give rivals time to detect, orient, decide, and respond. Vector power creates its own buffer: the enemy's movement shapes your time constraint, and thus, overall effectiveness.
As state functions migrate into shared clouds, advanced models, and orbital systems, this dynamic is evolving quickly. Power now shifts toward a scalar form: latent, diffused across systems, capable of collapsing into decisive real-world actions faster than institutions can perceive or react. Quantum processing and agentic AI don't arrive from the outside; they are already embedded in the substrates of deeply interconnected computation and communication. They become directional only at the instance of execution.
This paper argues that in such an environment the decisive variable is no longer how many kinetic assets a state controls, but how coherent its digital architecture and alliances are over assets (and perhaps responses) when time compresses by the use of scalar power.
We introduce the concepts of scalar outcomes (here called scalar power) and the sovereignty multiplier 'S', outline a five-layer sovereignty architecture that determines 'S', and propose an Integrated Power Model (IPM) that formalizes how quantum and AI act as an asymmetric coherence apex - a holarchy that now projects scalar power across vectors. We then draw out implications for strategy, alliances, markets, and operational sovereignty.
Section 1 -- Temporal Collapse and the Enhancing Vector Powers
Temporal collapse creates an offense-defense asymmetry without historical precedent. Scalar power creates temporal collapse, as its digital substrates are embedded in vectors. Without prior directional and temporal movements, defenders are left with no visible vectors to track, no mobilization signatures to observe, and often no anomaly signature until after the attack is complete. And uncertainty about the time and place of the next attack. The adversary is not approaching; it is already resident inside networks, chips, cloud dependencies, applications and shared models. Traditional deterrence assumes visible escalation and proportional responses; scalar power removes the time needed for escalation and the effect of vector powers.
The OODA loop collapses (Scharre, 2018). Scalar attacks can compress, observe, orient, decide, act into a single event; by the time the defender observes, the attack's impacts are already realized. The only countermeasure is to reintroduce discontinuities into otherwise frictionless systems - to manufacture decision-time inside machine-speed environments. This is the essence of digital sovereignty: control over the technical substrate that allows observability, reversibility/optionality, and intervention at electron speed.
Yet this digital sovereignty reveals a structural paradox for open societies. Openness drives innovation, but it also enlarges the attack surface. Isolation enhances security, but at the cost of stagnation. The strategic challenge is to architect systems that can operate in both modes: open enough to innovate, sovereign enough and resilient enough to survive scalar shocks.
Scalar power forces a shift from counting assets to assessing architectural footprint and coherence across alliances. Classical instruments, deterrence, sanctions, military posture - still matter - but their effectiveness now depends on whether a state can detect, absorb, and adapt to disruptions originating inside shared infrastructures. Quantum and AI do not replace traditional power - they scale them and redefine the operating conditions of traditional power vector function.
Section 2 -- From Vectors to Scalars: Defining Scalar Power and 'S'
Traditional geopolitics assumes that power moves temporally in specific directions. States project force, deploy resources, extend economic and geographic influences. Military, economic, and diplomatic tools act like vectors - arrows pointing outward and towards a target.
Quantum computing and agentic AI however do not behave like vectors. Their effects propagate not just outward on a global scale but inward, through the stability and integrity of a state's internal architecture including its abilities to control and manipulate cognitive control planes over citizens and information.
A decisive question becomes:
When everything is under pressure, what remains under your control?
This distinction reveals three different kinds of power:
- Vector power: what a state can do to others.
- Scalar power: what a state or alliance can do through system-wide, latent capabilities.
- Scalar resilience: what others and events cannot easily do to it, reflecting the presence of sovereign control.
Scalar power can be understood as a coherence: the footprints of digital systems, the alignment of cryptographic assurances, AI algorithm governance, energy-compute infrastructure, and space networks so that they all remain cohered under stress -- verifiable and responsive. A country with incoherent digital systems may be able to deploy vector force yet find its real strategic options collapsing the moment something breaks. A smaller country with coherent systems can both contribute towards scalar resilience, and project scalar power far above its demographic or economic weight.
We call this coherence term 'S': a scalar factor that measures how effectively a state can manufacture and govern decision-time inside scalar environments, by using aligned cryptographic, cognitive, energy, spatial, and institutional architectures to keep its systems verifiable, resilient and controllable at electron speed. In the Integrated Power Model, realized power is therefore expressed as the product of the classical pillars and this scalar coherence factor 'S', with quantum and AI forming the asymmetric apex that modifies every term.
The vector--scalar shift described in this section is not a rhetorical flourish; it is the mechanism by which AI and quantum turn power from a question of accumulation into a question of architecture - the architecture of power itself.
The shift is not from hard power to soft power but from directional capability to architectural integrities that create time asymmetries. Vector power shows up in maps, movements and line items in budgets - scalar power shows up at marginal cost in opportunities and crises and we think as cost effective hybrid warfare.
Why Architecture Now Matters More
Quantum and AI make architectural coherence decisive for three reasons.
First, quantum decryption collapses a defensive digital time advantage. A breakthrough in cryptanalysis would not merely steal secrets - it would unravel the trust fabric that enables modern states, and a global economy built on sovereign debt and IP covenants to function. Vulnerability becomes systemic, not localized. Quantum is digital stealth -- it will not leave a signature residue as the stealthiest compute power lies outside of the systems it attacks. Quantum and AI are fundamentally new and different extensions of sovereign power - nation states will not necessarily know when they have been successfully targeted and exploited.
Second, AI feeds on and creates feedback loops that move faster than institutional judgment. With quantum and AI, sovereigns and alliances can access any data, plan, coordinate and call tools autonomously. A core question becomes whether affected states can control, formulate a decision, remediate in time, and anticipate where and when the next attack occurs.
Third, the tempo of technological decay has accelerated in large part due to the AI and quantum compute requirements. Computer chips, cryptographic standards and operational applications that once lasted into decades are now time-boxed: RSA and classical elliptic-curve schemes face quantum deprecation, while legacy primitives such as DES/3DES and SHA-1 have already been weakened or retired. AI models degrade or drift in months. Orbital assets face interference and rapid obsolescence. Kinetic warfare reaches a new limit of utility, with cost effective hybrid warfare probably assuming a primary position in the exercise of covert sovereign policy.
Together, these dynamics make sovereignty a matter not just of possession, but of digital system architecture - the systems that support the apex exercise of AI and quantum to produce scalar outcomes.
Section 3 -- The Architecture of Sovereignty: Five Layers and the Holarchy
A modern state doesn't rest on a single layer of control - it sits on a stack of nested systems. Cryptography sits inside software and hardware, those systems sit inside networks and clouds, which sit inside markets, institutions, and alliances. Each layer is a whole in itself and, at the same time, part of a larger whole that is more than the sum of its parts. This nested structure is a holarchy, and a state's sovereignty now depends on:
i) how coherently this holarchy behaves under stress, and,
ii) how coherently this holarchy enables the projection of scalar power aims and objectives.
Previous sovereignty rested on layers of acquired consensual and institutional trust.
Five layers can now determine whether, when its environment becomes unstable, a state truly governs itself, can defend itself, and can be trusted in alliances.
3.1 The Cryptographic Layer: Integrity and Verification
Purpose: to make authority, identity, and action verifiable at speed.
Encryption underwrites identity, logistics, weapons control, space tasking, payments, and national command authority. As quantum computing approaches thresholds that threaten public-key cryptography, post-quantum cryptography (PQC) becomes a strategic requirement rather than a technical upgrade. States that migrate early protect both future operations and historical data. States that delay risk brittle infrastructure, unreadable records, and degraded interoperability in bilateral relationships.
Protecting the ability to generate scalar outcomes requires protecting the cryptographic substrate itself. This includes adopting PQC suited to high-velocity environments and ensuring trusted deployment and operation of quantum and AI processing. Sovereigns will prefer that vendors implement quantum-safe transitions with rigor aligned to sovereign interests rather than global market incentives.
Commercial vendors alone cannot guarantee cryptographic survival. Abdicating cryptographic control to vendor roadmaps introduces misaligned risk. Complete PQC solutions, designed, governed, and verifiably operated in the sovereign's interest, are required if quantum and AI are to remain instruments of scalar power rather than sources of systemic fragility.
3.2 The Cognitive Layer: Delegation
Purpose: To govern delegated decision-making and preserve shared reality at scale.
Modern digital technologies have long been woven into the cognitive fabric and behaviours of their users (Weiser, 1991). AI systems, particularly agentic AI, now plan, coordinate, and execute actions across networks and previously siloed domains. The decisive variable is not model capability but governance. Sovereignty depends on who controls delegation, oversight, auditability, override, and rollback when systems act at scale.
Two questions anchor this layer. First, who is accountable when a delegated system makes a consequential decision? Second, who weights, constrains, and supervises models, the state or a platform provider? Control over high-reach algorithms enables amplification, suppression, or reframing of information flows, shaping perception and collective decision-making at scale. These governance choices cannot remain implicit.
The cognitive layer also includes cognitive security. Advances in AI enable low-cost, high-fidelity synthetic media that erode shared reality and institutional trust. At the same time, AI systems increasingly risk "model collapse" when trained on their own outputs rather than new, high-quality information. Two responses follow. One is the use of quantum computing to support richer synthetic training environments. The other is the integration of trusted sensor data, including quantum sensing, to anchor models in observable reality, a linkage that connects directly to the Spatial Layer.
3.3 The Metabolic Layer: Energy, Minerals + Compute
Purpose: To sustain computation and control without interruption.
Compute is now a strategic force. AI clusters demand grid-scale infrastructure, while latency constraints create new bilateral dependencies organized around energy and compute access. Energy reliability becomes the denominator of digital sovereignty. As geopolitics increasingly follows electrons (Yergin, 2020), access to energy and critical minerals conditions military power, intelligence operations, and economic stability alike.
In the quantum--AI era, energy policy is inseparable from intelligence policy. A sovereign that cannot guarantee continuity of energy and compute cannot guarantee verification, governance, or control in any other layer.
3.4 The Spatial Layer: Orbit + Networks
Purpose: To govern latency, observability, and connectivity under contestation.
Satellites, undersea cables, spectrum, and ground stations form the global cognitive substrate. The decisive variable is tasking authority: who can allocate bandwidth, re-task sensors, route traffic, and maintain continuity under stress. Space is no longer symbolic; it is latency governance (Peeters, 2022).
Quantum sensing is likely to amplify this layer further. Ultra-precise gravimetric, magnetic, and timing sensors deployed across orbital and terrestrial platforms may enable detection of platforms and disturbances previously difficult to observe. Sovereignty depends on control over tasking, data rights, and fusion of these sensor streams.
3.5 The Adaptive Layer: Institutional Nerve
Purpose: To reconfigure trust systems faster than they can be disrupted.
Technological architectures decay, threats evolve, and standards ossify. States that can update cryptographic regimes, AI governance, regulatory frameworks, and alliance standards faster than adversaries or misaligned vendors can disrupt them will maintain sovereignty. This institutional adaptability is the national-scale analogue of dynamic capability (Barney, 1991; Teece, et. al. 1997). Investments in STEM educational programs and agile systems thinking become essential for ongoing relevance.
In practice, this requires institutions capable of governing machine-speed systems, updating standards continuously, and sustaining the human capital needed to operate complex, evolving infrastructures.
3.6 Cross-Layer Coherence and Cascading Failure
These five layers do not operate independently. They behave as a single holarchic system. Failure in one-layer cascades rapidly into others: cryptographic compromise undermines AI governance; energy disruption degrades compute and sensing; spatial interference erodes cognitive and operational awareness. Sovereignty in the quantum--AI era therefore depends on cross-layer coherence, the ability of systems to remain mutually verifiable and synchronized under stress.
The Sovereignty Multiplier -- the Holarchy
This coherence is captured by the sovereignty multiplier 'S', the factor that converts latent resources into usable power under technological pressure. 'S' measures how tightly the layers of the holarchy reinforce one another when time compresses.
'S' is observable through operational proxies, including:
- Speed of cryptographic key rotation;
- Reliability of AI rollback and override mechanisms;
- Continuity of energy and compute under stress;
- Responsiveness of orbital and network assets;
- Institutional speed in updating standards and agreements;
- Security and interoperability of bilateral technical artifacts.
High 'S' means strategic options remain available as crises accelerate. Low 'S' means that even large inventories of military and economic power cannot be activated in time.
Where Bilateralism Matters More
In the quantum--AI era, bilateral and alliance power increasingly depends on architectural alignment rather than political affinity alone. Two states that align their architectures, including cryptographic standards, AI governance regimes, space tasking authority, and energy--compute continuity, can raise their combined sovereignty multiplier 'S' dramatically, often more than shared values or historical ties ever could.
Conversely, states that are politically close but architecturally misaligned cannot reliably depend on one another when time is scarce. In high-velocity crises, misaligned cryptographic systems, incompatible AI governance, or fragmented space and network control introduce friction precisely where speed and coherence are decisive. Sovereign coherence therefore becomes a critical success factor for effective, meaningful bilateral relationships.
Scalar power in the quantum--AI era is not measured primarily in brigades or GDP share, but in coherence maintained under pressure.
Section 4 -- The Integrated Power Model (IPM)
The Integrated Power Model (IPM) formalizes this concept. It expresses realized power as:
Pi = S x f(P_mil, P_econ, P_pol, P_soft; P_tech)
Here, Pi is realized power, S is the sovereignty multiplier, P_mil, P_econ, P_pol, P_soft are the traditional pillars of power, and P_tech is asymmetric technological power (AI, quantum, space). The semicolon indicates that P_tech is not simply an additive term; it modifies every other pillar simultaneously.
The purpose of the model is not mathematical precision but diagnostic clarity. If 'S' is low, additional investment in military capability, economic scale, or diplomatic reach will not translate into realized power under stress. Conversely, a state with high 'S' can convert comparatively modest resources into disproportionate strategic effect.
Leaders, planners, and investors can use the IPM as a simple test for proposed policies or investments: does this intervention raise 'S' by improving coherence across the five sovereignty layers and key alliances (Niblett, 2013), or does it leave the architecture brittle and introduce new failure modes? Because 'S' reflects coherence under stress, it is inherently dynamic and must be maintained over time.
The IPM therefore makes explicit a central claim of this paper: in the quantum--AI age, scalar power is the product of architectural coherence. A state with a strong trust architecture can generate outsized influence. A state with a brittle architecture may find that its resources cannot be activated when they are most needed.
Section 5 -- Strategic Implications & Operational Sovereignty
Strategic Implications
Three strategic implications stand out within this evolving state.
1. Deterrence becomes strength
Deterrence shifts from threatening retaliation to making disruption technically expensive and attributable. Rapid rekeying, model rollback, orbital resilience, cryptographic resilience and institutional agility become instruments of deterrence equal to kinetic force.
2. Alliances depend on coherent architecture, not declarations
Burden-sharing matters less than standards-sharing. Without harmonized digital architectures and standards, model governance, and orbital tasking, even well-funded alliances will fail in high-velocity crises.
3. Markets will price sovereignty coherence
Investors will increasingly evaluate states based on architectural reliability: cryptographic posture, AI-oversight maturity, compute-energy resilience, and orbital security. Credit spreads will shift accordingly. Insurance companies will incorporate these assessments of 'S' into their underwriting processes and algorithms. A low level 'S' results in higher risk; higher capital cost structure; reduced alliance and growth opportunities; and mitigated strategic effectiveness and optionality within the evolving marketplace.
Operational Sovereignty
Sovereignty in the quantum - AI era is not a statement of principle but a discipline of practice. It illustrates how states maintain their architectures in peacetime - how often they audit key inventories, rehearse AI-rollback procedures, simulate orbital interference, and upgrade cryptographic stacks (CSE, 2024).
Operational sovereignty is coherence in motion. It is where strategy becomes maintenance and where maintenance becomes strategy.
The societies that institutionalize this discipline will find that sovereignty is not eroded by speed but strengthened by it. The ones that posture without practicing will discover that dependency arrives suddenly, and without apology - with the results and costs significant.
Conclusion -- From Mass and Direction to Architecture and Coherence
The quantum-AI era does not abolish military force, economic scale (Eichengreen, 2011), or diplomacy (Morgenthau, 1948; Mearsheimer, 2001). It changes what they rest on. When computation, data, and decision-making all move into shared clouds, models, and orbital systems, the limiting factor on power is no longer how much a state owns, but how much of its own architecture and those of its alliances it can actually control when time is scarce.
We have argued that this change shows up first as temporal collapse: the erosion of warning time that made vector power - ships, bases, sanctions, campaigns - manageable. Quantum and AI make it possible for attacks to originate from inside the same infrastructures that states and firms rely on, collapsing the observe--orient--decide--act sequence into a single event. In that environment, counting assets is no longer enough. The relevant question becomes whether a state can keep its systems coherent long enough to detect, absorb, and adapt.
This is the role of scalar power and the sovereignty multiplier 'S'. Scalar power is not just what a state can do to others, but what others and events cannot easily do to it. 'S' measures how effectively a sovereign can manufacture and remove adversarial decision-time under pressure. It lives in the architecture: in the alignment of data standards, cryptographic agilities, AI governance, energy--compute loops, orbital and network assets, and institutional agility. We described these as five layers - the cryptographic, cognitive, metabolic, spatial, and adaptive - forming a nested holarchy whose cross-layer coherence determines 'S'.
The Integrated Power Model (IPM) makes this explicit by treating realized power Pi as the product of the traditional pillars (military, economic, political, soft power) and the coherence factor 'S', with quantum and AI acting as an asymmetric apex that modifies every term. High 'S' means that options remain available when shocks arrive and timelines compress; low 'S' means that impressive inventories cannot be activated in time. Alliances and markets will increasingly price this coherence: architectures that are aligned and verifiable will attract trust, capital, and partners; those that are brittle or vendor-dependent will not.
The practical implication is that sovereignty in the quantum--AI era is no longer just a constitutional claim or a foreign-policy posture. It is an operational discipline. It shows up in digital agilities and shared practices, in who can roll back or override AI systems, in how resilient energy--compute infrastructure is under stress, in how space and network assets are tasked, and in how quickly institutions can update standards and agreements. States that build this discipline into routine practice will find that speed and complexity strengthen their position. Those that do not will discover that dependency arrives suddenly and without apology.
We are moving from geopolitics understood as mass and direction to geopolitics understood as architecture and coherence. Yes - vector power still matters. But scalar power - what remains under your control when the system accelerates - is becoming the real currency of sovereignty. The states that treat sovereignty as an architectural discipline, not a rhetorical slogan, will set the tempo of the quantum--AI age - and ultimately the architecture of power.
Future Works and Considerations
This paper has focused on defining scalar power, the sovereignty multiplier 'S', and the Integrated Power Model (IPM). Several important extensions remain for future work.
Scalar resistance
We have treated 'S' primarily as a measure of coherence and decision-time. A natural next step is to formalize scalar resistance: the specific mechanisms by which architectures absorb, localize, and recover from scalar attacks without cascading failure. This would require stress-testing each sovereignty layer under realistic failure modes and developing quantitative proxies for "bounce-back time" and residual damage.
Network interdependence and the IPM
The current IPM treats pillars as belonging to a single state or alliance. In practice, these pillars are deeply intertwined across borders and platforms. Future work should explore how network interdependence (Farrel et. al., 2019) - shared clouds, payment rails, supply chains, and orbital infrastructure - how one actor's low 'S' can negatively affect the realizable power of its partners.
Middle powers and alliance design
The framework is particularly relevant for middle powers, which often lack mass but can cultivate very high 'S' in specific layers. A research agenda here would examine how middle powers can specialize architecturally (e.g., cryptographic stewardship, space tasking, critical minerals or energy-compute hubs) to become indispensable nodes in alliances, and how alliances can deliberately compose members' different S-profiles into a higher collective 'S'.
Astro-politics
The Spatial Layer points to a broader astropolitical domain where orbits, spectrum, and ground networks become contested sources of latency and observability. Future work should connect this framework to emerging astro-politics literature, mapping how control of specific orbital regimes and constellations shifts 'S' and Pi for both major and middle powers.
Quantum sensor technology
Finally, quantum sensor networks deserve dedicated treatment. They will not only change what can be seen in the physical domain (submarines, stealth platforms, infrastructure anomalies) but also feed new, high-fidelity unique data streams into AI-systems for the sovereign. Understanding how quantum sensing alters situational awareness, escalatory dynamics, new scientific learnings and the architecture of 'S' is an essential next step.
References
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99--120.
CSE (Communications Security Establishment). (2024). ITSAP 40.002: Post-Quantum Cryptography Overview. Government of Canada.
Eichengreen, B. (2011). Exorbitant Privilege: The Rise and Fall of the Dollar and the Future of the International Monetary System. Oxford University Press.
Farrell, H., & Newman, A. (2019). Weaponized interdependence. International Security, 44(1), 42--79.
Mearsheimer, J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W.W. Norton.
Morgenthau, H. (1948). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Knopf.
Niblett, B. D. (2013). Can Alliance Networks Work? Examining the Evolution & Impacts of Alliance Portfolios in Healthcare. Heriot-Watt University.
Walter Peeters (2022): Evolution of the Space Economy: Government Space to Commercial Space and New Space, Astropolitics, DOI: 10.1080/14777622.2021.1984001
Scharre, P. (2018). Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War. W.W. Norton.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509--533.
Wischer, G., Autry, G., & Bazilian, M. (2024). Mineral supply chains and space assets: Mitigating manufacturing dependencies. AEther: A Journal of Strategic Airpower & Spacepower, 3(2), 11--30.
Weiser, M. (1991). The Computer for the 21st Century. Scientific American, 265(3), 94--104.
Yergin, D. (2020). The New Map: Energy, Climate, and the Clash of Nations. Penguin Press.