If quantum computers arrive within years, why haven't governments already mandated switching to post-quantum standards?

The short answer: governments *are* mandating the switch, but the transition is slow because the threat timeline is uncertain and the infrastructure costs are enormous.

The Timing Problem

The core issue is that "quantum computers arriving in years" doesn't mean *cryptographically relevant quantum computers* arriving in years [AG-2024.01-2022]. Current quantum machines are far from breaking RSA or elliptic curve cryptography—they lack both the qubit count and error correction needed to run Shor's algorithm at scale [AG-2024.01-2022]. This ambiguity creates a credibility gap: if security experts aren't certain a quantum threat will materialize in 5 years versus 15 years, it's politically difficult to impose costly mandates immediately.

What's Actually Happening

Governments and standards bodies *have* started moving. The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology has standardized post-quantum algorithms like Kyber (for encryption) and Dilithium (for digital signatures), which are based on the hardness of lattice problems rather than factoring [AG-2024.05-2225]. The European Union's EuroQCI initiative is a large-scale effort to deploy quantum-safe infrastructure [AG-2024.07-1542]. But these roll-outs are gradual because:

1. Legacy systems are everywhere. Critical infrastructure—power grids, financial networks, industrial control systems—runs on decades-old equipment [AG-2024.01-1401]. Replacing cryptography across these networks is like rewiring a city's electrical grid while keeping the lights on.

2. The standards are new. Post-quantum algorithms were only recently finalized, so they lack the peer review and real-world vetting that RSA had over 40 years [AG-2024.05-2225].

3. Harvest-now, decrypt-later attacks are the real urgency: adversaries may be recording encrypted communications today, betting that a quantum computer will someday break them [AG-2024.03-1442]. This argues for speed, but also creates an incentive to prioritize what's most sensitive (state secrets, financial records) first.

The preprints don't fully address why mandates haven't been more aggressive—only that adoption is underway but faces practical constraints.