"[F]uture American space security is at risk. China’s military-led human space flight progression is positioning the People’s Liberation Army to achieve strategic advantage in lunar access, infrastructure, and resources," Kyle Puma said.
What the Mitchell Institute paper lays out
The Mitchell Institute’s new policy paper, titled “Military Human Spaceflight: A Key Component to U.S. Space Superiority,” argues that the United States must begin preparing now to put military personnel on the moon to prevent China from achieving dominance in space. The paper is premised on two stated assumptions: that lunar resources and territory represent a critical first step to future habitation of space and are therefore vital to U.S. national security; and that Beijing’s lunar research program is a cover for using its military to occupy the moon as an “extension” of what the paper calls China’s “belligerent” terrestrial ambitions.
Allegations about China’s lunar intentions and Beijing’s public posture
The paper asserts that China’s program is positioning the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) for strategic advantage in lunar access, infrastructure, and resources, and that a competition for control of the moon could “likely reach a tipping point” and potentially spiral into conflict. Both author Kyle Puma and Charles Galbreath, senior resident fellow at Mitchell’s Spacepower Advantage Center of Excellence, alleged that a Chinese lunar research base would be “operated by” the PLA in violation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST). The paper rejects diplomatic efforts aimed at norm-building with Beijing, even as the source notes that Beijing publicly states its lunar plans are aimed at “contributing to the peaceful uses of outer space by mankind” and has invited other nations to participate.
Recommendations for the Space Force and where human military spaceflight would sit
The paper urges a break with nearly 70 years of U.S. policy that separates NASA’s civil activities from military space activities under Title 10 and questions Washington’s almost 60-year stance as a champion of the OST’s ban on territorial claims and military occupation. Practically, it recommends the Space Force — which the paper describes as the “only service that builds space-minded warfighters from their first day of service” — move first to “establish a military human spaceflight program within its Space Test Course graduate program to counter PLA space activities and enforce positive norms and standards.” It also advocates using commercial low Earth orbit stations as “proving grounds” to experiment with human missions that might yield “advantages” for terrestrial military operations.
Costs, operational challenges, and the “pragmatic approach” the paper urges
The authors acknowledge substantial hurdles. Puma told reporters that the Space Force is today primarily focused on securing enough resources — “both in dollars and in people power” — to meet its near-Earth deterrence and warfighting needs, which he characterized as a “brown water Navy” mission. He warned that any small exploratory effort could “generate so much interest that it could draw attention and then resources away” from current requirements, and stressed the need for a “pragmatic approach.”
The paper further concedes that establishing and sustaining what it calls Guardian operations in space will be “very expensive,” but Puma argued those investments could “kick start the economies of scale” as the U.S. space industry and the larger space economy mature. He sought to temper imaginations about weaponized hardware, saying, “we’re not talking about ‘let’s have the Space Force start building rovers with laser weapons on them.’”
What this means for the Space Force, policymakers, and commercial space firms
- Space Force: The paper places a new mission set — military human spaceflight training and operations — onto a service already described as resource-constrained; Puma acknowledged the difficulty of launching an exploratory effort without diverting funds from near-Earth priorities.
- Policymakers and regulators: The recommendations call for reconsidering longstanding legal and policy frameworks that separate civil and military space activities under Title 10 and for reassessing the United States’ posture toward the 1967 Outer Space Treaty — effectively asking civilians and lawmakers to weigh risk management against diplomatic and legal continuity.
- Commercial space firms: The paper explicitly points to commercial low Earth orbit stations as “proving grounds,” signaling potential new demand for commercial human spaceflight capabilities and closer operational ties between military human missions and private platforms.
The Mitchell Institute paper frames the lunar contest as the opening act of an “enduring competition” without a clear finish line — a race, it says, for positional advantage encompassing transportation, logistics, resource extraction, power generation, habitation, and infrastructure protection. Its central proposition is blunt: to deter or prevent a PLA foothold on the moon, the United States should prepare to place and sustain military personnel on lunar soil. Whether Washington accepts a proposal that would overturn decades of civil–military separation in space policy and confront a treaty-era taboo on lunar occupation remains the central policy decision the paper leaves on the table.
